Nikon Buckmaster scope

panhandlepr1

Beginner
Nov 6, 2006
19
0
Has anyone had any experience with the Nikon Buckmaster 6-18x40mm Side Focus scope. This would be a coyote,PD and squirrel scope. Any comments. $300 is about my limit for a scope.
 
I don't have any experience with the 6x18 put, I have two 3x9 40mm and two 4.5x14 40mm and thier great scopes. If I were you I would buy it.
 
I put that scope on my 308 when I got it, I liked it a lot, now its on a 22-250, and it gets the job done, for sure clearer that a lot of other high powered scopes around that price range. Im not what you would call an expert on optics but I thought it was a great scope for the price.
 
I had one with the BDC Bullet Drop Compensator reticle and it shot great. Not the mosat rugged scope as I dropped it while hunting and it landed on the ground and bent the windage knob. Nikon replaced the scope at no charge though but I sold it and bought another Leupy. I am a sucker for those scopes. But for a long range shooter, it was pretty clear and held its zero!
 
For the money, the Buckmasters is a very nice scope. Mine is a 4.5-14X SF. My newer Leupold VX-3 is clearer and has a wider field of view, but cost a lot more. For a $300 budget and if you need high magnification, the Buckmasters is tough to beat.
 
Don't mean to hijak the thread or anything, but how do the buckmasters compare to a fullfield II? Of the same power of course. I know they won't beat a leupold or zeiss, but both are out of my price range when you start getting past the 3-9x40's.
 
Jimmywax":2g98bc18 said:
Don't mean to hijak the thread or anything, but how do the buckmasters compare to a fullfield II? Of the same power of course. I know they won't beat a leupold or zeiss, but both are out of my price range when you start getting past the 3-9x40's.
I think the Buckmasters compare very favorably with the Burris Fullfield II's. I have a pair of the 3-9X FFII's with the Ballistic Plex reticle, which I thought were the best value available when I purchased them. I then compared them to a 3-9X Nikon Buckmasters that one of son's friends had mounted on a Ruger .338 WM. The Nikon was at least as clear and bright as my Burris, and would probably be a toss up. Don't think either one would be a bad choice. Other comparable scopes that I have no experience with are the Sightron SII, and the Bushnell Elite 3200. The Weaver V9 is also a pretty good scope for the money. Recently I have seen some special deals on Nikon Monarch scopes as well as Weaver Grand Slams that put them in the same price class as the Buckmasters and FFII, and one of those might be the best deal yet if you could track one down. Try http://natchezss.com/
 
I spent a lot of time recently looking at optics for two new rifles (in the past year and a half). What I found, for my money, is that the Bushnell Elite 3200 is as bright and clear as my Vari-X II, the Nikon Buckmaster, the Burris FFII, and also has excellent eye relief, adjustments, and ability to hold zero. For me, the major advantage over the Buckmaster is the difference in construction. The 3200 has one additional optical element, which is supposed to help with clarity, I think, but don't quote me, and the 3200 also is a one piece tube, while the Buckmaster, along with everything up to a VXIII in the Leupold line, is a two piece. Call me a stickler, but one more seal means one more potential leakpoint, and if I can't tell the difference optically between the two scopes, and the price is the same (for the 3200 and the Buckmaster) then I'll go with the more durable design every time. I haven't been disappointed yet by my Bushnells.
 
I had a few. Thet were good scopes. I had one on my 416 WBY mag and had no problems at all.
 
I bought the same scope you are asking about, The only thing I
did'nt like about the 6X18-40 buck master was the cross hairs were to thick but mine was also a BDC.
Rick
 
I have both the buckmaster and Fullfield II but the buckmaster is a 4.5-14 compared to the 3-9 Fullfield II, I think the buckmaster is a tad bit clearer but I like both of them. Like mentioned before you cant go wrong with either one but I do prefer the Nikon.
 
I had same scope you are looking at on a Remmy 700 in .204 Ruger when they first came out.I decided to go this way because of price,at the time the .204 came out everythig for them was very expensive,so I had to go a little cheaper with the glass.I was very impressed with the quality and clarity of the scope,it was the first Nikon I had owned.It did a great job zooming in on those wolves in Alaska,and even held up to the weather extremes we face up there.Never once did it fog up,crytalize the lense,lose zero or anything. Very good scope for the money,probably under-priced when compared to some other models.

Tim
 
Back
Top