craigp40
Well-Known Member
Need for \"tactical\" scopes
I'm starting to get more serious about long range shooting, and as such, have decided to get Chris Matthews to build me a rifle (he's working on it right now). However, as I look at the different optics out there, I see many of you guys buying the "tactical" scopes now available. My question is, aside from looking more cool, is it really worth spending nearly twice as much in some cases for a tactical scope? For example, I can get a Nikon Monarch 3.5-10x50 Illuminated Mildot for a little over $400. The Nikon tactical 2.5-10x44 Mildot runs a liitle over $800. Aside from the side parallax adjustment and I imagine a little better resistance to elements/shock, am I really getting a scope that is $400 better? I'm leaning towards the 6.5-20x44 Nikon Monarch for my new rig, but I'm wondering if I'm overlooking something great about the tactical line of scopes since I have never used one.
I'm starting to get more serious about long range shooting, and as such, have decided to get Chris Matthews to build me a rifle (he's working on it right now). However, as I look at the different optics out there, I see many of you guys buying the "tactical" scopes now available. My question is, aside from looking more cool, is it really worth spending nearly twice as much in some cases for a tactical scope? For example, I can get a Nikon Monarch 3.5-10x50 Illuminated Mildot for a little over $400. The Nikon tactical 2.5-10x44 Mildot runs a liitle over $800. Aside from the side parallax adjustment and I imagine a little better resistance to elements/shock, am I really getting a scope that is $400 better? I'm leaning towards the 6.5-20x44 Nikon Monarch for my new rig, but I'm wondering if I'm overlooking something great about the tactical line of scopes since I have never used one.