Newbie scope question

[heiner39]

I want to start by saying I love this site. I'm new here and to rifle shooting in general. I took my first whitetail last fall with my 30-06 Savage.

I have a question about scopes. I have read good things about the Bushnell 4200 series and Nikon Monarch series. Being that they seem to be in the same general price range, what do you guys think would make the most reliable scope? I'm looking primarily for hunting purposes but love the long range stuff too!

[craSSh]

You would be happy with either. I ike Nikons reticle better but I went with the 4200 for the rainguard

[britz]

I prefer the Nikon because the glass is a little better IMO - slightly better light gathering for early and late shots.

[KRP]

I also prefer the Nikon glass. General clarity and low light both.

[heiner39]

I am leaning towards the Nikon. For the guys who prefer the Nikon, what recticle do you prefer? Is the BDC worth the extra money?

[KRP]

I don't like the BDC reticle, the circles just seem big and distracting to me. I would probably get MilDot if available and Nikoplex if not.

[britz]

I have never used the BDC. I've looked through them. If I were going to get a Prostaff, I'd look at the BDC because I wouldn't trust the tracking to constantly adjust the scope for elevation. If you were looking at the Buckmaster or monarch or better, I'd agree that the nikoplex or the mill dot would be better (definatly the mildot if it is offered because it would give you multiple points of aim once you learn the distance between the dots at various power levels. One thing to note is that the buckmaster has a thicker reticle than the monarch and the monarch has a thinner reticle than the bushnell 4200 (at least it seemed like it to me), but the Leupald vxIII does have a slightly thinner reticle than the Monarch...