I’ve been a Nikon fan for a long time since I feel their optics are some of the best available. I recently had a chance to test their warranty.
I had an early model 4-12X40 scope which had seen a lot of use as evidenced by the scratches and dings on it. The adjustable objective must have gotten tweaked a bit and the focus out past 200 yd wasn’t as crisp as it should have been.
I sent it to the Nikon factory for repair and asked them to send me an estimate of the repair cost.
Nine days later, I received a brand new 4-12X40 Monarch scope in the mail. The enclosed invoice said “warranty-no charge”.
It doesn’t get any better than that.

Great to know... My last 2 scope purchases have been Nikon Monarchs.  Doing a side by side with Leupold convinced me that Nikon was optically the superior scope in both cases.  Nice to know that their warranty is the equal of the scopes.

I agree. I've done the same comparison using my Nikons and my Leupolds. My results were the same as yours.
Another plus for Nikon is they supply lens covers with their scopes which Leupold doesn't do. When I questioned the Leupold factory rep about that, she explained there are so many lens cover choices available, they simply choose not to supply any.
That statement sort of soured me on Leupold since my search for lens covers has uncovered two types: the bikini type and the flip up style. Hardly an overwhelming variety.

I am kinda of a "glass" guy, as I have been a professional cinematographer for 25 or more years. I look through lenses for a living and these start out at about $8,000 a pop. for the basic 15x Zoom on a Digital Betacam to the 35mm Ziess Super Speeds.
I too have bought quite a few Nikon Monarchs and have found that they look sharper and do not have the slight yellow that the Leupold V-XIII's have. I have never used their warrenty and that has always been the one question mark I have had. On one hand it is intresting to note that I have never needed factory service, but on the other hand it is nice to know how they work.
I have both Leupold and Nikon, but my nod goes to the Nikon Monarch.
BTW have you guys taken a look at the newest 30mm Nikon Monarch Gold with side focus? They look pretty cool.

Bill

I too have had Nikon replace a scope no questions asked. It was a 1.5 to 4.5 that was no longer in focus at 4.5X. I a received new scope 1.5 to 4.5X in about 2 weeks. The old scope had seen a lot of recoil on a slug gun that now wears a Leupold. In my mind Leupold is tougher and more durable, but Nikon gets the edge in optical clarity and light transmission. I recently bought a new Monarch Gold for a Benelli R1 in 30-06;if I had ordered the 300 Win. Mag,I would have gone Leupold.

Interesting thread, as I like and own both NIKON and Leupold scopes.
I agree with the clarity/NIKON and strength/Leupold statements, too.
One thing the Leupold does have over the NIKON, besides nice packaging..., is a bit more eye relief.
For that reason, I may be getting another Leupold for my A-Bolt II in .375 H&H!!!
I believe it's the better choice considering the cartridge it'll be riding on.

I've had a Nikon 3-9 pwr on my .338 Win Mag for the past three years. It has held up to the recoil very well so far.