is one really better than the other. I'm about to buy another scope. Have never had a 4x12x40. Am trying to choose between a nikon buckmaster or a leupold. What do you think. Also, is a x50 worth the extra money

It really depends on the caliber and your shot opportunities. I'd get the 4-12x almost every time. But I lean towards high power scopes. A lot of people don't. But I look at this way. The difference is 1X on the low end, but 3x on the high end. A scope WILL gather more light on the low power setting. So if you'll be in low light conditions most of the time, then the 3x will be slightly better. When light is not an issue, which is most of the time while deer hunting, I'll take that extra 3x on the top end every time.

A.O.'s; When you max the power on the scope with an A.O., there is a parallax adjustment for the distance you'll have to make. So that's another factor. Most of the time you can set this for the max distance you'd be likely to shoot on a given hunt, then just turn the scope down a little bit if something comes out closer that you want to shoot. That's the way I do it, and I rarely have to touch my parallax adjustment in the field.

50mm objectives. I don't like them. They add too much bulk to the rig, and I have never seen the added bulk be all that beneficial. I can shoot pigs with my scope set on 6x with no moon at 50yds.

Now if it's gonna be a night hunting rig, then yeah, low power and big objectives are the way to go. Just make sure you get a scope that can truly take advantage of a 50mm objective.


Jay

IMO I would never buy a Nikon, although I haven't really seen the higher end ones. I prefer 3-9, but only because they're usually a little cheaper. I use 40 mm because the 50 sits way too high. The 50 LX by Leupold (I think thats the scope name) is a 50 that has a curve cut in the bottom so you can use it like a 40, but that scope is about 900 bucks.
Zeiss' Conquest series is a great scope for the money. You should be able to find one for 400 bucks. I was a big fan of Leupold until I bought my Zeiss. I still like the Leupold, but the Zeiss has a longer Eye relief and the lenses are a little clearer than similar priced Leupolds.
As far as "gathering light", scopes don't actually "gather" light. They transmit it. Scopes look brighter on low power because the image coming out of the ocular lense (the lense you look through) is a larger image from being focused up close. It's really hard to explain all about it without using pictures so I'm gonna stop there. I'll try to find a good site and direct you there.
As far as a choice, if you already have a 3-9, I would get a 4-12 and see which one you like more. You have to take into consideration how far you typically shoot. If you never take shots more than 100 yds but have a good chance of taking shots at 20 yds I would get the 3-9. If you never take shots under 20-30 yds and sometimes past 150 I would get the 4-12. Hope this helps.

http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/Parallax.asp
http://www.opticsplanet.net/how-to-choose-riflescope.html
http://www.nightvisionplanet.com/Articles.asp?ID=124

Some of that info you probably already know, but I hope that most of it will help you in your decision.

This maybe a tad late
I have leopold 3x9x50 rifleman on my rifle and a nikon 3x9x40 prostaff (i think x40) on my sons rifle. Leopold better in low light by far. I think its due the x50 vs x40.
Unless your varmit hunting 3x9 would do as good as a 4x12 IMO.
Then again the rifles with the most kills on our place are topped with 4x Weavers.

Umm...I wouldn't use that "rifles with the most kills" part to determine which is better. All that means is there was more of them.
Scope choice is usually just a personal preference. There isn't too much difference in a 3-9 and a 4-12.
I'll bet that a 40mm leupold will still have better light transmission than a 40 mm nikon. I haven't seen one of the new Nikons though, the ones are that around $400. The lenses of a scope have a lot to do with how bright it is.

I have been upgrading all my scopes to 4-16x50's or 6-20x50's. Any size scope can and will get the job done, but I just have a personal preference of wanting an up close and personal look at critters.

the light intensity probably weighs more with the quality of lenses..but i use all 3X9X40 leupold got a vx-II and a rifleman


ac

I agree, these rifles are much older, They have had more "work" time, some in the 30-40 yr if not older range. BUT, they are still accurate, work great, just no frills.
CK did you have a bad experience with Nikon? The one we have is a walmart sold unit, not high dollar and so far no complaints.

Just didn't like their lenses. I know people who have used them, I just don't. But like I said I haven't seen any of the new series. They also have a smaller Ocular lense (the one you look into). My Zeiss has a big ocular lense, as do my Bushnell Elites. The leupolds are great too, I just prefer the others. Zeiss I think is by far the best quality scope for the money. $450 bucks gets an incredible scope. I have used Leupolds and I like the Zeiss way more. In fact all my optics from now on will be Zeiss, except when I finally get my .338 Lapua sniper rifle.

I have two VXII 3x9's and they are great scopes. I have a nkon buckmaster 4x12 and a monarch 4x12. I DO NOT like the buckmaster. I just don't think that the optics are in line with the VXII's. The monarch is a great scope. If you decide to go nikon that is the scope I'd recommend. Don't forget Burris they make a nice product for a fair price. As far as 3x9 or 4 x 12 I don't think it matter too much unless your going to make some 300 plus yard shots, which I don't do.

I have one VXIII 5.5x16 and 3 Nikon Monarch 4.5x14's. The Nikon is just as good as the Leupold if not better at a much lower price.
I agree, the Nikon Buckmaster scopes are not very good at all.

I think my next scope will be a 6x fixed power. When I'm in the field I rarely change the power setting and my shots are usually no longer than 200 yards, with the bulk being inside 100.

I figure I can get a very high quality 6x fixed for <$300 and I'd never miss the upper end.

Just another option to consider.

And FWIW, I have a 4x12x40 VX2 on my 270.

I'm currently lusting after a Leupold FX-II 6x36 or maybe the 6x42 ...

The Nikon MONARCH lines are rated higher than Leupold VX2's and Zeiss Conquests.

Oh, and they are less money!

Back to your 3x9 to 4x12 question....I personally like 4x12, but I shoot with a 3x9 on my .270 WSM and I would have no problems shooting past 250 with it on 9 power.

have two older Nikons-4-12x50 AO that i paid close to 500.00 for years ago.when put on a light transmitting setup,they were hands down better than the Leupolds that i had at the time.
don't know about the newer,cheaper ones.
prefer the 4-12 vs the 3-9.
bottom value isn't much different,but the upper is 3x more,and sometimes that is significant.
don't notice much difference in the 40 vs 50mm as far as height and weight,but that's just me.

I have a little of about everything...I will say that I was most impressed with the Nikon Monarch 2.5-10x42 BDC. I had never used any Nikon products until I shot with this scope and are really looking at some of their other products as well. I have two new Zeiss Conquest on two of my Model 10 Predators and I believe that the Nikon is a little brighter and has better definition. There are just a lot of really good optics out there today. I think that a hunter needs to consider the application and what he is willing to pay. Zeiss, Pentax, Nikon and Leupold are all great companies making great products and they are not the only ones.

leupold is a much better scope in my opinion. and the customer service is top notch. i would go 4-12, thats what i have on all mine. 3-9 is good too but there is more versatility on the 4-12. as far as light transmission, i think the leupold gathers more than the nikon. much clearer to me. the 50 will sit high on your rig, unless you go with leupold's 50mmVL, but i dont think its worth that much extra money...