Millett Buck Gold 4-16x56 SF & Nikon Buckmasters 4.5-16x40 SF, OPINIONS PLEASE

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bambam1723

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
75
Location
Ohio
I am looking to put one of these scopes on my Remington 700 SPS Tactical .223. I use this gun primarily as a varmint gun for groundhogs.


Millett Buck Gold 4-16x56
Nikon Buckmasters 4.5-14x40

Which of these scopes would you choose?
What are your experiences with them?

I am really interested in your opinions on the Millett I listed as I like that one better and like the idea of the adjustable turrets. Price is about the same on both in the mid-high 200's.

Also I really want a scope with Side Focus which both of these have

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Nikon, Nikon, Nikon.

The Buck Golds are "OK", but not very clear - certainly not up to the quality of Nikon Prostaff, let alone Buckmasters, IMO.
 
Between the two, Nikon hands down; however I would spend the extra $40.00 or so on a Bushnell Elite 3200 5-15x40mm if I could swing it and live with an adjustable objective.

:)
 
however I would spend the extra $40.00 or so on a Bushnell Elite 3200 5-15x40mm if I could swing it and live with an adjustable objective.
Click to expand...

I just did, and I am very impressed with the Bushnell's quality. the Elite 3200 are all Japanese manufacture, excellent glass & controls. You can find them on GB for $289.00. Second to that, I would go Nikon, although I have no firsthand experience with the Millett
 
having only owned a Millett out of your choices there, i can tell you that i am very satisfied with mine, i bought the LRS-1 6-25x56 for my budget long range rifle build. it holds zero perfectly, walks "the box" perfectly, and with the huge objective and tube, transmits a lot of light.

some people frown on them being made-in-china stuff and because of the low price and that's understandable. Bushnell bought them out a few years ago and continues the Millett brand under their Corporation. there was a period where they were of so-so quality at best but it has improved. i can attest to that first hand. i really like my Millett and i'll keep it until it fails.

Nikon is good stuff too, from what i've read, and i wouldn't hesitate to buy one if it fit my mission. in my opinion, the Millet will give you the best "bang for the buck" so to speak....
 
Vortex Crossfire is another budget optic that you might want to look at, they are a bit cheaper but you will have to live with an adjustable objective rather than the side focus. I haven't used one but I have heard (from a very reliable source) that they are a best buy (particularly the Viper series) and have good reliability and glass.

:)
 
Don't know about the Millet, but I have a handful of Nikons that have all been perfect so far.
 
I just put a Buckmasters 3-9x40 on my M&P 15-22 which doesn't have the side focus, But not a big deal to me.
I absolutely love the reticle and eye relief, Its either "On or Off" with no blurry edges.
Other scopes made me squirm to get the right eye position and cheek weld, But with this one i line up perfectly almost instantly.
Its my first Nikon as its also my first scope, But i did look at quite a few and what this gives you cant touch it for the price.
 
Nikon every time.

The Buck Gold weighs so much you could never hunt with the gun. The Buck Gold is laughable in its size. It has a 30mm tube as well which is something to consider.

The Nikon has clearer lenses and doesnt have a goofy Mil-Dot reticle. Of course they have their own goofy BDC.
 
bambam1723:

I have the Gold Buck in 6-24 w/ AO. It is very good quality in terms of reliable tracking in the turrets. However, the AO, to be clear at 100 yards, I have to have dialed-up to about 160ish yards. That ain't right! I was using this rifle on my SPS Varmint .223 and my SPS Tactial .308. It does hold it's zero, and seems quality, but that AO concerns me.

Based on my so/so experience with the Gold Buck, I would take a close look to the Nikon.

Geno
 
Of course they have their own goofy BDC.
Click to expand...
Speaking of which, I think that is one thing that Nikon got wrong. Their BDC reticles (they call them DOA reticles IIRC) is the worst in the industry IMO. That said, I would still rather have them than any mil-dot reticle.

:)
 
Okay, pretty overwhelmingly Nikon. Point Taken.

I also have seen some negative comments on the Mil-Dot reticle. If I got the Nikon I was planning on going with the Mil-Dot. Would I be better off to get it in the NikoPlex reticle?

All my other scope have duplex reticles like the NikoPlex. I just thought the Mil-Dot would be nice on this tactical type rifle. Thoughts?
 
It is very good quality in terms of reliable tracking in the turrets. However, the AO, to be clear at 100 yards, I have to have dialed-up to about 160ish yards. That ain't right!
Click to expand...

Is your rear diopter (to correct for your vision) set right?

With the AO set to infinity, shoulder the rifle pointing at clear blue sky and if the reticle is instantly clear your diopter is correct. Otherwise -- if your eye takes a second or two to "focus" on it, you need to adjust the rear diopter.

--wally.
 
I also have seen some negative comments on the Mil-Dot reticle. If I got the Nikon I was planning on going with the Mil-Dot. Would I be better off to get it in the NikoPlex reticle?...All my other scope have duplex reticles like the NikoPlex. I just thought the Mil-Dot would be nice on this tactical type rifle. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
For a "tactical" rifle I would go with the mil-dot, but I wouldn't go with the BDC because it is so big (I prefer hashes, not one that goes all the way across), but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't. Reticles are more subjective than glass quality, go with what works and appeals to you.

:)
 
Alright Gents I have a chance to get a Bushnell Elite 3200 4-12x40 for a good deal.

If I threw the Bushnell Elite 3200 in the mix which would you choose?

My last Bushnell was a Banner and it is currently at their shop getting repaired so I'm a little weary of them.

What say you?
 
I got the Millet and put it on my Rem SPS Varmint. I took it back the next morning it's just way to heavy. I've had good Bushnells but I think that the Nikons are better scopes but not by much if eny try them both and see which one you like best. You may wont to check out the Super Sniper scopes. I had a 10 power mil dot with side parlax (spelling?) it was a great scope. The parlax was right on the money.
 
If I threw the Bushnell Elite 3200 in the mix which would you choose?
Click to expand...
I think glass is about equal, but there is a few slight differences. The Nikon has a little bit more magnification (and goes nearly as low)...but...I think Bushnell has better BDC reticles, so really it's a wash IMO. Would you rather have a little more magnification or a better reticle?

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ssyoumans
  • Locked
Nikon Buckmasters 4.5-14x40 Scope or something else?
Replies
4
Views
451
bman940
B
D
  • Locked
So many scope options, a little help?
Replies
13
Views
810
oldvet53
O
marksman13
  • Locked
  • Poll
Remington 700 VS versus CZ 527 Varmint Laminated...
Replies
15
Views
2K
steve8261948
steve8261948
A
  • Locked
SPS Tactical 308
Replies
15
Views
5K
Pat4x4
P
L
  • Locked
How do these scopes compare?
Replies
0
Views
548
LopezEL
L
Back
Top