New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - unscientific quick comparison
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

unscientific quick comparison

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/30/2011 at 15:51
feklar View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: December/28/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 84
Sorry about the unscientific quick part, it was cold, 10 degrees with a wind blowing in my face and I was cold.
 
The facts:
Cold, cloudy, with wind off a bench at 100 yards.
Nikon Monarch 4-16 X 42  swfa price 449 and change, mounted on rifle.
 
Weaver Tactical (older) 4.4-14 X 44, recently purchased off sample list for 400(thanks guys, love it), looks to me like new this ran around 540, also mounted on rifle.  If I'm wrong on the price new someone please correct me.
 
 
 
My initial opinion and beliefs made me think they would be very similiar, I've owned Nikons before and Weaver's before.  I know these scopes are/were priced around 100 dollar difference, but my opinion before I looked at both side by side said they would be the same.
 
The truth as I saw it:
The weaver was clearer and sharper.  The numbers and letters on the redfield target I was using were easier to read and sharper.  I had my friend who owns the Nikon looked and said it was clearer to him as well.
 
If it hadn't been so cold we would have done different distances and different powers and reported a little bit more "data."
 
I'm interested in what the further discussion will be.  Sometime (when its warmer) I'll try to get the Weaver Grand Slam, Weaver Tactical, Nikon Coyote, Nikon Buckmaster and Nikon Monarch all at the range togather for another unscientific comparison.  Why those ones?  Thats what my buddy and I own.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2011 at 15:29
quarterbore View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar
Previously Banned Troll

Joined: March/13/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 44
Well, the fact is, under those weather conditions, your perceptions of the Redfield target were as you described.  If you perceived the Weaver to be superior with respect to optical resolution on whatever power or powers you compared, then I cannot dispute what you saw and you came to that conclusion.  I believe I might own the Nikon you have, but have never mounted on a rifle and do not own the Weaver.  Regardless, I would never take it upon myself to speculate why you saw what you did and try to tell you it was not true.  
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2011 at 15:35
DAVE44 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/11/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 652
I owned a Weaver grand Slam 3-10x40 and Bushnell 4200 3-9x40 and when I compared them there was no difference in apparrent brightness or contrast but the Weaver actually had better resoloution of letters and fine detail. The amazing part to me was I had a Pentax Pioneer 3-9x40 (Burris Fullfield II) and it was as good as the 4200 if not a tad better on 4x. I know noone will agree with me but that is how I saw it looking at a street sign in the afternoon about 150 yrds away.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2011 at 16:31
quarterbore View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar
Previously Banned Troll

Joined: March/13/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 44
My son has a Nirtex TR2 with upper mag level of 20 I believe, which is basically the same as the Weaver Super Grand Slam.  He has compared it to any number of scopes including the new Leupold VX-3, Burris Signature Select, a Hawke that he owns and a Nikon Monarch, all of similar power ranges and objective diameters and finds the resolution of the Nitrex superior.  There may be some user bias, but those are his findings in an unscientific approach.  However, as most things are on this site, other sites and magazine articles, they are "unscientific."
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2011 at 19:40
cbm View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: January/11/2008
Location: SC
Status: Offline
Points: 474
I had a Weaver Classic extreme 2.5-10x50 and a Nitrex 2.5-10x50 and they were both as good as my Conquests, 4200's, or Monarchs. I got great deals on both and for the money I have not seen a better deal on any scope.
 
But I sold my Encore and the Weaver was on it. And my Dad wanted the Nitrex for his muzzleloader ,so I sold it to him. I think most people would be shocked at how well they will do in the deer woods at last light.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2011 at 20:15
feklar View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: December/28/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 84
Interesting..what surprised me the most was I thought the Monarch would be equal to the Weaver.  2 of us didn't think it was under those conditions.
 
 
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "unscientific quick comparison"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Quick Steiner P4Xi review Match Tactical Scopes 9
Swarovski ATX 85mm and Kowa 25-60X88 QUick Notes Bitterroot Bulls Member's Tests and Reviews 3
Quick Question jmyner99er Rings and bases 2
Quick Issue bolt_action14 Varmint Scopes 7
Quick Question Cbissell07 Rifle Scopes 5
Quick question on Leupold scope fastline Rifle Scopes 2
Quick Draw on 8x binos @WitsEnd Binoculars 2
Quick Detach for 11mm rail mlv2k5 Rings and bases 3
Quick Detach (2pc)rings or (1pc)integral xot3ric Rings and bases 7
Leupold Quick Release problem express Rings and bases 0


This page was generated in 0.297 seconds.