Which rifle scope... Bushnell or Nikon?

[B Man]

I'm fixing to put a new scope on my rifle in wanted some experienced information. These will be going on a hunting rifle ehicj is my main hang up b/c i need the edge during dusk. I'm debating either the Elite 3200 7-21x40 with a mil-dot reticle & 5-15x50 or the Nikon Buckmaster 6-18x40.

I have Elites on most all my rifles now and they are proven but they are 50mm so the 40 mm has me woundering.... I've also heard several people comment on the Nikon Buckmaster series which has me looking into that one.

These are going on a 7mm Rem. mag. Savage 112 BVSS that i have had for years and decided to upgrade the scope this year. The old one is outdated, lol.


Thanks,
Brandon

 

[mio]

nikon or leopould

 

[younganddumb]

burris xtr

 

[publiuss]

I would put the 3200 series and the nikon in the same league. On the other hand, the 4200 series beats a Nikon by a mile. but I would probably take the Nikon over the 3200 but either is about the same.

 

[skinewmexico]

I think they're both great scopes. Lower the magnification, and they'll be even better at dusk.

 

[planetmobius]

Nikon.

 

[atlanticfire]

Bushnell

 

[CDignition]

I have the Nikon Buckmaster 4.5-14x40 .. ITs just on my 22, but is the cheapest scope I got in the shop and its good enuf for a 22,lol

 

[cliffy]

Nikon vs Bushnell

Since I use a Nikon Buckmaster thrice a week, I could be jaded. My Nikon 4.5-14 Mil-Dot 40mm scope from a benchrest @ 100 yards does create 1" groups consistantly when I feel steady enough. My Bushnell Banner 3-12x40mm scope resides on my air-rifle at present. I'm planning on purchasing a Nikon Monarch soon! Soon as I can afford one! The new Leupold VX-L also holds my total attention. Great Glass is worth the Price . . . up to $700! I own six scopes, all under $250. Time I splurge on a pricey optic. Cliffy
If one gets what one pays for, Nikon, Leupold, and Bushnell can supply it!

 

[CDignition]

700 isnt a pricy optic,lol..

 

[bejay]

I use a 3-9 by 40 mm nikon buckmaster on my deer rifle and it does well at dawn and dusk situations, if theres enough light to see the deer to begin with I usually have no trouble seeing it through the scope also.

 

[Horsemany]

700 isnt a pricy optic,lol..

Correct. But I believe the point is...........the law of diminishing returns. IME a $1400 scope is only slightly better than a $700 scope. I know people love to use the "you get what you pay for in optics" line but I don't totally agree with that. You will reach a point where money spent gains little. This is the case with most high end goods. Cars would be another good example. If you're not happy with a $700 scope, you'll likely find fault with any of them, even if they cost $2000. If this ever happens to any THR members they can send their $700 scope to me, and take up golfing. You'll fit right in.

 

[whiskey]

Both scopes are very close to each other. For me, I don't like 50mm scopes. I could never tell enough of a differance between the light transmission between 40mm and 50mm to put up with the mounting issues. I like my scope as low as possible.

The reason I chose to replace my Nikon with the Bushnell Elite on my deer gun was the raincoat that Bushnell puts on the elite series. I like to hunt in the rain and I hate not being able to see through my scope when it is raining. The raincoat works well for me. I do think that the Nikon is crisper and I can see the differance in crispness side by side at the range, but it is not enough for me to give up the raincoat.

 

[skinewmexico]

I know people love to use the "you get what you pay for in optics" line but I don't totally agree with that.

Oh, you mean that line that was invented by an ad agency to sell more expensive scopes?

And exit pupil diameter plays a lot bigger part in low light performance than about anything else. That's why I suggested lowereing the magnification.