Author Topic: Nikon Prostaff (Read 1280 times)

257Robt · « **on:** November 06, 2005, 08:17:50 AM »

I just looked at my neighbors Nikon Prostaff 2-7x32. It looks like a pretty nice scope. Anyone have any thoughts about these for use on a rifle? I am on a budget and it looks like this scope might work for what I need.

jason280 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 06, 2005, 02:17:26 PM »

They are OK scopes, basically Nikon's entry level scope. Glass is decent, but not worth $130+ in my book. I owned one in 3-9x40 and wasn't really all that impressed. I think the Bushnell Trophy is just as good a scope, and around $40 cheaper.

rickt300 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 09, 2005, 05:22:19 AM »

I have a 3x9 power Prostaff. Very good glass, adjustments track perfectly, Two trips on a commercial airline that damaged the aluminum case I shipped it in with no change of zero. Excellent in low light and the biggest thing over the Bushnell, the eyepiece is not of such a large diameter. I would buy another one.

jason280 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 09, 2005, 12:55:34 PM »

Quote

biggest thing over the Bushnell, the eyepiece is not of such a large diameter

I will certainly agree with you there!

CT Bowhunter · « **Reply #4 on:** November 09, 2005, 03:10:44 PM »

I have the Pro Staff 3x9 40 and a Bushnell 3200 3x9 50 Firefly, and a 3200 2x7 32. The Bushnell appears clearer and I have better resolution at distance. As an example, I could read the target ring #'s with the Bushnell but not the Nikon at 100 yards. But the Nikon is a nice sight and all you'll need for a clean shot at an animal! I don't think you can go wrong with the Nikon.

My 2 cents is I'm sticking with the Bushnells.

rickt300 · « **Reply #5 on:** November 10, 2005, 09:01:39 AM »

I wonder if this difference of opinion on scope clarity has to do with the eyepiece focus adjustment not being set to the individuals eye. On a Bushnell this is very easy to accomplish but it is just a little harder on the scopes that have lockrings on their eyepieces. On the other hand I put the scopes ruggtedness right up there with optical clarity. Some of the old Weavers were not too hot optically but were very rugged as to holding zero.

victorcharlie · « **Reply #6 on:** November 11, 2005, 11:37:24 AM »

Went scope shopping today........bought a fixed 4X Nikon prostaff....replacing a trashco that won't hold point of impact on my Ruger M77 ultra light .243.........My almost 50 year old eyes couldn't tell enough difference between them to make a difference......Looked at a Nikon Monarch fixed 4X as well as the leupold (which I'd normally buy when the budget isn't as tight)............I should know more after the deer season..........

A buddy of mine who is a fixed power bigot bought one 6 months or so ago and told me he thought they were the best fixed power for the money that's he's found in awhile.........

akpls · « **Reply #7 on:** November 16, 2005, 06:02:59 AM »

I just bought one of these in the the 4X rimfire version for my sons .22LR. I couldn't see any difference between it and another brand (the "L" word!) that cost more than twice as much, when comparing them in the store. And it comes with a full lifetime warranty, as well.

slowfog · « **Reply #8 on:** December 05, 2005, 03:34:37 PM »

I have a 2-7 mounted in a .450 marlin handi rifle. It's held together thru several boxes of ammo without a problem. Works great for the distance that gun will shoot.

hammerless99 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 06, 2005, 04:58:58 PM »

I have a ProStaff 2-7 on my 300 Savage and am very pleased with it. Mind you, it's my first scope. However, last summer I was talking to a guy behind the scope counter @ Cabela's in PA; I was wondering what the difference was between the ProStaff and the low end Leopis and it was his opinion that the ProStaff was a better scope, and $50 cheaper! The reason is that the specs indicate that there is more coatings on the Prostaff lenses than whats on the VX-I or the Rifleman series of scopes. There is no comparison with my Prostaff scope and the low end Bushnell (Sportsman 3-9) that I have on my 22 WMR; in the next couple of years I hope to replace it with another Nikon. I don't want to spend $50 for a gold ring around the objective lense.

wild willy · « **Reply #10 on:** December 07, 2005, 02:10:50 PM »

I have both the Pro staff 2-7 and the Leupold VX-1 2-7 the Leupold is much clearer brighter and bigger field of view Don't take my word for it buy them both compare them side by side outdoors not under store lights take the one you don't like back you will keep the Leupold

Grubbs · « **Reply #11 on:** December 08, 2005, 05:06:08 AM »

In my personal experience, the Burris FFII is much better optically than either the Pro Staff or the VXI. The FFII is a great scope in this price range.

Zachary · « **Reply #12 on:** December 10, 2005, 02:24:39 AM »

I totally agree. I would buy a FFII over a VX-I or ProStaff any day of the week. Keep in mind that although I own a couple of Burris scopes (both Black Diamonds), I am not a fan of Burris. Still, the FFII is, without question, a better scope than the ProStaff.

However, I believe that the Nikon Buckmaster is a better scope than the FFII. I'm not sure how much more expensive the Buckmaster is over the FFII, but it can't be much.

If you can, spend a little extra money and get the Buckmaster. If not, then get the FFII. I think that Jon at the optic zone had them on sale some time ago. Go to his website and see how much they cost.

Zachary