Nikon Tactical Scope

[JWH Clark]

Would like some reviews from anyone who has one please before I part with my cash? Good or bad. What they like, build quality, light gathering, actual FOV, low light ability, adjustment etc.


Thanks

 

[coupalr]

I don't have any first hand experience with the tacticals but do have a buckmaster 4-12X50 SF and a 2.5-10X56 Monarch Gold. They are both great scopes for the price and the optics are on par with Leupold. I also have a leupold 6.5-20X50 Mark 4 and I would have to say that with both it and the monarch set on 10 power that the monarch has a brighter and more clear picture and the adjustments on the Nikons are more precise. You will not go wrong buying the tactical. The only reason I bought the leupold was do to the Nikon not having enough magnification.

 

[winmagman]

I just picked one up in 2.5x10, it's for a project that is waiting on a barrel so I haven't shot with it yet. The only other "quality" scopes I have to compare to are Zeiss Conquests.

That said, I have has the two side by side late in the evening and in the middle of the day. I think the Conquest has slightly better glass and light gathering ability plus it seems to have a little "crisper" picture, but only very slightly.

As for the adjustments, the Nikon has much stiffer turrets, not sure if this is because it's brand new or if they're designed that way. The side parallax adjustment knob has no numbers on it just a series of dots going from largest(up close) to smallest(infinity) not a bad thing just not what I'm used to.

Both brands seem to be very solid products and if I could have gotten a Conquest in 2.5 or 3 X 10 with target turrets I would have gone that route, however I can't say that I'm disappointed with the Nikon nor do I feel like I "setteled" for second best, It's certainly a quality scope in my opinion.

Chris