Author Topic: nikon buckmaster 2005 92% LIGHT TRANSMISSION (Read 904 times)

sport · « **on:** April 20, 2005, 12:10:57 PM »

WONDERING IF ANYONE HAS CHECKED THEM OUT AND COULD GIVE OPINIONS VERUS 2004 MODEL, IS THERE A DIFFERENCE THATS NOTICEABLE THANKS

TheOpticZone · « **Reply #1 on:** April 20, 2005, 02:02:39 PM »

We have received some of them and they seem very nice. They are brighter than the older versions, but not a substantial difference. Can not complain with the upgrade for the same price as last year or a very slight increase in price.

DHB · « **Reply #2 on:** April 21, 2005, 04:07:41 AM »

Jon,
Tell me again how you rank the new BM 4.5-14 against the Burris FF, Bushnell 3200, Leupold VXII etc, etc.

Thanks
Dave

Zachary · « **Reply #3 on:** April 21, 2005, 04:17:56 PM »

BM and Elite 3200 a virtual tie,
then VXII
then Burris FF

Zachary

TheOpticZone · « **Reply #4 on:** April 22, 2005, 01:10:59 AM »

Zachary,

I actually would put the Buckmaster ahead of the Elite optically wise, since the upgrade. The BM and the VX-II are very close, but you get a better price with the Nikon. I have not been too impressed with the Fullfield II, but they is just my opinion.

BackCountry · « **Reply #5 on:** April 22, 2005, 07:32:31 PM »

Hey Jon,

I was just wondering if you are going to carry any of the Swarovski line.

Thanks

TheOpticZone · « **Reply #6 on:** April 23, 2005, 02:11:18 AM »

We will not be at this time. Maybe in the near future we will.

vernonp · « **Reply #7 on:** April 23, 2005, 02:44:42 AM »

I always knew we all had different hearing, taste, vision and so forth, but I thought that when we looked through a scope and set it for our eye that we would see the same thing. That is evidently not so.-------I was envolved with other things for several years and got away from shooting and hunting. When I started back I took the advice of members of this forum on what scopes I thought would be the best for me. I live in a small town and can not compare most of the scopes side by side. In the past six months I have purchased a Nikon Monarch 3x9x40, a Bushnell 3200 3x9x40 and a Leupold FX 4, all from Jon at the Optic Zone.------They are all very good scopes and I am happy with them all. The manufacturers advertising on the scopes for brightness, eye relief and so on does not always match up with what I see.----------The Monarch is advertised to have 95% light transmission and I beleive the 3200 is advertised to have 88% light transmission. To my eye the 3200 is brighter than the Monarch. The 3200 is also said to have a constant eye relief of 3.3. This is not true with my scope. When I move it from 3 power to nine I have to move forward quite a bit to get the same sight picture. All of my scopes are of course fine in good light but as the light fades the Leupold is useless long before the others are.---------I have a hard time believeing that everyone else would see this the same way. There seems to be far more people use the Leupolds than anything else. I'm talking about experienced riflemen and hunters. If we all saw the same through the scopes, I can not understand why anyone would continue to pay more for a Leupold that to my eye is so inferior to the other two in light gathering qualities. --This may be why there is such dissagreement on scopes, we do not see the same thing when we look through them.------------vernonp

Zachary · « **Reply #8 on:** April 25, 2005, 09:49:18 AM »

Quote from: TheOpticZone

Zachary,

I actually would put the Buckmaster ahead of the Elite optically wise, since the upgrade. The BM and the VX-II are very close, but you get a better price with the Nikon. I have not been too impressed with the Fullfield II, but they is just my opinion.

Jon,

I both understand and agree that the new BM is optically better than the Elite 3200, but the reason that I would chose the 3200 over the new BM is because of the rainguard. I must say, it is a tough call between the 3200 and the BM. I guess that we both know that if someone buys either one, then they can't go wrong. :wink:

Zachary

fatboy · « **Reply #9 on:** May 05, 2005, 07:26:36 AM »

I own several Bushnell Elite 3200's in 3-9X50 but I thought I would try a Nikon Monarch 3.5-10X50 with it's advertised 95% light transmission the Nikon is a decent scope but I will never buy another one at twice the price of the elite 3200 you would think it would be a much better scope. I took both out in the late afternoon and the Bushnell is noticeably brighter and the crosshair is easier to see, so save yourself some money and buy two of the Elite 3200's and forget the overpriced Nikon Monarchs

Squeeze · « **Reply #10 on:** May 10, 2005, 02:47:56 AM »

I have to chime in here on the topic of Nikon versus Bushnell.
I have posted on this in the past, and have exchanged replies
with Jon, in the past also. So this is just to give moral support to
those that see brighter out of the Bushnells, versus the Nikon
Monarchs...Me too. I have a Bushnell 4200 6-24, a Bushnell
3200 2-7, and a Nikon Monarch 5.5-16.5. One day they all
ended up on the bench, looking down the same dark range
(the last half of the distance to my 100 yard backstop is through
a heavy deciduous forest). I set all the scopes to 7x, and did
a side by side comparison. The Bushnell 4200 was noticeably
brighter, and even appeared somewhat clearer than the Nikon.
The 3200 was about equal to the Nikon. Add Rainguard, and
this is a "No Contest".

I have repeated this comparisons, adding my Leupold VXII 4-12,
and my Mueller 4-16. The Leupold brings up the rear, in my tests,
but with it sitting on a 300 WSM, that I have loaded hot, I am
thankful for the long eye relief. It may not be the brightest, or the
clearest, or the cheapest, but I do like it's 4" eye relief. If one of
these other brands would give me that, I would honestly say that
Leupold would never see any of my money. The Mueller was
the real surprise. It was right in the hunt with the Bushnell
3200, and the Nikon Monarch, clarity, and brightness, wise.
With a friendly price tag, it comes down to how the scope
will be used. If the rifle is going to see wet conditions, then
I'd be inclined to buy the Bushnell Elite, if not, then I'd be
thinking Mueller.

Back to my point. To those that see brighter out of the Bushnells
versus the Nikons, you are not alone.

Squeeze

poncaguy · « **Reply #11 on:** May 10, 2005, 11:51:03 AM »

Nikon and Bushnell are my favorite scopes, and now Mueller too.For the money, Bushnell Banners are surprisingly good scopes. Just recently got a new Buckmaster 3X9 from Jon. It seems brighter than my 3 year old Buckmaster 3X9. Also got a new Mueller 2X7 from Jon, really impressed with it, put it on my Handi 45-70.