Side by Side Hunting Scope Comparison

[sns2]

Myself and Bulletman just finished a low light test between four scopes I bought at a local store with the understanding that three and possibly all four will be coming back after I did my comparison. The scopes were as follows:

1) Zeiss HD5 3-15x42
2) Nikon Monarch 3 4-16x42
3) Cabelas Instinct Euro 4-12x50 (this is a rebranded Meopta Meopro)
4) Leupold VX3 4.5-14x40

I live in a new neighbourhood and my garage looks out at fields / bush / dirt piles etc... I set up a bench in the garage and we went to work comparing from 7:30 - 8:50pm.

We compared at 12x and 4x. It was very, very close between the top three. We both both basically agreed upon our rankings as well.

My rankings: Meopta, Nikon & Zeiss a tie, with Leupold a distant 4th

Bulletman's rankings: Nikon, Meopta, Zeiss with Leupold a distant 4th

Obviously eyes are subjective and we did not take reticles into account at all.

Another thing that was interesting is that I pulled out a Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 4.5-14x44. It was better than the Leupold and a bit behind the Zeiss.

Finally, these were our eyes and our opinions. Obviously, YMMV. But how often do people do what we did? Not very often.

So, taking into account that for me the Meopta was just the slightest smidge brighter than the Nikon, and had a larger objective, lower magnification, and no parallax adjustment , I am going to put a Nikon Monarch 3 4-16x42 on my Kimber Montana.

Time to go hunting.

PS: The store was out of Swaro Z3s, but I have had two, so I know what they are about.

[the_longwalker]

I just did the (sort of) same thing at the store. I was checking out Leupolds when the guy asked me if I knew about Vortex Vipers. I compared them both and the Vortex was better according to my eyes. A lot cheaper too.

[dogslayer403]

Ive done the same with some I own here was my order best to worst

Nightforce NXS, Zeiss conquest, leupold vx3 , bushnell elite, and in the far last a leupold vx2, followed by a vx1 and redfield revenge I didnt give my rimfire scopes a chance Im a huge cheapo when it comes to them they wear simmons lol

[HW223]

March 2.5-25 x 42, night force also very good .

[Dudes2010]

Thanks you for finally posting something worth reading rather than the typical...."which is better 30-06 or 308?"

I have put two Nikon Monarch 3's on my last 2 rifles and I have ben extremly impressed with them. Same thing here, very bright and clear in low light conditions and the "SPOT-ON" ballistics program is a cool option to play around with when you shoot the BDC reticle.

Great scopes for the money. So far they have been flawless.

Dudes 2010

[twofifty]

How did you ensure a 'blind' test where you and your friends wouldn't know what scope you were looking through?

Without a blind test, brand bias enters the equation and the comparisons are much less significant.

[DaleJ]

A hand held light meter makes a better comparator.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by twofifty

How did you ensure a 'blind' test where you and your friends wouldn't know what scope you were looking through?

Without a blind test, brand bias enters the equation and the comparisons are much less significant.

I have had so many brands of scopes and guns and all that jazz that I couldn't care less about the name plastered on the side. I went on a journey through high-end production rifles over the last 18 months that saw me with just about anything and everything you could want to try. You know what I figured out? All the brands are good. All shoot good. All kill equally well. I also learned there is not an overpowering correlation between costa and accuracy.

I could afford any scope that sits on the shelves of the stores I frequent. I was looking for the one that looked best at low light to my eye. Nothing more. Nothing less. The top three were very good and really hard to tell the difference. One was just a smidge brighter to me. One cost over twice as much as the others, and I have owned two of them recently, but it just didn't justify the cost. I went with the one that offered the best balance of the things I was looking for.

Some guys are Leupold guys, some are Zeiss guys, some don't care. I fall into that category when it comes to scopes.

What I will say is this. IMO, you can get $500 scopes that perform equally as well as $1000 scopes.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by DaleJ

A hand held light meter makes a better comparator.

In a pure scientific sense I won't argue with that.

But, nothing works better for "ME" than my own eyes.

Optics preferences are by their very nature subjective because my eyes are different than yours (and everybody else's).

[Pathfinder76]

Just remember that visual performance is just one factor in selecting a scope. I'll also say that the VX 3 4.5-14 is a horrible scope.

[cowmanbob]

Nikon is apt to leave you hanging when it comes to warranty issues. I'd never use a scope built by a predominatly camera company.

[north american hunter]

Originally Posted by cowmanbob

Nikon is apt to leave you hanging when it comes to warranty issues. I'd never use a scope built by a predominatly camera company.

Then your missin' out!

[Peebles]

Originally Posted by sns2

PS: The store was out of Swaro Z3s, but I have had two, so I know what they are about.

So what are they about? I know it's not as accurate if it wasn't included in the side by side, but how do you rate the Swarovski Z3 against these other scopes?

[cowmanbob]

Originally Posted by north american hunter

Then your missin' out!

Actually I don't miss very often.

[Elkhunt]

Originally Posted by sns2

In a pure scientific sense I won't argue with that.

But, nothing works better for "ME" than my own eyes.

Optics preferences are by their very nature subjective because my eyes are different than yours (and everybody else's).

I agree. This was a good test for your eyes & the scopes. Thanks

[DaleJ]

Originally Posted by cowmanbob

Nikon is apt to leave you hanging when it comes to warranty issues. I'd never use a scope built by a predominatly camera company.

Hi cowman, I think the camera companies would able to produce the ultimate scope. Zeiss started in business making cameras and telescopes. Nikon and Nikkor lenses are renowned for rugged, highest quality lenses.

[cowmanbob]

Originally Posted by DaleJ

Hi cowman, I think the camera companies would able to produce the ultimate scope. Zeiss started in business making cameras and telescopes. Nikon and Nikkor lenses are renowned for rugged, highest quality lenses.

Are you using Nikon scopes on your latest 1000 yd rifle?

[Dean2]

I own every make of scope listed plus many more and some that cost a lot more than those rated. Like SNS2, I have taken a bunch of them mounted on rifles and compared them in low light, long distance and pitch black with only star or moonlight to work with. All I can say is for clear picture, colour accuracy and good night vision any of the top end scopes will do the job. For the ultimate in seeing in bad conditions and putting up with foul weather abuse Leica, Swaro Z5, Leupold and Zeiss are my preferred choices and in that order.
NightForce doesn't rank in clear or low light and they are heavy as hell, Nikon is very good glass but in pitch black it doesn't stay with the top line scopes. Vortex, Sightron etc are all very good glass for the price but in REALLY bad viewing conditions or in very harsh conditions, the more expensive glass does shine through.

I really wish $500 glass worked as well as $2000 glass because afford it or not it would be nice to save the extra money. Unfortunately it isn't true. You can get excellent performance out of $500-$800 glass but it doesn't rank at the nth degree with the top end stuff.

[DaleJ]

Originally Posted by cowmanbob

Are you using Nikon scopes on your latest 1000 yd rifle?

Maybe? Nightforce buys Japanese glass.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by Peebles

So what are they about? I know it's not as accurate if it wasn't included in the side by side, but how do you rate the Swarovski Z3 against these other scopes?

The two Z3s that I have had were at least as good as the Meopta in both brightness and low light capability. They were also considerably more expensive. I have never owned or looked through Z5 or Z6.

Just to be clear because people get their shorts in a knot about brands they like, I am not at all trying to say a $500 Nikon is better than a $1250 Zeiss or Swaro. What I am saying is that in a straight low light eyeball test at a number of ranges and backgrounds, they are very close if not equal.

I also know this is not the only measure of the quality of a scope. It's just the one I deem most important.

[sns2]

Dean, I never thought of doing a moonlight / stars test. Too much ambient light in my neighbourhood anyway.

[twofifty]

Thanks for reporting your findings.

[tchardy1972]

This thread has sure brought out the Leopold lovers.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by Dean2

I really wish $500 glass worked as well as $2000 glass because afford it or not it would be nice to save the extra money. Unfortunately it isn't true. You can get excellent performance out of $500-$800 glass but it doesn't rank at the nth degree with the top end stuff.

And that is part of my point. $500 glass will stick with $1000. However, to see an appreciable difference you need to move up into the $2000 range as you said.

I could do that if it were a priority, but at this point, as a paper punching and deer hunting weekend warrior, I would rather buy a new gun, than spend an extra $1500 on glass to gain that next level of performance.

And just so this thread does not come off as optics snobbery. A 4x Bushnell Banner atop a 308 killed me more game over about 15 years than I could shake a stick at. I can honestly say that I never lost an animal due to poor scope performance. Missing a shot? Sure? Poor scope performance? Never.

[Bushrat]

Far as I'm concerned you should be able to get a fully functional reliable hunting scope for $600. I've got many that are fine for less. Paying $3000 for a 2% better scope is not in my budget.

[Dudes2010]

Originally Posted by cowmanbob

Are you using Nikon scopes on your latest 1000 yd rifle?

Lets be honest here, My guess is that Most of the users on this forum are not shooting out to 1000yards anyways. Im sure as heck not.......

But for the shots that I HAVE took out to 4-500 yards, the nikon monarch works fantastic. Plus, that was at a range, on bags in a very controlled environment.
For Hunting situations where the shots are usually closer than 4-500 the NIKON Monarch is perfect. and my wallet is a little heavier than if i did purchase a 1000$ scope.

Dudes2010

[Dudes2010]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Far as I'm concerned you should be able to get a fully functional reliable hunting scope for $600. I've got many that are fine for less. Paying $3000 for a 2% better scope is not in my budget.

X2

[cowmanbob]

Originally Posted by Dudes2010

Lets be honest here, My guess is that Most of the users on this forum are not shooting out to 1000yards anyways. Im sure as heck not.......

But for the shots that I HAVE took out to 4-500 yards, the nikon monarch works fantastic. Plus, that was at a range, on bags in a very controlled environment.
For Hunting situations where the shots are usually closer than 4-500 the NIKON Monarch is perfect. and my wallet is a little heavier than if i did purchase a 1000$ scope.

Dudes2010

If DaleJ takes a Nikon to the next F-class shoot,I might have a slight chance to shoot at his level. Not taking bets at the moment.

[north american hunter]

If you've never used a nikon scope, why are you so negative about them?

[abhunter8]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Far as I'm concerned you should be able to get a fully functional reliable hunting scope for $600. I've got many that are fine for less. Paying $3000 for a 2% better scope is not in my budget.

I am with you there 100%.