Opinions on Nikon Buckmasters II scopes?

[FergusonTO35]

Hey folks. Anybody have experience with the Nikon Buckmasters II rifle scope line? I'm thinking about getting the 4-12x40 for my heavy barrel .257 Roberts, Midway has them on sale for $119.95 right now.

[Boolit_Head]

While not a Buckmaster I have the 3x9x40 P223. I am far more impressed by the clarity of my Vortex Crossfire 4x12x44. Midway has them on sale occasionally for only about 20 bucks more.

[Scorpion8]

I have and use several of the new Buckmasters. Very quality optics, well constructed for the price. I have complete faith in mine all the way up to a 7mm Rem Mag. I'm sure it'd do fine on a .257 Bob.

[FergusonTO35]

Thanks. My .257 is a Howa 1500 that began life as a .30'06 and was rebarreled by E.R. Shaw. It currently wears a Burris 3-9x40 which has served it well. I would like a bit more magnification on this rifle as it is super accurate and definitely capable of a 300 yard shot and my eyesight just isn't what it used to be. Also, Burris for some reason likes to use somewhat shorter main tubes on their scopes, giving it a rather sawed off appearance on this rifle. I'll probably put it on a handy 6.5 Creedmoor carbine.

[FergusonTO35]

Another question: are there any real differences between the Nikon Buckmasters and Prostaff scopes? Just looking at pictures I don't see anything other than name and slightly different styling.

[NoAngel]

I'm convinced Nikon makes the best scopes for the money. There are better scopes. There are cheaper scopes but you cannot get a better scope cheaper than a Nikon. Period. Every rifle I own [that has a scope] wear Nikon now. I have two with the Buckmaster II and they have been excellent. The M308, M223 and P223 scopes are also very good.

[Boolit_Head]

Depending on sales I paid more for my Nikon than my Vortex and I think the Vortex Crossfire is a much better value.

[FergusonTO35]

Reading some old forum posts, it looks like the Pro Staff was originally the budget line and Buckmaster was the mid-price line. Walmart used to sell Pro Staffs for a little over $100.00 around here. Some time in the past few years they switched and now the Buckmasters II is the budget line with a lower price and fewer options and the Pro Staff is mid-price with a lot more options. Strangely, a lot of folks say the current Buckmasters has better glass than the Pro Staff. I'm currently bidding on a new Pro Staff 4-12x40 with BDC reticle on Fleabay. If I don't win it, I'll probably just go with the same in the Buckmasters II.

[NyFirefighter357]

I like the Pro Staff myself, don't know about the Buckmaster.

[Lloyd Smale]

they swapped places. Used to be the prostaff was the entry level and the buckmaster midrange. Now the buckmaster is the budget scope. Havent tried a new buckmaster but the new prostaff is HANDS DOWN a much better scope then the old prostaffs or buckmasters were.

[FergusonTO35]

Sounds good, hopefully I'll win the Pro Staff.

[Scorpion8]

Since we're on ProStaff's now, I'll chime in that I have one of those also, and the only real way to tell the difference is to look at the printing on the scope. Both are very good, excellent value, and quality made. Burris Fullfield II, Vortex Crossfire, Nikon Buckmaster..... can't go wrong with any of them.

[54bore]

The only dealings i have ever had with a Nikon I didn't care for it, and swore I'd never own one. A friend of mine bought the higher end Monarch and had me mount it on a .204 Ruger, he ended up selling the rifle and had me pull the scope as it didn't go with the Gun, when i pulled the scope the tube had slight impressions in it from the Rings, i have owned a truck load of leupolds over the years and not 1 of them ever Dented from the Scope rings, ive seen the finish slightly marred but NEVER a dented impression in the Tube. Whatever material nikon uses definitely isn't as durable as Leupold.

[popper]

Got 2 Monarchs and a Buckmaster. All great but they changed the warranty. Mine are high mag side focus (parallax).

[54bore]

Got 2 Monarchs and a Buckmaster. All great but they changed the warranty. Mine are high mag side focus (parallax).

I remember the Monarch tracked well, image was clear and sharp. It just bothered me that i could dent the Tube with Leupold rings, and I didn't do anything different than ive done with a TON of Leupolds. Most of the Leupolds were hard to tell they had even been mounted. The Nikon Monarch on the other hand was clearly dented from the rings

[Lloyd Smale]

you using a torque wrench to tighten your rings? I do and have never had ANY scope damaged from mounting. Big problem is just about everyone mounts them with an allen wrench and cranks them down as hard as you can with it. I used to do it myself. Scope rings when properly torqued are just snugged up.

I remember the Monarch tracked well, image was clear and sharp. It just bothered me that i could dent the Tube with Leupold rings, and I didn't do anything different than ive done with a TON of Leupolds. Most of the Leupolds were hard to tell they had even been mounted. The Nikon Monarch on the other hand was clearly dented from the rings

[FergusonTO35]

I use an inch-pound torque wrench myself.

[54bore]

you using a torque wrench to tighten your rings? I do and have never had ANY scope damaged from mounting. Big problem is just about everyone mounts them with an allen wrench and cranks them down as hard as you can with it. I used to do it myself. Scope rings when properly torqued are just snugged up.

I should have noted that, Yes i used a wheeler torque wrench, i started using a torque wrench a few years back after i broke a small screw or 3 from Gorilla gripping. I mounted more leupolds over the years than i can even begin to remember, and most of them were back before i owned my torque wrench, very rare to even scratch leupolds finish

[FergusonTO35]

Didn't win the Pro Staff so I went ahead and ordered a Buckmasters II 4-12x40. Will let you know how it does!