temphank

I am stuck on this one. I am new to muzzleloading and new to scopes. I will be hunting mostly in Michigan woods and will probably not be offered a shot beyond 150 yards. I would say 200 yards at the extreme end. I like the idea of the 9 power for initial spotting but I don't know if its worth giving up the field of view and probably better low light performance of the 1.65 - 3 range.

So I guess what I need to know is: What do you think is going to be more useful, the lower magnification range of 1.65-3 or the higher range of 5-9?

While at it how about your thoughts on BDC vs Nikoplex?

Thanks

cayugad

I have a Nikon Omega with the 3-9x40mm and no BDC. I love the scope. I just taught myself hold over. Most of my shots are 50 yards. But I sighted this in for 100 yards. And even then I am still in a kill zone for my ranges.

On my other rifles I mounted 2-7x32mm Nikon Pro Staff scopes. This is really a nice scope. It is a shotgun scope. And just a great scope.

So my opinion, the BDC unless you are shooting extreme ranges all the time I see no need for it. If I were out west or in field hunting, then it might have an advantage. I hunt woods.

The 2-7 gathers a lot of light. And how often do we do snap shots? I take my time and line up the shot. So the field of view becomes less and less important. I line up my shot and make it count. The power of the scope is less important then the cross hair and clarity of the scope for me.

Actually I never knew about the 1.65x5x36 Nikon. It sounds like a great scope. It would be good for stalking and actually I used to shoot a 30-06 with a 4x scope on it. I never felt under scoped and would shoot out to 200 yards all the time.

Gm54-120

Im really starting to like the 2x7s also. I have 2 different brands and one is a wide angle with a 40mm objective.

I just saw the 1.6x5 Nikon while checking out their 2x7s a few minutes ago. Sure looks like a nice option on my brush gun.

smokepolehall

I knowed nothing about the Nikon's cept they be good scopes. I have a Bushnell 3x9 Trophy on my GreyHawk, its a nice scope but its not whats best fer it. I just pulled it off while cleaning the GreyHawk & will put my Bushnell Elite 1.5x6 on it. That should make a nice combo as my shots here in these thick woods run way less than 75 yds. It has the #4 recticle in it

rlmx

Just ordered the 1.65 - 5X36 for a CVA Accura 2. Decided on that scope after looking at an old Burris 1.5-5X20 and realizing that it was more than adequate for the weapon (except for the fact that the dearler was asking a bit too much for a discontinued, several year old scope). The important part is that both of the scopes you are evaluating have 5" of eye relief. I am not an expert on the topic, however, I have been nailed between the eyes 2 times (makes me sad that 1 time was not enough). And just by happen chance I just saw a kid end up with a goose egg between his eyes yesterday; produced by his wolf with a low eye relief scope. Burris makes a 2-7X35 and Leupold makes a 2-7x33mm. Both looked like good options. But I wanted the lower power for tight quarters. I will be sighting in the scope next weekend (if I can figure out why tripple 7 is jacking up my weapon so bad).

hubby11

I would rather have the low end magnification for the conditions you described.

thom2

I looked at the Nikon Omega when I first got my T/C Omega, but after research and looking at one at Bass Pro, I decided to stick to the proven Leupold brand.

I know the trajectory of my load so, I have no need for all those yardage marks.

I bought a Leupold VX-ll 3-9x40.

7.62NATO

Natchez SS has the Nikon Omega 3-9x40 on sale for $190 in silver or RealTree (for some reason the matte is $250). Don't know anything about the scope, but I have heard that some people do not like the extended eye relief. I have a Leupold Ultimate Slam (3-9x40) on my Omega, and the eye relief on that is plenty, and I don't mind the 3x like I thought I woud. It has held zero perfectly and gives me a crystal clear sight picture, but it was a PAIN IN THE ASS to zero (I think there is something wrong with my turrets...will be contacting Leupold after the the season).

Bernie P.

I've always preferred lower power scopes for most situations particularly for big game.ML's really don't have the reach to justify high power anyway.

nys-buckstalker

I would go with the 2X7 . Just on the fact when you are on 2 power you got a wider field of view. I hunt a lot of wooded area somost of time my 3x9 is cranked down to 3. About the only time i even use the 9 power on my 30.06 is when hunting powerlines or large fields. Truthfully go with what you feel comfortable with.