Reply With QuoteI have both and really like both. The Nikon BDC is easy to use and works as advertised. The Redfield has the edge on brightness and clarity. If I had a choice for either at the same price I would go with the Redfield.
I am looking for a new scope for my 110 in 30-06. I have narrowed it down to a Nikon Prostaff 3-9x50 BDC and the Redfield Revenge 3-9x52 ABS hunter. I know I like Nikon scopes but I have heard good things about Redfield plus I would be getting 2mm larger objective for the same price.
So which would you buy and why? Also suggestions on a place to get them on the cheap.
PS- I know there will be suggestions of others to buy and I'm great with that my only criteria is a 50mm objective, atleast 9x zoom but not over 14 and under $250
I have both and really like both. The Nikon BDC is easy to use and works as advertised. The Redfield has the edge on brightness and clarity. If I had a choice for either at the same price I would go with the Redfield.
If only going with 3-9 then i would go with the nikon with the bdc. For higher power the redfield has more bells and whistles and the edge on clarity.
Come to think of it, if it was 3-9 I would go with the Nikon also. My Redfield is the Revenge Varmint 4-18.
I have both the Prostaff BDC and the Burris Full field II ballistic plex and would take the Burris over the Nikon. I hate how the Prostaff is circles where the ballistic plex is marks. A lot of people think the Burris has the optic edge also. I paid 185 for a 3-9 Burris. Check it out.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
I looked at the Burris I just really would like a 50mm objective or atleast a 44mm.Originally Posted by bower4311
Nikon makes a 3-9x50 in their prostaff line as well.
The 50mm Burris is 250. You might be able to find it cheaper. I think that's optics planets price.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/328...-reticle-matte
A lot of people put it ahead of Nikon Prostaff for optics. Being they're nearly the same anyway I would take the Ballistic Plex all day over the BDC Nikon uses. Open circles do not work as well as marks. I use Strelok on my phone to find out where each load falls compared to the compensator marks. If you want me to ill do it for you anytime you can pm me. All it needs is bullet weigh speed and BC.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
They sure work well on my Nikon. Once you "tune" your BDC to a specific load it is very accurate. For example. I took my best AR load and tuned it to the BDC circles. I put 4"x4" rocks at 100-400 yards. If you hold the correct circle at each distance,(in this case only the first and second were needed) you will hit the rock every time. The key is learning to set your 100 yard zero correctly for a specific load.Open circles do not work as well as marks
Last edited by wbm; 02-27-2013 at 07:33 PM.
Well I started checking out the Burris and it that really makes the decision hard. I am really liking the accu-ranger of the Redfield, I think it would be really handy as a deer/coyote hunter, but I also like the reputation of the burris and nikon brands. I just don't know what to do, I am thinking I will just keep an eye out for one of the three and get whichever I can get the best price on.
While we are on the topic would medium height rings be tall enough or would I need the high mount ones?
I have both in 50's. I can't really call one over the other so far as optics. For the price I can't complain either way. One big difference you do have to allow for when you mount them is the Redfield is a much shorter mount scope than the Nikon. Never had a problem mounting the Nikon but I have had to use extended mounts to get the Redfield back where I like it.
For 50mm's you need high rings and sometimes if they're Weaver, high isn't high enough.
Length is something I will have to worry about with a long action rifle. Thanks on the ring height question, I was looking at the leaper quick attach rings.
Not trying to rag too hard on the Nikon but wouldn't you think it was easier if you had marks instead of circles? Do you use the middle of the circle as your yardage mark? Or only as a reference? Center circle top circle middle or between two circles as different ranges? That way I could see being useful. Essentially getting 3 references per circle.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
if i was going 3-9, I'd go with the Nitrex 3-9x42. Dont know about the redfield but its clearer than the Nikon
Really its clearer than the Nikon, Natchezz has a 3-10x50 for $129 which is $100 bucks cheaper than all the others I have been looking at.
yessir, that nitrex is a lot of scope for the money. Nitrex TR one is, dont know what the 3-10x50 is like
This scope choosing keeps getting harder and harder.
the TR1 is pretty much the same scope as the weaver grand slam. I have both of them and cant tell the difference
It does indeed! To me, once you decide what your budget range is then you need to determine what the scope will be used for the majority of the time. That's why I bought the Nikon BDC for hunting use and the Redfield Revenge Varmint for target and long range use.This scope choosing keeps getting harder and harder.
Members who have read this thread in the last 1 days: 0
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks