Author Topic: Nikon Buckmasters 4.5-14x40 BDC (Read 12952 times)

Intruder · « **Reply #15 on:** March 27, 2009, 07:55:23 AM »

Quote from: jackelope on March 26, 2009, 08:40:22 PM

the disadvantage to a 50mm objective is that you have to use higher rings to clear the barrel therefore lifting your face off the stock a little. it's unstable and uncomfortable for me. i have never had an issue with multiple 40-44mm objective lenses. the bdc on a 30-06 rifle, while it might be nice, is not something i would spend extra money on either. at 300 yards, put the crosshairs on top of the animals shoulder and squeeze....how far are you planning to shoot?
these are my opinions.

Spot on! When you look at some of the actual measurements as to the increased light transmission w/ the 50 mm rifle scopes you're only gonna get differences at the highest power settings under the lowest light conditions. 99+% of the time it will probably not matter. The higher rings, heavy and bulkier scope are there 100% of the time. Drop the BDC and the 50mm objective and spend the money saved the best glass and coatings you can afford.

One caveat: People's eyes are all different. 2 people can look through the same scope and have a different optical experience.

coop2424 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 27, 2009, 08:42:16 AM »

Thanks everyone for your opinions I am going today to look at the scopes again but I think that I found the one I am going to get. It is a Nikon Monarch 3-12 x 42 with BDC. For the money and looking through it compared to scopes of the same value it works the best for me. I am going to look through them all again just to make sure but I was amazed with how nice this scope was and it is on sale so can not beat that.

GoldTip · « **Reply #17 on:** March 27, 2009, 08:48:10 AM »

The other draw back to 50mm objectives is they are not easy to get into a horse scabbard if you ever plan to do any horse back hunting, and who knows when you will? I think your decision on the 3-12 with 42mm objective will be perfect for your '06.

jackelope · « **Reply #18 on:** March 27, 2009, 08:50:05 AM »

i don't think you can go wrong with that scope.

phool...my point was that lifting your face off the stock as slight as it may be allows your head to move more than if it were firmly planted on the stock thus making the crosshairs move more than they need to.... again...everyone's different....and everyone's opinions vary. i don't honestly see a benefit in a little more light transmission at full magnification to justify going to a 50. if it were a camera, i'm with you.

addicted · « **Reply #19 on:** March 27, 2009, 03:18:54 PM »

then you would love my buddies setup he put together to play with. 56mm objective on insanely high rings over a bolt action .22lr. you pretty much have to set your chin on the stock. the whole thing just looks funny.

huntnphool · « **Reply #20 on:** March 27, 2009, 03:40:19 PM »

Intruder

Quote

the 50 mm rifle scopes you're only gonna get differences at the highest power settings under the lowest light conditions.

Isn't that when you see the majority of the animals?

Quote

The higher rings, heavy and bulkier scope are there 100% of the time.

True, however the 50 weighs 2 oz. more but is an inch shorter, doubtful you could feel the difference while hiking.
Goldtip makes a good point packing it on a horse.

Quote

People's eyes are all different. 2 people can look through the same scope and have a different optical experience.

Aint that the truth!!!

Quote

my point was that lifting your face off the stock as slight as it may be allows your head to move more than if it were firmly planted on the stock thus making the crosshairs move more than they need to

Got it Jackelope

Wanttohuntmore · « **Reply #21 on:** March 29, 2009, 08:35:24 PM »

I bought this exact scope for a coyote/varmint gun. So far I love the clarity and brightness of the glass. I'm still not sold on the durability of a Nikon over a Leupold. For the money though the Nikon is nice. I'm even debating putting one on my magnum this year. I'd like to know more about the durability of them first. Oh, the BDC is kind of distracting though. I've used the Ballistic Plex and the Leupold LRV scopes, but the BDC is taking some time getting used to. I'm not sure if it would matter in crunch time or not. I'm just not sure yet. A little background on my experiences with Nikon, I had had a pair of Monarch Binocs that I sold due to them not seeming as clear as my friends Zeiss. I sold them and bought a pair of Zeiss. But from what I've noticed the scope seems great for the money.

huntnphool · « **Reply #22 on:** March 29, 2009, 08:48:04 PM »

Quote

A little background on my experiences with Nikon, I had had a pair of Monarch Binocs that I sold due to them not seeming as clear as my friends Zeiss.

You are basing your experience on a apples to oranges comparison? They wont be as bright or clear as my Swaros either, that doesnt make them a bad set for the money. A far as durability goes, I own several and have never had an issue with any of them, and yes I have them mounted on magnums too

jackelope · « **Reply #23 on:** March 29, 2009, 08:55:11 PM »

right...not really a fair comparison...
my nikon is on a 300 win mag too...

Wanttohuntmore · « **Reply #24 on:** March 30, 2009, 07:37:34 PM »

Actually I was comparing the Monarch binocs to the Zeiss Diafuns, Apples to Apples. Price was about the same. The zeiss were clearer for the same $. I ended up buying Victory's, best decision ever made. My reluctancy of the scopes is the fact that you find rebuilt Nikons for sell everywhere. Why are these rebuilt? What was wrong with them? It still didn't stop me from buying one, but I am kind of reluctant to use one on my big game hunting rifles. But if they are dependable the Nikons have much more features that I feel for the money far outweigh the competitors.

MasterMisser · « **Reply #25 on:** April 23, 2009, 03:52:29 PM »

i just thought i would add my two words in. i have both the 4.5-14 and the 6-18. i love both them! i use the 4.5-14 on my Remington r-15 in a .223 and it works great. i have taken multiple shots past 600yards and i have never had any issues. the 6-18 is on my 300wsm and its amazing as well. great moa adjustments in both have allowed me to take shots past 1200 yards. by far the best scope for the money. the only Leupold i would buy is a mark 4. or nightforce. but for a scope under $1000 nothing comes close!!!

BlackRidge · « **Reply #26 on:** January 07, 2011, 12:26:52 PM »

Just ordered myself the 4.5-14x40sf, thanks for all the great info guys. Can't wait to throw this sucker on the 300win. Planning to grab the 6-18x40 for the 270, toy with which works better on which, etc

Special T · « **Reply #27 on:** January 07, 2011, 12:36:22 PM »

Re Nikon the best? nope, but probably the best bang for the buck.... I LOVE the BDC for a buddies AR 223 with the scope... very cool nice target acquiring...

Wanttohuntmore · « **Reply #28 on:** January 07, 2011, 09:23:17 PM »

Go onto Nikon's website, they have a new program that lets you find out your holdovers with the BDC, depending on the BC of your bullet, the muzzle velocity, and some other factors. It's pretty close!

Bob33 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 07, 2011, 09:36:13 PM »

I've owned Leupold riflescopes since the 1970s. I've owned three Nikon scopes since 2000. To me, the Nikon scopes are clearly better optically when comparing optics in the same price range. I've never had a Nikon fail. I have two on slug shotguns which kick like a ticked off mule.

Hunting Washington Forum

News:

Advertisement