A friend of mine recently purchased a Nikon Prostaff 4-12x40 bdc reticle (not a Prostaff 5). I compared his scope to my 3-9x42 S2 Big Sky and also compared it to my Bushnell Elite 4200 2.5-10x40 during a sight-in session on paper targets, and also observing trees inside the edge of the woods and tall grass in direct sunlight.
The first thing I noticed is that the Prostaff has a much higher magnification at the same power setting than either the S2 or 4200. I also noticed that the Prostaff seems pretty darn clear and I really couldn't tell if my S2 or 4200 was any brighter or not at the same power levels. Now, all comparisons were done on a bright sunny day. Perhaps a brightness difference could be seen in a low light setting?
Both my S2 and 4200 are several years or so old. Has the quality of optics changed that much in just a few years or am I not comparing properly? I just never imagined a sub $200 scope performing as well as an S2 or 4200. I could see holes punched into paper better through his Prostaff than with my 4200 at 100 yards distance, but maybe that's the higher magnification of the Prostaff revealing itself as an advantage when punching holes into paper. The resolution is very nice as well.
If scopes have improved this much, I'm seriously considering one of the new Prostaff 5 3.5-14x40 with nikoplex illuminated reticle (if that's not a typo on Nikon website).
Does anyone have any thoughts on this or any experience with illuminated reticle Prostaff? I have experienced first hand that a poorly designed illuminated reticle is pretty much useless (with my Hawke Endurance 30). I've been very disappointed with that scope. And not just because of the poorly designed illumination system.
See below for the Prostaff specs taken from swfa website- http://swfa.com/Nikon-4-12x40-ProStaff-Riflescope-P48760.aspx
Edited by ti-force - November/01/2015 at 09:11