OK, I am not new to firearms, however, I am new the world of ARs. I have seen that lots of people like the Nikon Buckmaster, and thus, I am heavily considering that. The question I have, however, is what does ________ name $1k plus tactical scope honestly get me over a nice Nikon scope. I intend on punching paper and other amusing targets, and likely doing some hunting as well. It is unlikely I will be participating in any shortshooting competitions any time soon. As such, shouldn't the Nikon be more than what I need or am I off base. What do I gain by spending 6 times what I would pay for the Nikon.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
- Thread starter pnorris
- Start date
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
If all you will be doing is sighting the gun in at 100 yards and shooting at that distance or less, then the other brand scopes probably won't give you much other than better quality glass.
If all you will be doing is sighting the gun in at 100 yards and shooting at that distance or less, then the other brand scopes probably won't give you much other than better quality glass.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
Clarity,durability,re-sell value,certain options like zero stop,high speed turrets,illumination and clarity once again. The old saying "you get what you pay for" holds very true in this case.
Clarity,durability,re-sell value,certain options like zero stop,high speed turrets,illumination and clarity once again. The old saying "you get what you pay for" holds very true in this case.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
My use will like be up to a 200 yard range and some hunting out west when I get the chance. Do I really need the $1k plus tactical scope or will I be more than happy with the Nikon. Obviously, if I purchased the best of the best of the tactical scopes I am sure it would be better. . . . however, is it necessary. In other words, would I buying way more than I need?
My use will like be up to a 200 yard range and some hunting out west when I get the chance. Do I really need the $1k plus tactical scope or will I be more than happy with the Nikon. Obviously, if I purchased the best of the best of the tactical scopes I am sure it would be better. . . . however, is it necessary. In other words, would I buying way more than I need?
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
you will be good to go with your selection, if someday you wanna try the next tier get a 6 color reticle NCStar
you will be good to go with your selection, if someday you wanna try the next tier get a 6 color reticle NCStar
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
You'll probably get better glass that allows you to see the holes at 200 along with tactical turrets and better tracking. Tactical scopes usually have thicker bodies than hunting scopes.
Oh, forgot to mention a ranging reticle, like a mil dot.
For 200 yard shots, I don't think you really need a tactical scope unless you plan to be bumping that scope around hard. Just give your Nikon a 200 yard zero and call it good.
You'll probably get better glass that allows you to see the holes at 200 along with tactical turrets and better tracking. Tactical scopes usually have thicker bodies than hunting scopes.
Oh, forgot to mention a ranging reticle, like a mil dot.
For 200 yard shots, I don't think you really need a tactical scope unless you plan to be bumping that scope around hard. Just give your Nikon a 200 yard zero and call it good.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
Thanks for the great info. As to hunting out west, I am talking about a proghorn trip in Montana. My dad has a pos scope and he takes proghorns with his old browning 30 06 semi auto.
Thanks for the great info. As to hunting out west, I am talking about a proghorn trip in Montana. My dad has a pos scope and he takes proghorns with his old browning 30 06 semi auto.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
That being said, Does anyone make a $300 3-10 or 4-10x scope with a mildot reticle?
Also, do only high end scopes have diopter adjustments?
That being said, Does anyone make a $300 3-10 or 4-10x scope with a mildot reticle?
Also, do only high end scopes have diopter adjustments?
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
You get better optical clarity, durability, and tracking repeatability. You also generally get more elevation adjustment due to a larger 30mm + main tube. The larger main tube and objectives, along with the superior glass, will bring much more light.
I remember the first time I looked through some high end glass. I was astonished an the amount of light that was coming through the optic and how clear and crisp the entire image was. The eye relief was also much more forgiving.
If you are happy with the Buckmaster and do not need to routinely adjust your elevation and windage turrets for shots you are taking, then do yourself a favor and do not look through something like a Nightforce, Schmitdt & Bender, or Premier. If you do, you'll be ruined for good.
The Nikon Buckmaster is a great scope for the money. I had one and ended up getting rid of my lower end scopes after acquiring my first Nightforce scope. I would have kept the Buckmaster for my .22 if it would have focused well inside of 50 yards. My father in law ended up with my Buckmaster a year ago and now he is upgrading to a Nightforce.
The Buckmaster will work fine for you if you intend to punch paper and not routinely adjust the elevation and windage turrets.
You get better optical clarity, durability, and tracking repeatability. You also generally get more elevation adjustment due to a larger 30mm + main tube. The larger main tube and objectives, along with the superior glass, will bring much more light.
I remember the first time I looked through some high end glass. I was astonished an the amount of light that was coming through the optic and how clear and crisp the entire image was. The eye relief was also much more forgiving.
If you are happy with the Buckmaster and do not need to routinely adjust your elevation and windage turrets for shots you are taking, then do yourself a favor and do not look through something like a Nightforce, Schmitdt & Bender, or Premier. If you do, you'll be ruined for good.
The Nikon Buckmaster is a great scope for the money. I had one and ended up getting rid of my lower end scopes after acquiring my first Nightforce scope. I would have kept the Buckmaster for my .22 if it would have focused well inside of 50 yards. My father in law ended up with my Buckmaster a year ago and now he is upgrading to a Nightforce.
The Buckmaster will work fine for you if you intend to punch paper and not routinely adjust the elevation and windage turrets.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
For your use get the cheaper scope and you will be happy. A lot of people go overboard on optics when they really don't need them, hell I had a $1700 Vortex Razor 5-20HD on a 20" AR for a while and it was beyond overkill but it lives on my Surgeon now. Really unless you are shooting a long way like 800+ or if your life depended on it I would suggest budget glass. With that said, you can scope some decent deals on glass if you don't mind going the used route.
For your use get the cheaper scope and you will be happy. A lot of people go overboard on optics when they really don't need them, hell I had a $1700 Vortex Razor 5-20HD on a 20" AR for a while and it was beyond overkill but it lives on my Surgeon now. Really unless you are shooting a long way like 800+ or if your life depended on it I would suggest budget glass. With that said, you can scope some decent deals on glass if you don't mind going the used route.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HispanicPanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That being said, Does anyone make a $300 3-10 or 4-10x scope with a mildot reticle?
Also, do only high end scopes have diopter adjustments? </div></div>
Nikon make a 4.5-14X40 Buckmaster scope that has a Mildot reticle for around $320. Like I said in my previous post, it is a good scope for the money.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HispanicPanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That being said, Does anyone make a $300 3-10 or 4-10x scope with a mildot reticle?
Also, do only high end scopes have diopter adjustments? </div></div>
Nikon make a 4.5-14X40 Buckmaster scope that has a Mildot reticle for around $320. Like I said in my previous post, it is a good scope for the money.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HispanicPanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That being said, Does anyone make a $300 3-10 or 4-10x scope with a mildot reticle?
Also, do only high end scopes have diopter adjustments?</div></div>
This one has been a trusty old companion with me through the years:
http://muelleroptics.com/mtac31044
Great scope and great price. It always tracks true and got decent glass to boot. Yeah it won't beat my $1K scopes but I've shot touching groups at 200 with it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HispanicPanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That being said, Does anyone make a $300 3-10 or 4-10x scope with a mildot reticle?
Also, do only high end scopes have diopter adjustments?</div></div>
This one has been a trusty old companion with me through the years:
http://muelleroptics.com/mtac31044
Great scope and great price. It always tracks true and got decent glass to boot. Yeah it won't beat my $1K scopes but I've shot touching groups at 200 with it.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pnorris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My use will like be up to a 200 yard range and some hunting out west when I get the chance. Do I really need the $1k plus tactical scope or will I be more than happy with the Nikon. Obviously, if I purchased the best of the best of the tactical scopes I am sure it would be better. . . . however, is it necessary. In other words, would I buying way more than I need? </div></div>
If hunting and sub-200 yard target shooting is all you're using it for, I'd recommend a 3-9x40 Zeiss Conquest with a Z-Plex reticle. They are about $400 and have much better glass than anything in the price range.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pnorris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My use will like be up to a 200 yard range and some hunting out west when I get the chance. Do I really need the $1k plus tactical scope or will I be more than happy with the Nikon. Obviously, if I purchased the best of the best of the tactical scopes I am sure it would be better. . . . however, is it necessary. In other words, would I buying way more than I need? </div></div>
If hunting and sub-200 yard target shooting is all you're using it for, I'd recommend a 3-9x40 Zeiss Conquest with a Z-Plex reticle. They are about $400 and have much better glass than anything in the price range.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
I own both Nikon and Nightforce:
My Nightforce gets me:
1. Matching reticle and turrets
2. Zero stop
I own both Nikon and Nightforce:
My Nightforce gets me:
1. Matching reticle and turrets
2. Zero stop
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
Tyler, I have to agree a fantastic scope for the money.
Tyler, I have to agree a fantastic scope for the money.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
bragging right at the shooting range?
No Sir., with your application, you will be happy with what you have. Don't look through or handle any higher end scopes tho, they will get you hooked....
bragging right at the shooting range?
No Sir., with your application, you will be happy with what you have. Don't look through or handle any higher end scopes tho, they will get you hooked....
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
You can pick up a new 6-18 Buckmaster with Mildot reticle from Midway for $319.00. The 4.5-14 is more expensive. They have side focus parallax adjustment and 1" tubes. Both come with target turrets, but if you are gonna hunt with it, leave 'em in the box.
Nothing wrong with the Buckmaster scope for a budget rifle. They are clear enough, focus well and hold zero better than some more expensive optics. I wouldn't hesitate to buy one. And yes, I have used them, my father has three of them on his rifles.
For paper punching and hunting, the reticle and the turrets don't need to match.
You can pick up a new 6-18 Buckmaster with Mildot reticle from Midway for $319.00. The 4.5-14 is more expensive. They have side focus parallax adjustment and 1" tubes. Both come with target turrets, but if you are gonna hunt with it, leave 'em in the box.
Nothing wrong with the Buckmaster scope for a budget rifle. They are clear enough, focus well and hold zero better than some more expensive optics. I wouldn't hesitate to buy one. And yes, I have used them, my father has three of them on his rifles.
For paper punching and hunting, the reticle and the turrets don't need to match.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
if you really wanna see what your paying for, put a $1000 scope next to a $400 scope and you'll shell out the cash for the $1000 scope because its like watching the Super Bowl in hd and then watching it in black and white. there isn't any comparison, the image is totally different and the definition is crisp. what that means in the most literal sense is you can see a smaller target better with a more expensive scope. your target size won't be any bigger you'll just see it more clearly and defined.
i would never have coughed up big bucks if i hadn't seen the proof myself.
if you really wanna see what your paying for, put a $1000 scope next to a $400 scope and you'll shell out the cash for the $1000 scope because its like watching the Super Bowl in hd and then watching it in black and white. there isn't any comparison, the image is totally different and the definition is crisp. what that means in the most literal sense is you can see a smaller target better with a more expensive scope. your target size won't be any bigger you'll just see it more clearly and defined.
i would never have coughed up big bucks if i hadn't seen the proof myself.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
Nikon = thick reticle, fuzzy dark glass. But the price is right!
Nikon = thick reticle, fuzzy dark glass. But the price is right!
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
I agree with tyler, look at the Zeiss. If thats not your cup of tea then i like the Nikon Monarch 4-16 with the duplex reticle. If you are wanting the Tactical flavor without the cost check out the Weaver 3-10x tactical at Midway. The glass is good and it has a Mil reticle with Mil turrets, a big plus.
My Nightforce gives me repeatablity and good glass. Thats what im after for hunting and competition.
I agree with tyler, look at the Zeiss. If thats not your cup of tea then i like the Nikon Monarch 4-16 with the duplex reticle. If you are wanting the Tactical flavor without the cost check out the Weaver 3-10x tactical at Midway. The glass is good and it has a Mil reticle with Mil turrets, a big plus.
My Nightforce gives me repeatablity and good glass. Thats what im after for hunting and competition.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
i was in your situation about a week ago.
took a trip to gander mountain, i had full intention of walking out with a nikon monarch. i liked it when i looked thru it. i have always liked nikon scopes.
then i saw this other little guy, sitting in the case by himself. $899.99. i thought to myslef, "no F-ing way would i spend $1000 on a scope."
i kept looking at it out of the corner of my eye.
then i asked the guy, "hey can i see that zeiss?"
BIG MISTAKE
i just took my $500 budget and threw it out the window.
like the other guys said, DON'T LOOK THRU A $1000 SCOPE! you will end up buying one.
i have yet to make up my mind on myself on which one i want.
i was in your situation about a week ago.
took a trip to gander mountain, i had full intention of walking out with a nikon monarch. i liked it when i looked thru it. i have always liked nikon scopes.
then i saw this other little guy, sitting in the case by himself. $899.99. i thought to myslef, "no F-ing way would i spend $1000 on a scope."
i kept looking at it out of the corner of my eye.
then i asked the guy, "hey can i see that zeiss?"
BIG MISTAKE
i just took my $500 budget and threw it out the window.
like the other guys said, DON'T LOOK THRU A $1000 SCOPE! you will end up buying one.
i have yet to make up my mind on myself on which one i want.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
The AR-15 (5.56), when zeroed at 50/200, will put rounds within a 4 inch vertical range from zero to 250 yards. This is all you need if you will be hunting at normal distances (0-300 yards.) At 300 yards, you will need to hold about 7 inches high, for which you most definitely do NOT need zero-stop turrets, mil-mil reticle/turrets, or any of the other tactical/target scope features.
And if you are happy with putting rounds in the middle of a target at 200 yards, about 1.5 inches high at 100 yards, and 3 inches low at 250 yards, then get the Nikon and don't look back.
That's your envelope with a scope like that. Hunt, punch paper, hit stuff out to 300 yards.
The AR-15 (5.56), when zeroed at 50/200, will put rounds within a 4 inch vertical range from zero to 250 yards. This is all you need if you will be hunting at normal distances (0-300 yards.) At 300 yards, you will need to hold about 7 inches high, for which you most definitely do NOT need zero-stop turrets, mil-mil reticle/turrets, or any of the other tactical/target scope features.
And if you are happy with putting rounds in the middle of a target at 200 yards, about 1.5 inches high at 100 yards, and 3 inches low at 250 yards, then get the Nikon and don't look back.
That's your envelope with a scope like that. Hunt, punch paper, hit stuff out to 300 yards.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
Man I'm in the same boat. I was going to go budget and now I'm in the $600 range.
Lower budget I was considering the Zeiss mentioned above ot the Weaver Grand Slam 3-9 x 40.
I'm considering adding a couple hundred and the SWFA 3-9x is high on that list. I would like a illuminated reticle so others like the Vortex PST and Luepold VX-R are being considered.
I don't have any long ranges around me so I'd need to go to PA.
I really want to try +500 yards.
Man I'm in the same boat. I was going to go budget and now I'm in the $600 range.
Lower budget I was considering the Zeiss mentioned above ot the Weaver Grand Slam 3-9 x 40.
I'm considering adding a couple hundred and the SWFA 3-9x is high on that list. I would like a illuminated reticle so others like the Vortex PST and Luepold VX-R are being considered.
I don't have any long ranges around me so I'd need to go to PA.
I really want to try +500 yards.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
I have the 4.5x14 Buckmaster, it sits on a RRA NM AR15. I can watch the dirt splash around clays that I seldom miss at 500yds. I have more expensive scopes with less clarity. I would say that the Buckmaster lacks durability and possibly, repeatability. Although I personally have not noticed any real inconsistencies in tracking and repeatability, and the optic has never failed me in any way, I believe the amount of cash one spends on an optic is directly proportionate to what is at stake if that optic fails.
I have the 4.5x14 Buckmaster, it sits on a RRA NM AR15. I can watch the dirt splash around clays that I seldom miss at 500yds. I have more expensive scopes with less clarity. I would say that the Buckmaster lacks durability and possibly, repeatability. Although I personally have not noticed any real inconsistencies in tracking and repeatability, and the optic has never failed me in any way, I believe the amount of cash one spends on an optic is directly proportionate to what is at stake if that optic fails.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
I have two of the Buckmasters. You won't be dissapointed in any way. If you decide you need better, you can always buy more glass. If you need to sell up, they usually bring around 225-250 used. They are very clear.
I have two of the Buckmasters. You won't be dissapointed in any way. If you decide you need better, you can always buy more glass. If you need to sell up, they usually bring around 225-250 used. They are very clear.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MattK287</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "I believe the amount of cash one spends on an optic is directly proportionate to what is at stake if that optic fails"</div></div>
I would take a $300 SWFA fixed Super Sniper over ANY $1,000 hunting scope for durability, reliability and consistency.
Man people just love to wax eloquently about "glass". Truth is- when it comes to killing things, once you get to a certain point, glass "clarity" is more for visual pleasure then for increasing killing performance. I taught a class last year and had over 30K dollars worth of scopes sitting on a table all lined up. We had scopes from Nightforce, Leupold, Zeiss, Bushnell, Burris, Weaver, SWFA Super Snipers, Vortex Razers,Swarovski, etc. Everything from a Zeiss Diavari FL 6-24x72 to a $150 Bushnell 10x40 Tactical. Everyone there thought there would be some huge advantage in hunting with the $3000 dollar glass over the rest. Except for the Bushnell fixed 10x we set all the scopes on 6x (because we had several Leupold fixed 6's) and compared them side by side looking at deer on a hillside just over 400 yards away. Every optic there was good enough to kill well past legal shooting light. The Burris FFII 3-9x40 unanimously went "out" first. Then the Weaver Super Slam. After that when no one could see well enough to place the crosshairs on the deer with the Leupold fixed 6x's, you couldn't see well enough to do it with the Zeiss 6-24x72 Diavari either. Of course turning up the power helped for a couple more minutes. I believe there was around 3-4 minutes difference between the Diavari's turned up and the Leupold 6x's when it came to ability to adequately see the animal and place the reticle on it. Both were WELL past legal light.
Don't get me wrong during the day you can diffidently tell a difference between optics in clarity, contrast, resolution, etc. And if you hunt at night like the Europeans you can also. However for the 30 minutes plus or minus sunrise/sunset of legal hunting time in the US it just doesn't matter.
My pards and I hunt a lot and do A LOT of killing, and the scopes we use the most are Leupold fixed 6x's, SWFA SS 3-9x40's, and the Nightforce 2.5-10x32's. None of use have ever been able to tell a difference in "brightness" on a hunt.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MattK287</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "I believe the amount of cash one spends on an optic is directly proportionate to what is at stake if that optic fails"</div></div>
I would take a $300 SWFA fixed Super Sniper over ANY $1,000 hunting scope for durability, reliability and consistency.
Man people just love to wax eloquently about "glass". Truth is- when it comes to killing things, once you get to a certain point, glass "clarity" is more for visual pleasure then for increasing killing performance. I taught a class last year and had over 30K dollars worth of scopes sitting on a table all lined up. We had scopes from Nightforce, Leupold, Zeiss, Bushnell, Burris, Weaver, SWFA Super Snipers, Vortex Razers,Swarovski, etc. Everything from a Zeiss Diavari FL 6-24x72 to a $150 Bushnell 10x40 Tactical. Everyone there thought there would be some huge advantage in hunting with the $3000 dollar glass over the rest. Except for the Bushnell fixed 10x we set all the scopes on 6x (because we had several Leupold fixed 6's) and compared them side by side looking at deer on a hillside just over 400 yards away. Every optic there was good enough to kill well past legal shooting light. The Burris FFII 3-9x40 unanimously went "out" first. Then the Weaver Super Slam. After that when no one could see well enough to place the crosshairs on the deer with the Leupold fixed 6x's, you couldn't see well enough to do it with the Zeiss 6-24x72 Diavari either. Of course turning up the power helped for a couple more minutes. I believe there was around 3-4 minutes difference between the Diavari's turned up and the Leupold 6x's when it came to ability to adequately see the animal and place the reticle on it. Both were WELL past legal light.
Don't get me wrong during the day you can diffidently tell a difference between optics in clarity, contrast, resolution, etc. And if you hunt at night like the Europeans you can also. However for the 30 minutes plus or minus sunrise/sunset of legal hunting time in the US it just doesn't matter.
My pards and I hunt a lot and do A LOT of killing, and the scopes we use the most are Leupold fixed 6x's, SWFA SS 3-9x40's, and the Nightforce 2.5-10x32's. None of use have ever been able to tell a difference in "brightness" on a hunt.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
You can get a Nikon Monarch 4-16x42 with side focus and mil-dot reticle for around 450. It's what I have and a great scope. It's not a NF or similar but it's a great starter scope.
You can get a Nikon Monarch 4-16x42 with side focus and mil-dot reticle for around 450. It's what I have and a great scope. It's not a NF or similar but it's a great starter scope.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
The glass on the Nikon are decent. The Buckmaster has a terrible field of view so if you plan to do any hunting hopefully you won't have to look around very hard. Customer service is terrible but I've owned 8 or so Nikon products without issue.
If you need no tactical features the flass on the zeiss can't hardly be beat but if you have to move the turrents much they get old in a hurry.
Also if you are only looking at 200 yards elevation is a non issue but the buckmaster and the monarch have terrible elevation ranges some as bad at 35-40 total moa.
Moa knobs and a mil dot turrent is far outdated now. MRAD is the way to go.
Midway has their vortex 5-15 mil/mil with zero stops for $400 for the money you just can't beat it with anything if you ever do decide to shoot past 200 yards.
The glass on the Nikon are decent. The Buckmaster has a terrible field of view so if you plan to do any hunting hopefully you won't have to look around very hard. Customer service is terrible but I've owned 8 or so Nikon products without issue.
If you need no tactical features the flass on the zeiss can't hardly be beat but if you have to move the turrents much they get old in a hurry.
Also if you are only looking at 200 yards elevation is a non issue but the buckmaster and the monarch have terrible elevation ranges some as bad at 35-40 total moa.
Moa knobs and a mil dot turrent is far outdated now. MRAD is the way to go.
Midway has their vortex 5-15 mil/mil with zero stops for $400 for the money you just can't beat it with anything if you ever do decide to shoot past 200 yards.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
Seriously take a look at the Vortex Viper HS 5-15x44. Its been getting pretty good reviews and its on sale for $399 right now thru Midway.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: scott123456789</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The glass on the Nikon are decent. The Buckmaster has a terrible field of view so if you plan to do any hunting hopefully you won't have to look around very hard. Customer service is terrible but I've owned 8 or so Nikon products without issue.
If you need no tactical features the flass on the zeiss can't hardly be beat but if you have to move the turrents much they get old in a hurry.
Also if you are only looking at 200 yards elevation is a non issue but the buckmaster and the monarch have terrible elevation ranges some as bad at 35-40 total moa.
Moa knobs and a mil dot turrent is far outdated now. MRAD is the way to go.
Midway has their vortex 5-15 mil/mil with zero stops for $400 for the money you just can't beat it with anything if you ever do decide to shoot past 200 yards. </div></div>
Seriously take a look at the Vortex Viper HS 5-15x44. Its been getting pretty good reviews and its on sale for $399 right now thru Midway.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: scott123456789</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The glass on the Nikon are decent. The Buckmaster has a terrible field of view so if you plan to do any hunting hopefully you won't have to look around very hard. Customer service is terrible but I've owned 8 or so Nikon products without issue.
If you need no tactical features the flass on the zeiss can't hardly be beat but if you have to move the turrents much they get old in a hurry.
Also if you are only looking at 200 yards elevation is a non issue but the buckmaster and the monarch have terrible elevation ranges some as bad at 35-40 total moa.
Moa knobs and a mil dot turrent is far outdated now. MRAD is the way to go.
Midway has their vortex 5-15 mil/mil with zero stops for $400 for the money you just can't beat it with anything if you ever do decide to shoot past 200 yards. </div></div>
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
Well like many of you, I just bought my first really high end scope; a Nightforce 5.5x22x50 with an NPR 1 reticle. I like you could't imagine spending over a grand on a scope, but over the last three years have been involved in some longrange shooting; longrange meaning 2000 to 2600 yards. For hunting and general plinking at 100 to 500 yards the Nikon will be fine, I have many a Simmons and Tasco too prove it; however at 2600 yards a little more is required; heck I gave more for my Ken ferrel base than I had given for 99% of my prior scopes. My only other and first more pricey scope was a used Horus vision, which brings up my last longwinded responce, look for deals on used optics.
Well like many of you, I just bought my first really high end scope; a Nightforce 5.5x22x50 with an NPR 1 reticle. I like you could't imagine spending over a grand on a scope, but over the last three years have been involved in some longrange shooting; longrange meaning 2000 to 2600 yards. For hunting and general plinking at 100 to 500 yards the Nikon will be fine, I have many a Simmons and Tasco too prove it; however at 2600 yards a little more is required; heck I gave more for my Ken ferrel base than I had given for 99% of my prior scopes. My only other and first more pricey scope was a used Horus vision, which brings up my last longwinded responce, look for deals on used optics.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
Scope question's are tough question's. So much comes down to like and dislikes. We all have an opinion and a budget. Pn, I think you will be very happy with that choice, I do suggest you look through different scopes to verify you are making the right choice for yourself. If you are only going to be shooting to 200 yards you might like Nikon's 1-4 Point Blank Reticle. Zero at 100 yards and you are within 2.5 inches at 200 yards, great for reactive targets. If you want more magnification the 2-8 or 3-12 will take you to 600 yards. 1 of my favorites is the Rapid Action Turret. Dialed in for a specific load , 55 gr. Polymer tipped bullet at MV 3240 fps. I have shot this to 600 yards on three different occasions.
An added bonus, right now Nikon has a Mount 'Em Up Promotion going on where if you buy a M-223,P-223 or P-22 Scope from an authorized Nikon dealer you will get a FREE AR Mount. One more way to save some $.
I hope this info helps ?
Scope question's are tough question's. So much comes down to like and dislikes. We all have an opinion and a budget. Pn, I think you will be very happy with that choice, I do suggest you look through different scopes to verify you are making the right choice for yourself. If you are only going to be shooting to 200 yards you might like Nikon's 1-4 Point Blank Reticle. Zero at 100 yards and you are within 2.5 inches at 200 yards, great for reactive targets. If you want more magnification the 2-8 or 3-12 will take you to 600 yards. 1 of my favorites is the Rapid Action Turret. Dialed in for a specific load , 55 gr. Polymer tipped bullet at MV 3240 fps. I have shot this to 600 yards on three different occasions.
An added bonus, right now Nikon has a Mount 'Em Up Promotion going on where if you buy a M-223,P-223 or P-22 Scope from an authorized Nikon dealer you will get a FREE AR Mount. One more way to save some $.
I hope this info helps ?
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
After reliability/durability, one thing that money definitely seems to buy in addition to just optical quality is low-light performance.
I shot a match with a night stage -- there was a reflector above the target (and you were told offset to the target).
I had to do the math, dial for the offset, hold on the reflector.
My buddy could SEE the actually target with his S&B (even though it was pretty damn dark) and was able to just use normal dope and make the shot just like it was daytime.
Edit: My scope Viper PST, his S&B PMII both 50mm objective.
After reliability/durability, one thing that money definitely seems to buy in addition to just optical quality is low-light performance.
I shot a match with a night stage -- there was a reflector above the target (and you were told offset to the target).
I had to do the math, dial for the offset, hold on the reflector.
My buddy could SEE the actually target with his S&B (even though it was pretty damn dark) and was able to just use normal dope and make the shot just like it was daytime.
Edit: My scope Viper PST, his S&B PMII both 50mm objective.
Re: What does a $1k plus scope get me over $300 NIKON
yep....wasn't impressed with PST glass sorry to say. Got spoiled to higher end stuff.
yep....wasn't impressed with PST glass sorry to say. Got spoiled to higher end stuff.
