Results from scope night test

The other night I compared scopes by trying to read the license plate across the street and I was so puzzled by what I saw that I decided to try again with more care. I compared a Leupold LPS 1.5 - 6 x 42 with a Nikon Buckmasters 3 - 9 x 40. Both scopes were dismounted (was going to anyway), dials were centered and lenses cleaned. I cut holes in a cardboard box and stuck the scopes through to make a big binocular for faster acquisition when going back and forth and used the same eye for each series, since my eyes, and yours too most likely, are a little different. Just fooling around today I tried to columnate the tubes and it's almost spooky using crosshairs in 3-D. Anyway, after dark I put a newspaper out in the back yard under mainly moonlight and tried to read the headline - Nikon wins. With the scopes off the rifles I felt comfortable enough to go out on the street and read more license plates and again, Nikon wins - not by much and it's hard because my eyes kept trying to adjust, squinting and so forth, but it kept coming up Nikon.
Color intensity is another story. A red car with a weathered finish in the shadows might have been a little redder with the Nikon, but probably too close to call, and I might have "wanted" the Nikon to win. I'm pretty sure that a dark blue car that looked black to the naked eye did look more blue with the Leupold. Really, it's amazing that any scope will pick up color at night that you can't even see unassisted.
These things are not easy to see, and any license plate that had good streetlight looked the same with both scopes. The trick is to find something that is almost invisible. Optics and light transmission are very complex subjects, and if anyone knows enough to set me straight I will eagerly read it, since I'm really curious now. I did not run a drop test and will not. I am sure that the Leupold had a more durable finish than the Nikon, which shows bright aluminum easily. I can also see that the 30 M/M Leupold gives the same field of view with about 1/2 power more magnification that the 1 inch Nikon. The Nikon is practically new, while I bought the Leupold at least 10 years ago. I've taken it shooting a few times and hunted with it some, but I don't hunt very hard, and I can't believe anything happened to it. Maybe I just got the best scope Nikon ever made.

Just goes to show HOW FAR optics have come in 10yrs,"with all the computers it is easy to make good glass" (got that from an interveiw with nightforce that I watched) these days.

Leupold could take lessons from most of the other good scope makers out there.

i too prefer the glass in nikons, but i have never looked through the buckmasters scope. I think the monarch line offers a lot for the money you pay.

The Buckmasters scopes have clear glass and good resolution. What they lack compared to others is light transmission. Still much better than a bargain scope, but not nearly as bright as others that I own. Mine sees mid-day use for load testing so that isn't much of an issue but I wouldn't choose it for dawn/dusk hunting.

Wow, that's amazing. I thought LPS was tops on light. Do You think Nikon Monarch is brighter? More rugged? Is Leupold still considered rugged? I see you guys are all strong on Vortex.

I have never used a vortex so i cant say, but i think the glass and light transmission are better on a monarch vs the vx line of scopes (as was mentioned in another thread, the old veri x scopes were better in my opinion).

The light transmission on all the Leupolds that I've looked through has been nothing special. I've checked out up to the VX-7 and was thoroughly unimpressed. They are still supposed to be fairly rugged, but I wouldn't spend money on one because the glass is at best where their glass was 20 years ago. In the mean time, lots of other makers have actually advanced the state of the art in optics and Leupold has been selling on their reputation in that regard. Much better glass in a mechanism that is just as reliable and rugged is available for the same or less money.