Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
FFP Mildot Scope
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MajorSpittle" data-source="post: 695123" data-attributes="member: 53101"><p>Thanks for the feed back, and I took your advice and decided that my expectations were too high for my price range. I then started looking at the Nikon Buckmaster 4.5-14X40 with Adjustable side parallax and BDC and decided to pull the trigger on one today that they had at a local store.</p><p> </p><p>Well, while at the store looking at it I decided to compare it to a Redfield Revolution 4-12X40 scope with their Accu Range Reticle and a Bushnell DOA just for a sanity check to verify that Nikon was worth $320.</p><p> </p><p>Well to make a long story short I walked out with the Redfield even though my heart was set on getting a scope with adjustable parallax. </p><p> </p><p>Why I went with the Redfield:</p><p> </p><p>thinner reticle, lighter more compact scope (going on a 6.1 lb hunting rifle), eye relief, less sensitive to eye placement (quicker handling), sight picture was more like looking through a window vs looking through a tube, seemed less sensitive to glare, better FOV, and warranty.</p><p> </p><p>The things I liked better about the Nikon was:</p><p> </p><p>Much better turrets and adjustments by far, side parallax really gave a superior sight picture for range type shooting but not terribly useful for deer hunting, most reviews say that the Nikon would be better for light in the evening but the Redfield seemed brighter and more crisp to me in the store/out window at trees but both were better then I am use to.</p><p> </p><p>Things I learned, don't buy a scope online look at them in person. Don't get fixated on "must have" features so much you lose sight of what is important to accomplish what you will be using the scope for.</p><p> </p><p>oh, and I didn't take cost into consideration at all because I was budgeted for the Nikon already, but as it turned out the Redfield was $170 out the door because all they had left was the display scope and they were closing them out for some reason to only carry the Redfield Revenge Scopes. So that was **** near half the cost of the Nikon and I feel like I ended up with the better scope. Makes me happy knowing the US is competing and winning in Manufacturing something in the China-Mart era. </p><p> </p><p>Now off to shoot some 1/2" groups on a rifle that I for once don't have to worry myself to death over the scope being banged around. gun)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MajorSpittle, post: 695123, member: 53101"] Thanks for the feed back, and I took your advice and decided that my expectations were too high for my price range. I then started looking at the Nikon Buckmaster 4.5-14X40 with Adjustable side parallax and BDC and decided to pull the trigger on one today that they had at a local store. Well, while at the store looking at it I decided to compare it to a Redfield Revolution 4-12X40 scope with their Accu Range Reticle and a Bushnell DOA just for a sanity check to verify that Nikon was worth $320. Well to make a long story short I walked out with the Redfield even though my heart was set on getting a scope with adjustable parallax. Why I went with the Redfield: thinner reticle, lighter more compact scope (going on a 6.1 lb hunting rifle), eye relief, less sensitive to eye placement (quicker handling), sight picture was more like looking through a window vs looking through a tube, seemed less sensitive to glare, better FOV, and warranty. The things I liked better about the Nikon was: Much better turrets and adjustments by far, side parallax really gave a superior sight picture for range type shooting but not terribly useful for deer hunting, most reviews say that the Nikon would be better for light in the evening but the Redfield seemed brighter and more crisp to me in the store/out window at trees but both were better then I am use to. Things I learned, don't buy a scope online look at them in person. Don't get fixated on "must have" features so much you lose sight of what is important to accomplish what you will be using the scope for. oh, and I didn't take cost into consideration at all because I was budgeted for the Nikon already, but as it turned out the Redfield was $170 out the door because all they had left was the display scope and they were closing them out for some reason to only carry the Redfield Revenge Scopes. So that was **** near half the cost of the Nikon and I feel like I ended up with the better scope. Makes me happy knowing the US is competing and winning in Manufacturing something in the China-Mart era. Now off to shoot some 1/2" groups on a rifle that I for once don't have to worry myself to death over the scope being banged around. gun) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
FFP Mildot Scope
Top