A 20mm objective lens is mathematically going to be suffering with light transmission at 4x, regardless if it's $3k glass.
At 7x my leupold is dragging in as much light as that is at 4x while being lighter, and roughly the same length. Not to mention the leupold has a larger objective and is illuminated.
The nikon m223 sacrifices things off my list which is why it's a budget optic. It's in the same league as the leupold mark AR series. Which lets start splitting hair here, shall we?
First off, the M223 isn't true 1x regardless how it's advertised, at least leupold isn't trying to fool people and marks theirs as 1.5-4x.
Weight, the M223 is 13.93oz! The mark AR 1.5-4x is 9.5oz.
Size, the M223 is 10.35" long, the mark AR is 9.2" long.
FOV, the M223 offers 23.1'@100yrds(4x) and 92.9'@100yrds(1x), the mark AR offers 28.5'@100yrds(4x) and 75.0'@100yrds(1.5x).
Price for the nikon M223 is $230, price of the mark AR is $260, taking the prices from the same retailer.
Tell me what exactly makes it a better optic?