I have two Nikon scopes sitting on my workbench, and I'm trying to decide which to mount up on my rifle for long range work (800 yards plus). Need some help deciding, because on the face of it there is little to choose between them. (Please don't try to convince me to buy yet another scope - I have these and I don't have money to spare for anything new right now - so it HAS to be one of these two).
They are a Nikon M308 4-16x42 BDC 800 (older model on a 1 inch tube), and a Nikon P308 4-16x42 BDC 800 (newer one on a 30mm tube). I know the Monarch glass on the M-Series scopes is supposed to be better than the Prostaff glass on the P-Series (not quite sure how, darned if I can see any difference, but that's the commonly accepted wisdom). There used to be a number of other differences but Nikon recently updated the P308 and now as near as I can tell the only real difference between the two is the range of adjustment. The P-series scope being on a 30 mm tube has 90 MOA of adjustment, whereas the older M308 only has 40 MOA (new M308s on the 30mm tube apparently have 60 MOA - but that isn't what I have).
Which do you recommend? Do I go with the greater adjustment range, or the supposedly better optical quality? I already have a 20 MOA mount, so not sure if the larger adjustment is really the deciding factor.