Scope?
I have a Encore 7 mag and am looking for a scope. I like the nikon buckmaster 4-12x50. 4-12 because i will be shooting 300yds+. How do you like this scope?(any suggestions on another scope?) Also i have heard complaints about 50mm scopes. Why?
0
-
In Nikon scopes I prefer the higher end Monarch series. I have not used the scope you are considering. The primary reason 50mm and larger scopes are not used by a lot of shooters, including me, is that the large objective bell forces you to use high bases to lift the bell above the barrel. This usually puts the scope above the point where you can the firm cheek-stock contact you want for accuracy. In most cases you just do not need an objective that large. With high magnification in poor light or heavy overcast it may be useful, but mostly it is not. JustC here on this board does a lot of long range shooting and can offer some suggestions. Guns & Glass is probably the resident optics expert and he is also worth consulting. Welcome to the board, lots of nice and helpful folks here along with a couple of crabs and a troll or two. 0 -
How would you compare the nikon buckmaster series to the new Leupold rifleman series? 0 -
anyone? 0 -
The new Leupold "Rifleman" series is so new that there isn't much hands on info available yet. I've used the 50mm belled scoped several times over the years and have in the end traded or sold the off as being just to cumbersome and clunky. The higher you mount a scope away from the centerline of the barrels bore the more trianglation you build into the system. Large objective scopes are usefull in very low light shooting situations. Many states have laws that restrict hunting in those conditions. Target shooting is rarly done in low light conditions as it is just blasting the hills. 4-12 is a great varmint combo at long range. It is ok for range work also, still if it is a combo hunting/target rifle for big game, 4-12 may be a little much for practical use. 0 -
I recently traded away a MK IV leupold for another Nightforce, that may give you some insight into my opinion on leupy's. I have been using Burris in place of leupold VX III's and don't regret it. That being said,..you must consider the manufacturing cost of something as cheap as the riflemen series scopes,..and then figure how they are that cheap even after leupold marks it up again just because it has their name on it. I would be tempted to go for the Nikon over the riflemen series (JMHO).
Large bells are best off on long range rifles. I won't go above the 44mm lens on most "carry" rifles. The 44mm can be mounted in the same medium rings as the 40mm and will set right down on the barrel nicely. Big bells need to be attached to heavy tubes to be stable and rigid,..that makes for a heavier scope, and thus belongs on a heavy rifle which will be shot from a stationary position (hood,..bench, etc). Don't find out half way through the hunt that your scope is too heavy.
why chase the game when the bullet can get em from here?....
Got Balistics?0 -
ern98 has it. The rifleman is so new there is not much hands on yet. In recent years all of my experience is with higher end Burris (my fav) Leupold and Nikon scopes. The economy scopes just don't do the job in terms of durability or optics. My old eyes need all the advantage I can buy so I skipped up to the high end of the mid-range. 0 -
I firmly believe in paying the money for a good scope. I am using a Zeiss Conquest in a 3.5-10X44. I was using a 4-12X50 Schmidt and Bender scope and a Swarovski 4-12X50. The Zeiss Conquest is pretty close for the money. I have tried the Monarch and Pentax lightseeker in the 3.5-10X50 size and both were OK but not as clear as the Zeiss Conquest. The 50mm Objective has never bothered me or anyone that I have known to use one (I like them).
Mad Dog0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments