Nikon scopes.

Will do. I was looking for something that would be a bit more rugged. From what I gathered the SS scopes give up a little bit of clarity and added that money to the robustness of the scope which I'm ok with. I'll let ya know when I get it in hand.
 
I have nikons and leopolds

And I will still buy Nikon's. I can't tell the difference for the price. I have never had either fail. My father In Law can't tell the difference either.



steve
 
PaBuckSlayer,

First off howdy from Jersey, Trenton-area brotha... and Altoona college-born-and-bred lol.


Anyway, you hit it RIGHT ON THE HEAD, the Nikon BDC reticle and spot-on-Software make for the absolute best firing solution system Outside of being an actual US Army/USMC trained sniper w/ their mil-dot- or whatever system they use, outside of that, the Nikon SpotOn and BDC is absolutely TREMENDOUS.

You simply zero your rifle at your chosen distance (OR USE the SpotOn for calculating how to say, shoot your rifle at for example the 50 yd. line but want a 100 yd zero, etc.) AND then imput your Scope, your Caliber , your Ammo brand and exact type, And your magnification , it gives you exact distances the 4 BDC dots represent point-of-impact/aim.

So for example, my new Remington 700 AAC-SD .308 will be wearing my new Nikon Monarch 5-20x44mm BDC SF scope. I bought a single box of 20 rounds, Federal Power Shok 180gr. Soft Point .308 rounds with the rifle, simply so I wasn't going home with a brand new rifle but empty. I load up Spot On software from NikonHunting.com , and proceed to input my parameters (Personal weaponry info) etc.

It then shows me, say I zero my rifle at 100 yds, and I zoom in to 20x (Which I calculated this at), I have BDC dots to make impacts at 186 yds, 267 yds, 337 yds, 435 yds, and 520 yds @ the top of the bottom reticle stadia.

Just for kicks, if we scale back to 5x... The BDC dots represent impacting at 352 yds, 560 yds, 715 yds, 905 yds, and 1056 yds @ the top of the bottom reticle stadia.


IMHO this is absolutely PRICELESS and invaluable to someone with a firm prep background, someone concerned about SHTF, urban unrest, government declaring martial law, financial collapse, civil war, etc; any of that stuff. For someone like me , a Scrappy Suburban Sniper lol , this is PRICELESS.. having these types of calculations done for me GREATLY increases my chance of effective fire in an emergency situation. Will I EVER have to fire my rifle in anger/in defense? Probably NOT ever. *IF* I do? Having run a few SpotOn calculations and recording the data for use could mean the difference between life and death, hitting or missing, saving the day/land/house/family or losing.
 
These topics get too heated. Everyone has an opinion as to what optics is the "best". Its very difficult to test scopes without proper equipment so most of what people say isn't based on too many facts. I have optics from many brands (Nightforce , Zeiss Conquest/ Darivari, Swarovski, Nikon, Leupold, Steiner) I feel the playing field has become level over the years. Optic quality has improved in leaps and bounds. I myself have never had a scope fail on me. I hunt, plink, and shoot competition as well. As far as Nikons my Ar Carbine that I compete with has a Nikon M223 1-4x on it. I guess its been about 2years now. I shoot anywhere from 7yds to 200yds at my matches. I have yet to had the scope loose zero or give me any issues. Im old school and I check my zero a lot and get made fun of. Its always dead on. Keep in mind at my shoots I place in the top two places everything. I wouldn't run an optic that would ruin my chances. I crank the turrets and throw my rifle around a lot. Ive shot out to 800yds with my Nikons and there work great. Nikon seems to take a beating on a lot of forums.
 
I agree that there isn't a lot of difference optically between most of the better brands of riflescopes these days. Where the main differences lie is in the features and weight. If I was wanting a lightweight scope Nikon wouldn't be my first choice as their 3-9 Buckmaster comes in about 30% heavier than a Leupold VX2 3-9 and almost 50% heavier than the Ultralight model. To me there is a lot more to compare than price and power range. The top two choices for lightweight optics IMO is Swarovski and Leupold, and the Swaro's are out of my price range.

To a lot of people weight isn't a real consideration and for my varmint/target rifles it isn't as well. Most of my non hunting rifles use other optics than Leupold. The majority of my rifles that get hunted on a regular basis wear Leupold VX-II or better, and the are worth every penny I spent on them.
 
Saltydog235 said:
Give us some feedback on it when you get a chance. I've heard excellent things about those optics but never had an opportunity to put my hands on one.
Click to expand...

I'm very happy with my SS 10X42, Lot of scope for the money, 30mm tube, side focus, target turrets, long eye relief and large eye box.

SWFA has two models of the Super Sniper 10X42, first is the basic 10X42 and the second is the 10X42HD

The HD is 9oz heavier from the metal gear set in the adjustment mechanism. The HD has slightly less eye relief but it's more than enough for large caliber, just under 4".

The Super Sniper has a great following at the Snipers Hide.
 
My issue were never with the optical quality of the scopes nor the warranty but instead the internals. A practically new condition scope with a detached reticle which was repaired/warrantied out only to get it back and have erector/turrets fail on me. Both issues while on hunts.

It's about price to some people, its about confidence in my gear to me. I have zero confidence in the brand. You can break anything if you try to and from time to time things do fail, its unavoidable if you do something long enough. However when you have the same product fail twice in a relatively short time, that should make anyone want to move to something different.

If you have good luck with them fantastic, glad for you. Some people don't care for Bushnell, I happen to think the Elite line is fantastic if you get to the 4200 and above. Some don't care for Weaver but the Super Slams I have are absolutely great glass.

Just glad I have the freedom to choose what I want, the opportunity to have some many manufacturers and the free speech to offer my opinions.
 
choosing

Salty, On that we agree, the ability to make the choices we want to because we live in the USA ! Let's hope we always have those freedom's.
 
Last edited:
Scope leveler

Great suggestion to the guy's Metal. I have one and love it! Being left handed and cock-eyed, according to anyone who looks at a scope I "eyeball", it is a great and easy to use tool. Good youtube vids on it as well if I recall correctly. Easy to find for less then $50 too....Christmas present...?
 
The problem to me with Nikons - especially the new SF Buckmasters - is their smallish field of view, or more correctly, a tendency toward "tunnel vision": kind of like looking down the wrong end of a scope. Imho, unless one absolutely has to have side focus, something like an AO Mueller APV in that power; or for a little more $ the great new Leupold VX 2 in 4-12x, would be a better choice.
 
Nikon upgraded the coatings on the prostaff a year or two ago. Now it's fully multicoated and the more expensive buckmaster isn't. I wonder if the buckmaster is scheduled for an update.
There were some good deals around on the old prostaffs when they changed them.
 
I have a photography background and, for the money, Nikon has always had good glass.

I have a Buckmaster 4.5-14x40 on my .308 bolt-action and a Leupold AR 3-9x40on my Stag AR and the Leupold is a little easier to shoot with as it has much better eye relief, but can't really complain about either.

Blue1
 
I will never trust my precious hunting time to anything other than Leupold. One failure in 38 years of hunting trips. And it was a 22 year-old scope that failed. after many a pack trip into the mountains on horseback. They sent me an upgraded model because they had run out of the parts to repair mine. Not many businesses like that anymore. Personally guys, I'd rather buy American products made by Americans. If I have to wait a month longer to get it, then so be it.
 
I have a Buckmaster 4.5-14x40mm BDC on my Remington 700. I don't really have any complaints; bought it on an impulse, and it works. I kind of wish the BDC rectical was on the front focal plane, though, so that the ranges don't change when you adjust the magnification.
 
If you're having "tunnel vision" you need to bring the scope back farther. Too much "relief".
Click to expand...

Nikons already have very limited eye relief. Moving it back closer to your eye still results in a black ring about twice the size of a Leupold.


Nikons Prostaff and Buckmaster have good clear glass for the money, but it is the other features that are deal killers for me. Very limited eye relief, tunnel vision, and heavy. I've got a couple of Monarchs that are much better. While the Nikons aren't a bad scope, there are better choices in the same price range.

If someone is looking at a scope in that price range the Redfield is a far better choice. If you buy a 2012 production Leupold VX-1 you are now getting the best $200 scope out there. Leupold upgraded the VX-1's and VX-2's for 2012 and they are now far superior to anything in their price ranges. My new $330 VX-2 is a better scope than a $700 Zeiss. The $200 VX-1 is very similar to a 5 year old $400 VX-3 I own.

Their reputation for toughness doesn't hurt either. I've abused several for years with no issues. Can't say the same about any other brand of scope.
 
I have one of the old prostaff scopes that was already mounted on my .308 when I bought it. Its an above average scope, it does the job.

If I were putting a scope on this rifle, it would be a Burris Fullfield II, I have one on my Mini-14 and it is awesome for $200.

The new prostaff's are probably improved over the older ones, but I'd buy a Burris before I bought the Nilkon.
 
I own two ziess conquests. Decent scopes but anyone that tells you there vastly superior to a monarch is smoking crack. My monarchs are much better in low light. Id rate the conquest about on par with a vx2 leupold or a buckmaster myself. I look at conquests with open eyes. Most think because they say ziess on them that there buying something that is a premium. Keep in mind that there top line scopes are as good as ANYTHING. But when a scope manufacture makes 2000 dollar scopes and 400 dollar scopes theres got to be ALOT of compromise to sell one a 1/4 the price. Where are they compromizing? I doubt if its the aluminum tube!! Its the lenses. Hate to say it but Japans lens making technology has caught up to the germans. Cost of labor is probalby half in japan compared to germany. Who do you think is going to produce the best bang for the buck in a scope? Sure if you want the absolute best and can afford it a hand made german or austrailian scope would be your best bet. But few of us can afford that. Just dont be fooled into thinking that ziess can make a scope for 400 that will compare to one of those 2k scopes or something in the same price range comming out of japan. It just doesnt make sense. If it were true id about bet theyd have a hell of a time selling those top end models.
 
Last edited:
IOR or Nikon

I've been a long time fan of the IOR scope line, but here in the last few months I purchased a 4.5-14x Nikon "Coyote" scope for my 243, and I must say it has some damn fine optics, very clear.

It is only a 1" tube hunting scope and doesn't have some of the features of the IOR, but I do think the glass is even better.

$1,250 vs. $350 or so.

I would certainly consider another Nikon were the need to arise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top