Thread: some mothers do have them. What a complete BullSh1tter on tardme...

WOT ? No silly questions being asked on the auction? Come on guys, this one needs a bit of input

It is not the worst I have seen. Price wise it is actually a reasonable ball park. Ditch the "sniper" from the title, and he does admit the scope is massive overkill on a 22. (It is almost overkill on a 223 as I have done that before....)

The Nighteater 8-32 scopes retailed around the $500 mark when new. I would not be quite so keen on the FC crosshair (A simple fine cross) which is more suited to target rifles. He would be far better putting a more reasonable scope on it or possibly it should be listed as " 8-32x44 Night Eater scope (FC) with a 22 and extras." or better still, seeing as he still has the box for the scope, split it up and sell them separately.

He should get $200 for the S/H JW15

probably the better part of $350 - $400 or more for the scope if he finds someone who knows what they are.

and $20-$30 for the gunbag.....

The auction is not is a translated pidgen english and is pretty clear. But overall the rifle looks like it has been cared for and no abused.

As mentioned, I have seen much worse.

No such thing as overkill.

No one who know anything will part with loopy vx1 money for a fucking nite eater

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

My JW would be worth that much because I slapped it into a Boyds stock and put a decent scope on it. It shoots well now fits well but fucked if I'll sell it. I wonder how many times it's been on there and how many more times before an eedjit buys it.Nothing legit comes from the Ghetto that is Red Hill.

Originally Posted by Cartman

No one who know anything will part with loopy vx1 money for a fucking nite eater

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Thats your call. I have used both and happily still do so.




A VX1 compared to the night eater in question is not a fair comparison. That would be like comparing a Mercedes hatch back with a cheap double cab. Mercs are a really good car but I have never seen a chippy turn up on site in one, for the same money they can get a cheap double cab, these I see all the time....


The cheapest largest Leupold VX1 I could find of a size similar is a VX1 4-12 at $650 (and is a much better option for a 22 that the one he is selling), and the nearest sizes are a 6-18 which is over $1000 and they do make a 8.5-25 but they list it as POA and they are happy saying the smaller 6.5-20 is $1700.
And a 3-9 Nighteater at $249 is just over half the price of your leupold new. It does appear that if you want an 8-32x scope it will not be a leupold...They do make a fixed power 35x for target use, but at $1700US it doesnt really compare to this scenario.

I found that the three night eaters I have on various rifles all performed every bit as well as my Leupold. I got equal or better accuracy with the Nikkos on the rifle the leupold was on when I got it. With one big difference. I had one scope too many, and with all four performing beautifully it came down to the brand loyalty that comes with leupold. I listed it a VX1 on trade me at $275 and had a buy now of $300 which I actually thought was a bit steep seeing as the new one was only $359. Auction closed at $320. Possibly a win to you in this case but I was more than happy as the three scopes I still own perform to this day every bit as well as my VX1 did, but not one of them cost me that much to buy new. And I understand fully that no one will pay that for a second hand Nikko.

So I decided I love brand loyalty when it comes to selling second had stuff.

Horses for courses, the Nikko Night Eater is a good entry level scope when looking at the large sizes. It is clear it will never be as highly regarded as Leupold and rightly so, but they are still capable scopes, they work and as much as you like your leupold, I will never part with any other the night eaters I have now.

As a final thought, the aforementioend 3-9 leupold would be a far better scope choice than the nikko for any 22 or rifle that is used as a general hunter. The 8-32 is really suited for long range varminting and target work and anything under 200 yards is too close for it to be used to its potential.

see it all the time nikkos are shit well compared to a night force they probably are but put it up against a scope of the same price and it will hold its own ive got 6+ of them on my rifles and havnt had any problems with any of them and thats coming from someone thats acually had experiance with them

Optics quality is paramount at magnification ranges out past 16 really. When you are pushing 32 x then it has to have the very best glass. I suspect the optics of the Nikko are not up to the task, otherwise they would be the go-to scope brand for the BR shooters.
I have never had anyone supply a through the scope photo at 25+ magnification for a cheap scope, even though their tardeme auction states it's crystal clear, and every bit as good as a S&B PMII.

If you are on a budget and don't mind looking through all the fog, it's probably a valid option. Or if you have never had the opportunity to look through a very high quality scope, you won't know any better.

Originally Posted by quentin

Optics quality is paramount at magnification ranges out past 16 really. When you are pushing 32 x then it has to have the very best glass. I suspect the optics of the Nikko are not up to the task, otherwise they would be the go-to scope brand for the BR shooters.
I have never had anyone supply a through the scope photo at 25+ magnification for a cheap scope, even though their tardeme auction states it's crystal clear, and every bit as good as a S&B PMII.

If you are on a budget and don't mind looking through all the fog, it's probably a valid option. Or if you have never had the opportunity to look through a very high quality scope, you won't know any better.

While I love my Nikkos, you are right on they would not be up to spec for a BR shooter, but it is not the focus so much. My Targetmaster 10-50x60 could focus really well on targets at 1000yds. I could see possums in bare trees, and picked up on fence posts and could even make out glinting wire lines in a 4 wire fence at over 1200 yds and without the fog. But I could not get a rabbit at 300 as it was too close to focus on and I would drop it back to about 30x for the better view. I also found at those higher magnifications there was not enough field of view for me to see which bush I had just shot the rabbit under. As my 223 had not show of hitting a possum at 1000 yards (especially with me behind it) I decided that it was overkill and went a different way.

While I would certainly expect a S&B should be a huge amount better for the task at hand, the Nikkos do a good job for the money. In saying that the ones to really check out are the Diamond range. Mainly the 1" older ones before they followed Leupold, etc to Philippines and china. Very clear Japanese optics and priced only a little below a VX1 made them easy to over look with the VX1s reputation. Even now the Diamond Target 10-50x60 that is in stock, japanese optics, very very clear and way better than the targetmaster I had but at $1700 there are now plenty of other choices in that budget that would match up and have a better known reputation. Sightron SIII is about the same price, Night force up around the $4k, S&B $5.2k. It all comes down to budget.

If you are looking at top end glass and can afford S&B, Zeiss and Swaroski then Nikko's will not be in the picture. If you have a budget of $600 for a 8-32 or 6-24 scope, then the Nikko Nighteater compares very well up against any other $600 scope on the market of similar magnification, if you have a budget of $1700 then the Diamond Target will hold its own against any other scope of similar size and price. If you are looking at $1700 for higher magnification scope the S&B, Zeiss and Swaroski wont feature as they will be way out of budget.

Ironically, while this topic appears to have strayed a little, why do we never have this same discussion over rifles? People swear by their Remington, Sako and Tikka which are the Nikko Stirlings of the gun world. Where are the people jumping up and down saying dont buy a remmington / Tikka / Sako, get a better quality like Merkel, Kreighoff, Borovnik, Mauser, Holland and Holland and Purdey.....? Its because they are happy with the performance of the less expensive rifles doing what they are wanting to do. And the price.....

Because a Tikka T3 would probably give a Merkel Helix or Mauser a run for their money for accuracy and function just as reliably and that's all a hunting rifle needs to do. It doesn't need a fancy oil finished walnut stock, meticulous attention to detail or a hand lapped action. That's just nice to have although appreciated by many, including myself. High quality scopes, on the other hand, generally have a definite edge in ruggedness, reliability and low light performance over many of the cheaper brands.

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

Because a Tikka T3 would probably give a Merkel Helix or Mauser a run for their money for accuracy and function just as reliably and that's all a hunting rifle needs to do. It doesn't need a fancy oil finished walnut stock, meticulous attention to detail or a hand lapped action. That's just nice to have although appreciated by many, including myself. High quality scopes, on the other hand, generally have a definite edge in ruggedness, reliability and low light performance over many of the cheaper brands.

I have had the luxury of trying a couple of those brands of rifles and with scopes on them that made me scared to drop it, a $12k rifle, with a $9k scope, and sorry, there is no Tikka on this earth that could ever get close to that baby by a long way. .But neither is anything else I will ever own. (Its like comparing a Tasco with a Zeiss.....)

As for the comment "High quality scopes, on the other hand, generally have a definite edge in ruggedness, reliability and low light performance over many of the cheaper brands in the most part I agree with you. But it comes at a significant cost increase same as the more expensive rifles.

The reason you use to justify the cheaper rifle can be applied to the scope choice in the same manner as the reason you use to justify a better scope can be applied to someone's rifle choice. In short, your reasoning is exactly what suits a lot of shooters but not all. Some shooters cannot spend $4k on a scope and make do with what fits within their budget. (that includes me)

You would spend $1300 on a rifle rather than $5K because the size of the increase in performance does not match the increase in the price. ("Because a Tikka T3 would probably give a Merkel Helix or Mauser a run for their money for accuracy") To which I would reply, one of my mates Nikko / Howa combo will give any combo a run for their money for accuracy. Last group I saw was 4.6mm at 100m and then hit a magpie at 400. (204 ruger 3 shots not far enough apart to form a clover leaf, more of an odd circle.)

Others simply make the same decision regarding scopes. I can hit most of my targets (Rabbit) at 300m with a $200 scope. Will that number small number of misses justify me spending $2k more on a scope? If I can hit 10% more?, 20% more? Maybe, or maybe I am getting too the limit of my and my rifles capabilities, in which case that $2k buys a lot of ammo and hits a much larger number of rabbits......Way more fun.

As for ruggedness, I can guarantee one thing, if it is a $50 scope or a 5k scope, if you land on it hard enough it will still be broke, and the walk home worrying about how will I find the money to fix it will be way less painful than the other. (though the bruising hurts for a week or two)

Originally Posted by timattalon

I have had the luxury of trying a couple of those brands of rifles and with scopes on them that made me scared to drop it, and I was at the range table just having a look. a $12k rifle, with a $9k scope, and sorry, there is no Tikka on this earth that could ever get close to that baby by a long way. But neither is anything else I will ever own.

As for the comment "High quality scopes, on the other hand, generally have a definite edge in ruggedness, reliability and low light performance over many of the cheaper brands in the most part I agree with you. But it comes at a significant cost increase same as the more expensive rifles.

The reason you use to justify the cheaper rifle can be applied to the scope choice in the same manner as the reason you use to justify a better scope can be applied to someone's rifle choice. In short, your reasoning is exactly what suits a lot of shooters but not all. Some shooters cannot spend $4k on a scope and make do with what fits within their budget. (that includes me)

You would spend $1300 on a rifle rather than $5K because the size of the increase in performance does not match the increase in the price. ("Because a Tikka T3 would probably give a Merkel Helix or Mauser a run for their money for accuracy")

Others simply make the same decision regarding scopes. I can hit most of my targets (Rabbit) at 300m with a $200 scope. Will that number small number of misses justify me spending $2k more on a scope? If I can hit 10% more?, 20% more? Maybe, or maybe I am getting too the limit of my and my rifles capabilities, in which case that $2k buys a lot of ammo and hits a much larger number of rabbits......Way more fun.

As for ruggedness, I can guarantee one thing, if it is a $50 scope or a 5k scope, if you land on it hard enough it will still be broke, and the walk home worrying about how will I find the money to fix it will be way less painful than the other. (though the bruising hurts for a week or two)

We share the same philosophy. Doesn't really worry me that a cheap scope will give me 1 or 2 minutes less shooting time in the day than one that would cost 10x + the outlay. If it is not light enough when varminting a $100 torch will more than make up the difference in scopes.

Originally Posted by timattalon

The reason you use to justify the cheaper rifle can be applied to the scope choice in the same manner as the reason you use to justify a better scope can be applied to someone's rifle choice. In short, your reasoning is exactly what suits a lot of shooters but not all. Some shooters cannot spend $4k on a scope and make do with what fits within their budget. (that includes me)..........

.........As for ruggedness, I can guarantee one thing, if it is a $50 scope or a 5k scope, if you land on it hard enough it will still be broke, and the walk home worrying about how will I find the money to fix it will be way less painful than the other. (though the bruising hurts for a week or two)

In short, that is not my reasoning at all.

Rifles have a different function than scopes and the analogy you use is flawed because of that. A lower cost rifle (not shotgun) and I used the Tikka T3 as an example because of it's known accuracy, will do what an expensive rifle will do. Admittedly that doesn't always apply to all lower cost rifles. A Nikko Stirling won't do what a Schmidt & Bender or Nightforce will do and almost certainly won't stand up better if you "land on it".

I've tried some very expensive rifles too and frankly I'd rather use my Sako 85 deer rifle. It's reliable, very accurate, functions perfectly and handles well for me and will easily do everything that the most expensive rifle available will do. I can't say the same about the two Nikko Stirling scopes which I owned in bygone days. They both fogged, and had unreliable adjustments.

However, I have no need for a S&B or Nightforce as they're too heavy for what I need. My Zeiss Diatal and Kahles scopes do everything I want and are lighter.

this has gone a bit off course but anyway in my personal experiance with the shitty nikkos they fit my budget ive yet to have a faulty one they adjust how any scope should they hold zero i can clearly see and idenify my target at all magnifications the ones ive had out in the most crappy weather didnt fog theyve handeld the knocks that comes with hunting they are good enough in evening and dawn to id targets the people ive suggested them to have been happy with them im not going to cry if i break one and they get used a lot in any weather not sit in a safe about the only down side for me is i dont even get a look in if guys want to stand around and brag about their expensive beautifull scopes but thats ok ill just take mine out and use them