I'm not interested in wasting my money to find out that NIKON (which as I have looked at them and thru them and they have great optical clarity and contrast, n'fact my binocs are Nikon) scopes cannot provide the solid consisitency, repeatability and zero holding abilities of the Leupold.
When and if I ever see a Nikon scope a old as my 15 year old Leupold that has gone for more than 5 years straight and never been "re-zeroed" by an owner that shoots from 100 to 1000 yards and everywhere in-between on a weekly basis and SEE with my own eyes that it is dead on the money every time, at every range, THEN I will believe that it might be possible that NIKON is worth my money.
Until then I will assume that most of the hawkers of Nikon, Nightforce, IOR and other brands, don't have a back yard that looks like this:
and don't use them and depend on them with the same level of confidence that I and many, many others that love long range shooting enjoy.
At that time, you will also begin to see the other brands showing up on the rifles of long range shooters.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they aren't capable, I'm just saying they are NOT worth wasting my money on, not when I can get a "proven" performer simply by sticking w/ Leupold.
My new GenII recticled 6.5x20x40mm Leupold from Premier Recticle, has mil-dots "etched" in the first plane which makes ranging at any power possible, whether or not the Nikon offers that as an option, I have no idea.
You asked what Leupold has that Nikon don't, IMO that's the REPUTATION as being A PROVEN TOP PERFORMER in long range optics.
Don't knock it or me for providing what your asked for. If you don't like the answer don't ask the question.
Mike