New scope.
I had an old Bushnell on the McGowan rifle, but it really didn’t do what I wanted, and it’s power was not appropriate for the rifle. I have not shot it for ages because of that and because of the bad trigger and because of the bad stock
The trigger is fixed and the stock has been replaced, and now all that remains is to put a good scope in place, and I can do some serious shooting.
So I have been looking at the Leus and the Reds but tonight a guy at Gander got me to hold up some Nikon glass.
Damn.
The one I’m looking at is the Monarch 2.5-10 x 42 BDC.
The reticle may take some getting used to. I should have the cash for it in a couple weeks and when I do I will have to get serious about rings.
Coming together, anyway.
11 comments Og | Uncategorized
If you want a lower-cost alternative, check out Nikon’s ProStaff range. They’re typically half the price (or less) than the Monarch range, and are probably 80% to 90% as good. I’ve standardized on the ProStaff range for the past several years, particularly the 3x-9x and 2x-7x (the latter particularly on .30-30’s and evil black rifles).
I know cheaper scopes have been denigrated for years, but in my experience the ProStaffs are punching above their weight, and doing very well.
I looked at those too, Peter, and they were indeed excellent scopes. If they have one available with a mil-dot I will seriously consider it.
ETA: They do make it in a mildot, but it’s only about $60 less than the Monarch, so I think I’m gonna go Monarch.
Nikon makes good glass. I just have a problem putting something one gun that is worth more than the gun.
Still, all in all, I would use Nikon glass if I could afford it.
I figure this is a $1500 rifle.I figure a scope should cost as much as 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a rifle.
I would agree with that. Course my most expensive rifle has about 500 in it so….
We have a number of Monarchs in my family. I have a 3-9×40
Good glass for the money. One beef, there is a rubber ring around the eyepiece. It has dried out and is falling off on mine. One of my brothers has the same issue. I am considering sending it in, I’m sure they’d fix it for free.
I saw that and wondered about it. I will have to ask when I buy mine.
I own several scopes that cost more than the rifle they are mounted on. I have never been disappointed in “better” glass but many times with bargain optics.
For me its Leupold and Trijicon right now. I have friends with Nightforce stuff and it works great but out of my price range. And good mounting hardware is essential IMO.
Have you looked at SWFA’s site for their not new stuff?
http://www.samplelist.com
I have a ProStaff 3X9X40 BDC on my Winchester 70 in .243. It shoots MOA at 400 yards and did for 2 Boomershoots in a row. The BDC bubbles are designed for 300 WinMag, but the trajectory of 243 matches 300WM out to at least 350, so the bubbles are good. I paid $160 for it on sale at Cabelas about 6 years ago, but I still see them for $200.
BTW, a good spotting scope is just as essential as your riflescope for long-range accuracy. The test of a spotting scope is whether it will see bullet-track from a quarter-inch boattail going downrange. Bullet track or trace is essential for your spotter, because your miss won’t always kick up dust, and if you don’t spot your misses, hits are harder to come by. I didn’t know this, pre-Boomershoot, but I lucked out and my $100 Bushnell DOES see bullet track most shots. To guarantee seeing it every time, you need a Swaroski spotting scope, $3-5K.
Dog: I think I may have that same bushnell- I like it a lot- but what I want is one of the old Redfields. Someday I’ll find one