Nikon or Bushnell

ShdBHuntng · 03-27-2011, 07:25 PM

I just bought a new T/C Triumph now I am in the market for a scope. I have seen good reviews on both the Nikon BDC 300 and the Bushnell DOA 250, so I am looking for some other opinions.
Are there pros or cons to one or the other? I know that the Nikon is about $100 more than the Bushnell, but that is not a problem.
Just wanting to know what others think of these scopes.
Thanks

Omega45 · 03-28-2011, 01:30 AM

I like the Bushnell DOA over the Nikon BDC. I prefer the lines over the circles and really do not care for 5" of eye relief. I seem to get a better sight picture and a better field of view with the Bushnell. Sometimes more expensive is not always better. Natchez had the Bushnell DOA's on sale for $146 with a free spotting scope. Just my .02 cents.

onetohunt · 03-28-2011, 04:31 AM

I would also look at the Vortex Diamondback. The scope is solid and very clear. It has the BDC as well. The warranty is second to none and the price is even better than the two that you mentioned. Just food for thought.

temphank · 03-28-2011, 05:04 AM

Last season I bought a Nikon Omega with the Nikoplex reticle and I love it. I mostly hunt in moderately wooded areas therefore I prefer the uncluttered crosshairs. For this same reason I chose the lower power version of this scope. 1.6 to 5X. I love the way the 1.6 opens up the field of view and lets in all that light during the wee hours of the morning.

I also bought the scope for the 5 inch eye relief. And i still prefer this feature even though I have found a slight drawback. Holding the scope in the store it is great. But when I am sitting in a tree stand with a bar in front of me to rest my elbow on - I typically lean forward. When I lean forward I naturally move my cheek forward (actually I think I am moving my shoulder back a bit ) and thus my eye relief is about 4 inches and I get the ( I don't know the technical name ) but you know, that little circle inside the scope you get when your eye is too close. Adjusting the scope all the way forward in the mount has helped. But I still need a second to readjust and pull my cheek back a little and then everything is fine. This isn't really a big problem but I thought I'd pass that along. Maybe with more scope experience I will learn to shoulder the ML properly with different body geometries.

This was my first scope so take my review with a large grain of salt. I suppose that all scopes require a slight adjustment to eye position depending on body geometry in different shooting positions.

bronko22000 · 03-28-2011, 05:05 AM

Be interesting to see what you decide. I didn't think I would like the circles either until I tried them. Its pretty amazing how your eye centers the target in the circle. Just like using a peep. And you don't have the lines blocking part of your image. As for clarity I think they are pretty comparitable. But I think the Nikon has a bit of an edge. IMO I'd go with the Nikon.

smokey92 · 03-28-2011, 05:12 AM

Actually the Bushnell DOA for ML's has a listed eye relief of 5.2" compared to 5" for the Omega.
Both very good scopes. You won't go wrong with either one.

lemoyne · 03-28-2011, 06:13 AM

They are both excellent choices, I prefer the Nikon for me its clearer at long range. Some like lines some like circles for me I like to see what I am shooting at especially with a small target at long range. The better ones for muzzleloaders have long eye relief so that with heavy loads at long range you don't get scope eye. if you never shoot heavy loads or long range you can get along with a cheap scope and don't need one like this any way.I know there are a lot of people that use loads like I taught my kids to shoot with and never put a good long range load in their gun.
Actually there are people who do most of there shooting at 20 to 50 yards and that's fine but they really don't need a good scope or a decent load for that range even if they prefer them. A lot of your scope needs depend on what you intend to do with it .

HEAD0001 · 03-28-2011, 07:33 AM

I have several scopes with BDC style reticles. The Leupold VH, B&C, Burris Ballistic-Plex, Swaro. TDS, Minox BDC, and the Nikon BDC.

I have a Nikon Monarch with their BDC reticle. And IMO their reticle is crap. It is a cluster ****. I have no idea who came up with it, but it is not even close to the other BDC reticles that Leupold or others have. I took the Monarch off a rifle and put it on a 22 rifle. I think I am even going to sell it pretty soon. The glass in the Monarch is great, but that reticle is terrible.

Take a long look and shoot the different reticles before you buy. You will not be sorry. I have talked to a few guys who like the Nikon, but many who don't. Tom.

cayugad · 03-28-2011, 07:35 AM

I have both scopes.. I would hate to say one is better then the other. I have the Omega and the 3200. Both of them are under a great warranty, have excellent glass, great eye relief, although the 3200 does have rain guard.

Omega45 · 03-28-2011, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smokey92

Actually the Bushnell DOA for ML's has a listed eye relief of 5.2" compared to 5" for the Omega.
Both very good scopes. You won't go wrong with either one.

I have the Bushnell 3-9x40 Trophy DOA 250. Must be my eyes because there is no way I get 5" of eye relief looking through it. I do know they have 5" listed on the Bushnell website though........

The Nikon 3-9x40 BDC actually does give me the whole 5" of eye relief which tends to reduce my FOV.

Try them all and see which one suits you. I use Bass Pro and Gander Mtn to "look" and see if I like then find better deals online.