Author Topic: Nikon Buckmaster ? (Read 1024 times)

matt d · « **on:** August 19, 2003, 12:50:54 PM »

I am looking at a Nikon Buckmaster 4.5 - 14 - 40 with mil dot reticle and OA. I may put it on my .17 or my .270. Does anyone know anything about this scope? Keep in mind that I'm financially chalenged.
thanks, Matt d.

Zachary · « **Reply #1 on:** August 20, 2003, 01:37:32 AM »

The Buckmaster scopes are essentially Pre-Monarch scopes. Their light transmission is about 88% and it has a one-piece tube. For the money, the Buckmasters are hard to beat, with the exception of the Elite 3200s.

Although I like the Monarchs better than the Buckmasters, the Buckmasters are still great scopes and I strongly recommend them for scopes in the $200 range. :grin:

Zachary

Cabin4 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 20, 2003, 06:29:06 AM »

Which is preferred/better, the 3200 or a Buckmaster ?

TheOpticZone · « **Reply #3 on:** August 20, 2003, 06:51:15 AM »

Hey Cabin,

Which one is preferred/better, Big Mac or Whopper? Just kidding. :lol:

Zachary · « **Reply #4 on:** August 20, 2003, 06:54:21 AM »

Cabin,

I would say the Elite 3200, mostly because it has rainguard but also because I think that it is just a tad bit better built.

Oh, Jon, I would say the Whopper - gotta love that flame broiled taste!

Zachary

matt d · « **Reply #5 on:** August 20, 2003, 06:57:17 AM »

Zachary,
thanks for the input. I consitered getting the Monarch but I fugured that I wouldn't be shooting my .17 in low light situations so monarch wouldnt be worth the money. Do you or anyone else have any comments on my theory?
Thanks,
Matt d.

Zachary · « **Reply #6 on:** August 20, 2003, 07:48:21 AM »

The theory is fine - I would do the same thing. Keep in mind that many people wouldn't even put a Buckmaster on a gun like a .17 or .22. Rather, most people would simply put a cheaper $40 scope on it.

Go ahead and get the Buckmaster since low-light really is not an important factor to you. (But don't think that the Buckmaster is a bad choice because it's glass is still very good!)

Again, your theory is fine.

Zachary

matt d · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2003, 08:28:50 AM »

I am glad to get your reply. You are very right most people would only put a forty dollar scope on but I believe that optics makes shooting more fun and raises the bar as far as the gun and shooters potential. I have a cheap scope on my .22 and I am fine with it but that is where I draw the line. Thanks again for your input,
matt d

Zachary · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2003, 08:53:54 AM »

No problem. Just let us know how you like the scope after you mount it. :grin:

Zachary

Bullseye · « **Reply #9 on:** August 20, 2003, 03:37:14 PM »

Heck, I just put a Leopold on a 22 that I had a Tasco on for years. My wife sighted it in for me and tells me that the new scope is sure better than the old. Pretty amazing considering she just usually uses whatever and never notices. I say go with good glass if you can afford it (whatever brand).

matt d · « **Reply #10 on:** August 21, 2003, 08:27:07 AM »

Your absolutely right. Good optics are great and I'll will upgrade all scopes as I find it possible. I purchased the buckmaster. Thanks for everyones comments. I'll will have an opinion on it soon. I'll sight it in after work. Can't wait.

ps. Your wife shoots! your my hero. I haven't found a girl in Cali. that shoots a rifle. Stuck up &*%#s

Bullseye · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2003, 02:07:23 PM »

My wife not only shoots but she hunts. She took off work last Friday and went squirrel hunting on opening day. I would do that for deer but not for a tree rat, she had to go by herself.

Zachary · « **Reply #12 on:** August 22, 2003, 03:06:12 AM »

Why can't I find girls like that.

Zachary

matt d · « **Reply #13 on:** August 22, 2003, 11:01:31 AM »

She have a sister? :grin: