Kahles or Swarovski for that kind of money. IOR Valdada is another option. Anything else and you will just be blowing money, that is of course if your Nikons are Monarchs.


If you have been using Nikon Monarchs, no Burris is going to be as good optically. You have to go to the VX-7 to get to a better scope in Leupold. Zeiss Conquest is about the same quality as the Monarch.

Dude put down the pipe nikon monarch and zeiss are not equal, and the Swarovski's I run are not in the same price range maybe the av's but if you are gonna run a swaro then why run the low ends?

I, and the experts disagree with you about the Zeiss Conquest. http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=16515

Even the low end Swarovskis are quite a bit better than the Zeiss Conquest. And the reason to run a lower swaro over the higher swaro is the higher swaro isn't under 1k like he asked for.

I was not talking aboout him on the high end that was referriing to you

You are not blowing money if you buy the best that you can afford. This stance just pisses me off. You are basically telling us a deer cant be killed with sub par scopes like a Nikon or Burris. Nothing could be further from the truth. Get the best you can buy and be happy. I know a fella that hunts with a 30 year old weaver and promise his "trophy wall" will stand up with any one man on this forum.

Aggie adamp is full of chit posting he and the experts I own the high end swaros and some conquest and have used both in the field he is talking out his azz

That isn't what I said. RE-read it. I said he would be blowing money IF his scope is currently a Monarch and he doesn't step up to the higher end optics. If he doesn't step up the to optics I mentioned, he will just be spending money on optics that are equal to what he already has. The Zeiss Conquest isn't optically better enough to ditch a Monarch for, unless of course you just want to blow money. Which is fine, I can see where someone would want to by a Conquest just to say they have a Zeiss. They are good scopes, I just wouldn't recommend them in this situation. Especially if he can afford Swarovski, Kahles, or IOR.

People buy low-end swaros just so they can say they have a swaro. I would not do this, but it's just how some people are. Nothing wrong with a man wanting to stay under a budget though.

On that stuff you would know. I dont even pick Swarvos up and look at em.

Nikon Monarch for me. I did a lot of research on several brands, then narrowed it down to Leupold vs. Nikon. In the end, went with the Nikon. Always been a fan of Nikon (SLR, binoc's, etc.). Feeling I got from asking some of my coworkers about brands was they got the Leupy because it is heavily marketed. One argument was you see it on the hunting shows, and "they only use the best." Well, again, that's marketing. Those guides' equipment is either donated, or the brand pays to be on the show for the TV time.

I remember there was a forum I looked at, where the memebers compared several brands/models and ranked them based on performance, price, etc. The Nikon Monarch scored above the Leupy VX-III.

Sorry dude nikons won't cut it, compared to the leupy, conquest, kahles

I have used Leupold and Burris for more years than I can remember.
IMO they are outstanding quality scopes. I have also used Zeiss which is also outstanding. My Burris and Leupold scopes have hunted in many states, Canada and spent about 4 years with me in Africa. The large majority of my hunting clients in Africa also used Leupold and Burris. I don't remember one scope problem with either of them. Bushnell was another story!

leupold dose hasve a lifetime warranty what dose nikon have?

Who cares what nikon has? Lmao.

lol

Lmao!

I'm confused here again as to y pay that much money for a scope? I'm not knocking u for doing it but for me and my experience my Bushnell is as good as my leupy and Nikon. Dad had a swaro and it didn't look as clear to me as the previously mentioned. Guess it comes down to taste and how deep ur pockets are. I'm not at all afraid to say that my $289 rem 700 outfitted with a $150 Bushnell will kill a deer just the same as anybody's high end rifle/scope combo on here.
Buy the one that fits ur pocket and looks the best to u, after all u are the one using it and spending the $$$. Just my .02 cents

Maybe at 100 yards but if the deer of lifetime steps out not a chance I am willing to take. Just my .02

BMD- maybe at 100 yards???
I am consistently taking shots over 200 and one at 407 on a yote, have never had any problems with Bushnell, Simmons or Nikon. Not saying they don't have problems every now and again but all makers have problems

I can shoot out to 300 easy with my Nikon and hold as good a group as my personal skill will allow. Its battle tested, battle approved. It also recently added a 200 class buck to the wall as a bonus.

If anyone on this thread has been talking out of their "azz" its you. Adamp has pretty much nailed this thread down.

I have a Tasco 3x9 on my deer rifle, a 270 Savage 110, that came with the rifle. Bought it new in 1989. I have never missed, I have never had to adjust it when I sight it in. The caps on the windage and elevation have not been removed in 20 years. Not sure what it cost in 1989, but I would guess around $30. For $300 I would buy another gun and keep my Tasco. Lucky? I have no idea, but if it works I am not going to switch it out.

Thanks for the feedback guys...

riflescopes.com has a used / demo model page with some great deals. www.samplelist.com They are in Red Oak just south of Dallas. I'm sure they'd take cash. Call first and they'll have what your looking for at the front. It's more of a shipping warehouse than a showroom.

I was going to suggest this also, but I couldn't find anything that said they welcomed walk in business. If they do, they are going to be your best bet for looking at different brands and models.

Been using Leupolds for years and I am very happy with them.