Bushnell 3200 vs nikon buckmaster for backup scope?

R

Recoiljunky

New member
After my leupold died I've decided I need a backup scope to keep me in the field in thoes oh **** moment. So I've got It narrowed down between the bushnell 3200 and the nikon buckmaster both in 3-9x40. It would only be used for hunting durring daylight hours and would be mounted on a rem 700 in 270 if that helps. All opinions are welcome. Whitch one would be better?



Thanks,
Steve
 
I'm not big on Nikon, so I would go with the Bushnell if that were the only two choices I had. You might also look at the new Redfield. Price is right, lifetime warranty, made in the USA by Leuopld. I got one for my son, and it is as good as the Leupold VX1 as near as I can tell.

Bill
 
As far as leupold when I called for the warranty on my vxii it's not a warrenty I have to pay for shipping and repaires so that's the reason I left out leupold, and can I ask why you guys don't like nikon? my dad has a monarch and that thing is sweet.
 
Nikon has failed me twice in the field. I won't give them a chance at a third time. I'm not going to retell my experiences a little search on here will get my personal thoughts and experiences. I can say I have never sent a Leupold back because of failure so I cannot comment on the repair/warranty. Nikon did send me a new scope after the second time but I sold it without ever mounting it so at least their warranty works.
 
I have 3 Nikon's (2 prostaff and 1 buckmaster) never had any trouble with any of them. Never used a Bushnell 3200 so can't comment on them. I woulprobably go with the Nikon although Natchezz (IIRC) is having a closeout sale on Bushnells.
 
Find a Nikon Primos. It is a 3-9x40 with BDC. Has Monarch quality glass and can be had for under $200.
Click to expand...

+1. These are re-branded Nikon Monarchs 3x9s. Nikon is no longer making 3x9s in the Monarch series so these scopes are going for a song (well almost.) I've got two of them and they are very nice.

If you google, you can find them online very easily.
 
I actually own both. I have the 3200 on a sako .30-06 and a Buckmaster 4.5-15 mil-dot on a Stevens 200 .300 win mag.

I have no complaints with either. the Buckmaster holds a good zero with a high recoil gun. I like the reticle on the Nikon and the clarity.

The Bushnell looks better on the rifle. The only thing i would not get with the Bushnell is the Firefly reticle.

If i had to choose just one, it would all be based off price. They are very close in performance
 
Last edited:
krey is right

Some great deals on scopes right now.
If you've ever wanted a Nikon M-223 series scope,
Starting April 1 there is going to be a very generous promotion.
Keep your eyes peeled guys.
 
I think the m223 wouldn't holdup on a 270 because it was designed for a 223. And I don't wanna be the Guinae pig to test that out. But it does seem like a cool scope
 
Recoil

The M-223 will hold up to a .270. I know guys that have put Nikon's 2-8 BDC on their AR 10 just because they wanted something sleeker. It is a Monarch scope thru and thru. It is no less sturdy just because the BDC is designed for a .223 cal.. By utilizing Nikon's Spot On ballistic Match Technology Program it is easy to get the corresponding distances for the 2-8 BDC in a different cal.
Bart
 
Check out vortexoptics.com the diamondback series is going for around $200 and has several choices for reticle including bullet drop comp. and comes with a forever warranty. Check it out before you decide. Also their viper series is very nice starting around $360. I have looked through both at the store and they are clearer than the Nikon buckmaster but I have never compared it to the bushnell. ( I don't particularly care for bushnell and will not buy another one there are too many scopes on the market that are better for the same price)[that will probably get the bushnell lovers mad at me but its my opinion]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top