New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Weaver vs Nikon for Rimfire.
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Weaver vs Nikon for Rimfire.

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/09/2007 at 10:58
ghost82 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: August/22/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 84
Looking at getting either a Weaver Rimfire Classic 4x28 or a Nikon Prostaff Rimfire Classi4x32.  Has anyone used either who could provide pros/cons.  I love Nikon, but i've been hearing alot about Weaver lately.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/09/2007 at 11:57
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8047
The Weaver has some pretty good glass, itself. Both of these scopes are in the same range optically and will be a good choice. When hunting small game these are two 4X's that I would definitely consider. They have a standard plex which is easier to pick up when hunting than the fine plex other manufacturers use in their rimfire scopes.
 
Good luck
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/10/2007 at 16:49
gotcha21 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: April/25/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5
These are both really to close to call as stated above, best thing would be to look throught them and see which one is best for your eyes. They are both around the 90% light transmission range and excellent for what you want to use it for. Please let us know what you decide. I would also agree about the fine vs. standard plex recticle,  the standard plex recticle is better in early morning or low light conditions at night than the fine plex is. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/14/2007 at 08:29
medic52 View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 893
Nothing against Weaver, but I picked the NIKON....
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/18/2007 at 15:42
jonbravado View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1131
what is your budget? are these your 'finalists' - i would give the nod to the weaver, if so.
good, decent glass for the money.
 
J
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/19/2007 at 21:35
treeshepherd View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: September/03/2006
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Points: 41
another vote for the weaver.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/04/2008 at 18:27
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220
I would get the Weaver because the Weaver's glass and coatings will blow away the ProStaff. The ProStaff is Nikon's economy market K-mart offering. Kind of like the Leupold Rifleman line.           Mickey          --Ed
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/28/2008 at 06:13
Wareagle View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/28/2008
Location: Perry, Ga
Status: Offline
Points: 1
 You can't go wrong with either of them. Both are an excellent bargain. I would perfer the Weaver also. Simply because Nikons customer service SUCKS................................
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2008 at 10:29
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313
Ghost, I don't know what your budget is or how set on those two scopes you are, but Zeiss makes a 4X32 Conquest in a 50 yd parallax Rimfire version.  It is obviously quite a bit more expensive than the Weaver and Nikon, but it will blow them away optically.  I have the centerfire version of the same scope, and it is an excellent optic.
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2008 at 10:35
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8047

Good one, Ted. I have never heard of that version. That would be at the top of my list for a fixed magnification rimfire scope.

 

Doug

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2008 at 10:44
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313
It doesn't say anywhere on that link, but if you look up that part number in the Zeiss Conquest section, it states it is a 50-yd parallax version.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2008 at 16:21
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220
Yep....I have seen them, too. They's got them FAT EYEPIECES and would have to be mounted on a ladder for a Winchester 52!! Dang it all. Plus they got two miles of eye relief....and my 22 only has the regular 13 5/8 inch length of pull....
 
The only solution for me to get a dedicated rimfire scope on this Winchester would be to get Leupold to change parallax on one of their scopes that does not have twenty miles of eye relief....like the 1.75-6X or the 2.5-8X VXiii.  ( or get Holland and Holland to restock it in 10,000 year old Circassian walnut....at about 14 1/4 inches......THAT would be nice!) Bandito           --Ed
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2008 at 20:06
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313
Originally posted by Ed Connelly Ed Connelly wrote:

Yep....I have seen them, too. They's got them FAT EYEPIECES and would have to be mounted on a ladder for a Winchester 52!! Dang it all. Plus they got two miles of eye relief....and my 22 only has the regular 13 5/8 inch length of pull....
 
The only solution for me to get a dedicated rimfire scope on this Winchester would be to get Leupold to change parallax on one of their scopes that does not have twenty miles of eye relief....like the 1.75-6X or the 2.5-8X VXiii.  ( or get Holland and Holland to restock it in 10,000 year old Circassian walnut....at about 14 1/4 inches......THAT would be nice!) Bandito           --Ed
 
Well, the eyepiece is certainly larger in diameter than the objective bell, but I would hardly call it "fat."  The Zeiss eyepiece measures 1.61" dia vs. 1.55" dia for the extremely compact Leupold 1.75-6X32 you mention, which I also have -- only 0.060" difference.  Since the scope doesn't have a power ring, the actual eyepiece clearance requirement will be less than some variable scopes with smaller eyepieces.  This scope will mount very low on a rifle, as shown in this pic of mine on a Sauer 200 with low Conetrol mounts.  Eye relief is 4", but the tube is reasonably long enough that it should pose no problems with scope positioning on the rifle.  The only difference between this scope and the rimfire version is the parallax focus distance.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/31/2008 at 20:41
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8047
Very nice, the Conetrol's look great.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/03/2008 at 12:50
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220
Hey, RifleDude, that's a nice rifle there. But that bolt lift isn't as high as the old Mauser-design types, is it?     Would the variable power ring increase the "fat" problem?  I have never had a Conquest. The only scope-- with what I call a FAT EYEPIECE-- that I had was a Bushnell 3200 3X9 and the bolt on my Winchester 52 hit it-- in high rings! So, I had to mount an older, NORMAL scope on it Wink that had the regular size ( who knows mm?) ocular bell.   Then years later, I read the thread here on the forum with the two fellas who were mounting Conquests on pre-64 Model 70s, and one fella went to Super High rings, while other fella had maybe Medium rings----but not a lot of room for his FINGERS!! 
 
I think the new Euro scopes are wonderful, if you don't have have THOSE TWO rifles!! And I have those two rifles. So you either mount 'em HIGH or look for something a little skinnier.
 
Incidentally, I love those Sauers...what caliber is yours?                      --Ed
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/03/2008 at 13:55
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313
Originally posted by Ed Connelly Ed Connelly wrote:

Hey, RifleDude, that's a nice rifle there. But that bolt lift isn't as high as the old Mauser-design types, is it?     Would the variable power ring increase the "fat" problem?  I have never had a Conquest. The only scope-- with what I call a FAT EYEPIECE-- that I had was a Bushnell 3200 3X9 and the bolt on my Winchester 52 hit it-- in high rings! So, I had to mount an older, NORMAL scope on it Wink that had the regular size ( who knows mm?) ocular bell.   Then years later, I read the thread here on the forum with the two fellas who were mounting Conquests on pre-64 Model 70s, and one fella went to Super High rings, while other fella had maybe Medium rings----but not a lot of room for his FINGERS!! 
 
I think the new Euro scopes are wonderful, if you don't have have THOSE TWO rifles!! And I have those two rifles. So you either mount 'em HIGH or look for something a little skinnier.
 
Incidentally, I love those Sauers...what caliber is yours?                      --Ed
 
You're correct, this rifle only has a 60-deg bolt lift, being a 6-lug on 120-deg centers bolt.  It is chambered in .308, and is SPOOKY accurate!  However, I posted this pic just to visualize the relative size of the eyepiece.  Again, this Conquest has only slightly larger diameter eyepiece as the aforementioned Leupold, and it has a slightly smaller diameter eyepiece as this now discontinued Kahles 2-7X36 rimfire scope mounted with medium Talleys on my Kimber of Oregon M82.  The bolt handle does come close to the eyepiece, but there are no clearance problems.  The Kimber should be fairly close to your M52 geometrically, being a similar action, but the Kimber may have a longer bolt handle, I haven't handled a Win 52 in awhile.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/03/2008 at 18:46
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220
Well, RifleDude, that is good to know some actual eyepiece measurements on those Conquests. 1.61 inches doesn't sound too bad....like you said the ordinary ocular of a Leupold ( and the 32mm objective bell of a 4X scope) is approx. 1.5 or 1.55 inches...
 
Did you say that the Kahles had yet a larger diameter eyepiece? I see the photo of your Kimber--it looks like your mounts and rings are higher than the Sauer.  They are still lower than my rings on my Winchester Model 52.
 
I had seen the 50 yard parallax Conquests in the line up at SWFA for quite a few months now. Suddenly it appears that there is only the 4X listed with 50 yd parallax now.  They used to have the 2.5X - 8x and one other, perhaps the 3X9, but they're gone now! (What is the situation with the Shotgun Model? What's the parallax on that?)   I always simply wrote them off as un-workable because of my fear of the dreaded FAT EYEPIECE. I mean, even the Bushnell 3200 failed THAT test!! Plus the Four Inch Eye Relief problem.....I couldn't mount them far forward enough to be able to look through them....I would have them right in my eye like a pirate looking through a spyglass!!Pirate HA!
 
 
But, if you've got that Kahles on the Kimber, the Conquest MAY work past the bolt handle in high rings on the Model 52B.
 
Right now I have a 6X Redfield Traditional scope on the rifle in high rings, I believe. I've got the ( Burris) Browning one piece Winchester M52 base with Signature Rings. I've got a quarter of an inch between the scope ( side of the ocular) and the bolt handle. Not much room to play with. I would have to stick with Leupold or Weaver scopes for a real rimfire scope---or mount older, "pre-FAT EYEPIECE" scopes from the old days on it---which is what I did. I wanted the rifle to look like the old days, and it does, with the 70s-80s Redfield on it. It's a regular centerfire scope, of course, so things are a little out of focus for the first 65 yards. After that it's normal. At 50 yards it is still slightly blurry, but clears up by 65. Actual point of aim problem is nil, of course, with a 6X....only the focus is slightly annoying....but I don't plink at that close range anyway.
 
Maybe one of these days I will get myself a Leupold or a Weaver in the correct parallax for close up shooting.                        --Ed         Bucky
 
 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/03/2008 at 21:45
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313
Yes, the Kahles has a larger diameter eyepiece than the Conquest -- 1.675" vs. 1.610".  Those are medium Talleys on the Kimber, so no, it isn't mounted as low as the Conquest is on the Sauer, but then with the short bolt lift of the Sauer, no scope and ring combination, no matter how low, would ever be a problem. 
 
If memory serves, I do believe the Win M52 has a shorter bolt handle than the Kimber 82, so if you had bolt clearance issues with the 52 and a Bushnell 3200, bolt geometry may be the issue.  I don't have a 3200 anymore to compare.
 
Is there a gun shop near you that would let you lay out some various rings and scopes on your 52 to visualize what will work and what won't?  Since there isn't a huge difference in eyepiece dia between the Conquest and a typical Leupold, if you have clearance problems with it, you will have clearance problems with most scopes.  I just miked the dia of several of my scopes, and they are all within the 1.5 - 1.7" dia range, including my 30mm Euro scopes.
 
On the eye relief issue, yes, the Conquest 4X32 has a 4" ER, but it also has a pretty long main tube, so you should have plenty of lattitude for adjustment.  My Sauer has a 13.5" LOP, the same as you stated for your 52B, and eye relief is perfect in the position shown in the pic, so you shouldn't have an eye relief problem.


Edited by RifleDude - February/03/2008 at 21:51
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/03/2008 at 22:40
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220
Well, with four inches of eye relief, the rear of my ocular bell has got to be flush with the back of my bolt shroud for me. I don't have that kind of room. The only four inch relief scope that would work on this rifle would be a fixed power Leupold with the short ( like 2.5" ) ocular bell.....such as their 4X or 6X. Variables with that much eye relief have just got too much length to their ocular arrangement. It would be sticking back too far like your scopes are mounted....picture your scopes with the back end of the scopes flush with the rear of your bolt! On your Sauer, picture the scope flush with the point of the checkering pattern which is up close to the tang. That's because all the stocks in the world are too short for me.  So, on rifles that I don't intend to modify with recoil pads, I stay with 3.5" eye relief scopes.
 
I have no clearance problems with old fashioned ocular bells---like Leupold, Redfield, old Weavers ( and probably NEW Weavers---NOT Grand Slams!).  If I did want to mount a modern Euro Wonder-scope on here, I would have to take it to a gun shop and experiment like you said.                            --Ed
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/11/2008 at 20:22
600racer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: February/11/2008
Location: Tupelo, MS
Status: Offline
Points: 6
I've narrowed my choice for a scope to the Weaver or Nikon simply by reputation and price. I've just recently started shooting targets because I had to give up motorcycles, too many concussions have given me chronic post traumatic headaches. Anyway I know what parallax is from my days surveying. If your parallax isn't set right your crosshairs move if you move your head, in other words where the crosshairs are my not be exactly where your aimed. How can you make a accurate 100 yd shot when your parallax is set for 50 yards? I plan on starting with my .22 and then scope and start shooting my C&R rifles.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/11/2008 at 20:37
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220
Well, actually parallax will not really become a measurable issue with magnifications under 8X. IF you were wiggling your head around with a scope whose parallax was set at 100 yards--and you were aiming at something at 50 yards---any movement of the reticle is practically impossible to see.......I cannot MAKE it happen with a 6X scope---I have tried many times---I see nothing going on by moving my head all over....
 
...and if the phenomenon exists ( which I'm told it does), it is so SMALL at low power and close range, that maybe a point of impact error is an eighth of an inch?? Who knows?
 
Anyway, the only thing that is annoying is aiming at something close ( let's say under 65 yards) and the target is slightly out of focus. But the closer you get to --say 65 yards--the target is coming into focus....at least with a 4X or 6X scope. Once you're looking at stuff at 65 yards, everything is just fine.
 
I'm talking about a hunting 22 and a plinking 22---not an Olympic 50 yard target match where people are shooting 10X scopes----then that's a different story!      --Ed      Smile
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/11/2008 at 21:18
Tip69 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
Tip Stick

Joined: September/27/2005
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Ed.. my experience is the same as yours.......... I've NEVER had the crosshairs move on me!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/11/2008 at 21:41
600racer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: February/11/2008
Location: Tupelo, MS
Status: Offline
Points: 6

Thanks for the info. I just remember parallax being a problem if the intrument wasn't adjusted correctly for you. Then again the scopes were fairly strong and mile sightings weren't uncommon. Comparing the two is apples and oranges.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/12/2008 at 08:03
600racer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: February/11/2008
Location: Tupelo, MS
Status: Offline
Points: 6
I just looked it up. I was using surveying instruments that were 32x. I guess they would be a little more sensitive to parallax than a 4X rimfire scope.Loco
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/12/2008 at 10:00
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220
You bet.
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Weaver vs Nikon for Rimfire."
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon P-Rimfire 2-7x32 or Weaver Classic Rimfire beelzibub Rimfire / Airgun 0
weaver kaspa 3x9x40 rimfire with multiple turrets old dude Rimfire / Airgun 0
Vortex Crossfire 2-7x32 Rimfire VS Weaver RV-7 Denali Rimfire / Airgun 6
Weaver Rimfire 2x7 Rev Dave Rimfire / Airgun 2
Leupold vs Weaver Rimfire Scopes coldbeerchief Rimfire / Airgun 3 5/18/2006 1:02:05 AM
Rings for Weaver Rimfire scope? scubasteve Rifle Scopes 3 2/13/2007 10:05:34 PM
Weaver or Nikon rimfire optics? GaryO Rimfire / Airgun 12
Weaver or Nikon fireflite3356 Rifle Scopes 6 12/9/2005 5:02:56 PM
Leica, Nikon, Weaver! RICK WILKINSON Binoculars 3 10/1/2004 8:09:06 AM
Nikon monarch vs Weaver grand slam 308 encore Rifle Scopes 4 10/4/2004 9:13:44 PM


This page was generated in 0.140 seconds.