Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/9/2002 1:28:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 1:29:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2002 2:24:16 PM EDT by fight4yourrights]
Call SWFA or post this to their forum, Chris could answer this for you. 50mm gets a bit large for the AR-15, as you can see. [img]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/paulbritton/gunsar15_files/image021.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 2:21:06 PM EDT
Nikon's "good" scope is the Monarch, the Buckmaster is a lower line. Doesn't mean it's bad necessarily, but it's not the top-shelf Nikon either. I dunno about the Weaver. I would take a Vari-X II over either of them. 50mm objective should be OK, it gathers a lot of light, the main problem with larger scopes is that the bell doesn't have clearance from the rifle unless you get higher rings to accomodate, this shouldn't be a factor on a scope to be mounted on the carrying handle. That is, if this scope is going on an AR15.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 4:39:53 PM EDT
I have the Buckmaster that you described. I love the scope. No problems with it except some condensation on the outside of the lens sometimes when I take it out of my warm truck and it's cold as hell outside. By the time I get to the stand it's clear. I've even bumped it around a bit and it still drives nails at 100yds.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 7:58:19 PM EDT
IMO, Nikon is by far the best scope for the money in the under $500 range. I would take a $300 Nikon over a $500 Luepold, personally. Compare the two scopes, side by side, & look at the clarity difference. Nikon wins hands down.
Link Posted: 3/10/2002 6:01:10 AM EDT
I have to vote with Bob Cole on this one. I would rather have the Nikon Monarch than the Weaver or Vari-XII. I've had all three and the Nikon, for the money is the winner IMHO.
Top Top