Author Topic: Scope choice (Read 663 times)

Wild Man · « **on:** December 05, 2005, 07:01:18 AM »

I just got my BAR chambered in .270 back from the gunsmith and I need to get a new scope. I am looking at the Nikon Pro. A local dealer has a sale on right now for a 3X9X40 for $129. Are the Nikon Pro series worth buying or should I step up to a higher end Nikon (UCC, Buckmaster) or forget about Nikon and get a Leupold? Any thoughts???

TheOpticZone · « **Reply #1 on:** December 05, 2005, 08:33:09 AM »

Wild man,

The Nikon ProStaff is a very good entry level scope. You may want to shop around a little. The sale price by your local dealer is actually higher than our every day price, if we are talking about a matte finish scope. With your rifle and if you don't mind speading a little more, I would step up to the Buckmaster. At a $50.00 difference, you will notice a difference optically with the buckmaster.

jamie · « **Reply #2 on:** December 05, 2005, 01:18:27 PM »

I agree with Jon and the Buckmaster scopes. I put a 4.5x14x42 Buckmaster on 6mm Rem for prairie poodles and it is a very nice scope. I have nothing to complain about it. I love it and everyone that has looked through it loves it.

Don Fischer · « **Reply #3 on:** December 05, 2005, 02:11:48 PM »

I bought a Buckmaster for a .243 win and haven't a complaint one. Well maybe one but nothing to do with the scope. My all time favorite hunting scope is an old 2 3/4 Redfield widefield. I've used it on a 338 win mag, a 7x57, a 308 win and now on a 30-06. My next favorite scope was the old 4x Redfield. I used it on a 7mm Rem mag, a 280 rem, another 338 win mag. another 308 win and another 7x57. The reticule was always the old 4 Plex CCH. Friends shot 2x7 and 3x9 scopes and alwaws carried them set on no more than 4x. Either the 2 3/4 or 4x gives plenty of magnification for any big game at any reasonable range.

Its unfortunate that so many people really seem to believe that shooting at ranges that necessitate high magnification, is necessary at all.

Grubbs · « **Reply #4 on:** December 06, 2005, 01:06:37 PM »

The Burris FFII is a great scope at a great price. Durable, fully multi-coated optics.

lostsniper308 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 06, 2005, 05:46:08 PM »

Any one of the suggestions will do. I have the 3-9x40 Prostaff and i love it.

Zachary · « **Reply #6 on:** December 07, 2005, 02:46:48 AM »

The Nikon Buckmaster used to be the Pre-Monarch. Back then, before there were any Monarchs, Nikons were just called Nikons - and I owned quite a few of them and ALL of them performed flawlessly.

Today, the buckmaster line still has the same high quality construction, but now comes with better optics. Specifically, the Buckmasters used to have about 88% light transmission, but now they have about 92%.

For the money, it is hard to beat a Nikon Buckmaster. Now, if you really want a scope with rainguard, then it is hard to beat an Elite 3200 (which may cost a bit more and have about 88% light transmission).

Jon at the optic zone knows what he is talking about - he has sold me quite a few Nikons and Elites over the past years, both before he was even a member of this site, through today as he is one of our prized sponsors.

Spend a little extra money and get the Buckmaster - you will be so glad that you did! :grin:

Zachary

poncaguy · « **Reply #7 on:** December 07, 2005, 07:02:56 AM »

I like my 2 Buckmasters, one older model and one new model, better than my 3200...........

Wild Man · « **Reply #8 on:** December 07, 2005, 08:08:36 AM »

Thanks all. I think I will go with the Buckmaster. I have a monarch 3.5x10x50 on a Rem. 700 in 7mm mag that I have had no problems with.

Jon I will be sending in a order shortly after the holidays.

Merry christmas to all.

Wes