Really?? You say you own one now eh? Well which is it Jr? Which we all know? Kinda like the "turrets" on the Pro Staff?

http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/scop...rostaff-2.html



You are a walking contradiction.... do the world a favor and spare us your "expert" opinion and stick to window licking. Really its ok to !!!! when you dont know the answer...:busted:

I still stand by that however, the Prostaff I bought was well after that was written. The reason I bought it is I got an incredible deal on it that was to hard to pass up. I wanted to run it through some tests and see how it did. Honestly my opinions mimic what was said on Optics Talk. The glass is decent, but not on par with others in the $200 price range, the turrets are not the best, but it is a durable scope and works fairly well. It would probably serve most hunters just fine. I don't feel that was bashing them. I was just stating that you can get a lot better glass for the money price that they were at that time. However, the difference is at that time they were $160 and they are now $100. As I said, them holding up is not a problem for them. Optically for $180 from a store, or $140 or so on eBay you can get a Burris FFII that's quite a bit better. I see no reason to spend $160 on a Prostaff with bad turrets and only decent glass when you can get the Burris FFII for around the same price. I like the best glass I can get for my money. That doesn't mean that the Nikon is a horrible scope, just that it's not great glass. For $100, there isn't much else I think you can get that's better. Optically the Prostaff is nearly identical to a Simmons Blazer I directly compared it to. I feel more confident in it holding up over time, but optically it's very similar. I think if you did a search on read reviews from people that have actually used decent glass and know what to look for you will see very similar findings. To me the Nikon Prostaff should be in the $100 price range all of the time, as I feel it's out of place in the $160-200 price class. That doesn't mean it's a piece of crap, just that it's not optically up to par with others in that price range.

BTW if I don't know the answer to something you don't see me post about it. Ever wonder why I don't post in the bow section? Hmm, there is a reason for that. Or the taxidermy section? Reason for that too.

What I do respond to is when someone comes on here spreading bs, that's clearly bs. Or when I do know about a specific product.

Perhaps the firearms and optic sections would be great places for exclusion as well :D

Rifles?
 

There is an article in the March,2011 "Guns & Ammo" by Craig Boddington "Out of the Box Accuracy" that I found quite informative.
It relates very well to the array of posts in this thread.
I don't know whether Boddington is an "EXPERT" or not, however he has a varied and broad experience base.
I found his comments enlightening and seemingly unbiased(the key word "unbiased").
GOOD LUCK and GOOD SHOOTING!!!

As for me, I bought a 700 adl 2 yrs. ago. It rusted in one weekend. I took it out to clean and was pitted with rust. Yah, I know I'm supposed to wipe it dry. My sons cheap H&R didn't rust a bit. What does that tell you? It shoots 2" @ 100 yds and 6" @ 200 yds on a good day. My old Remingtons shot very well. This one is going in for a Savage. I'm done, the last 3 Remingtons have been a big disapointment in accuracy.

That tells me that you bought a Remington 700 with a very course matte bead blasted finish which will rust over night if you do not keep the thing clean. Moisture will settle into the pores of the finish and rust. It's that simple. If you do not like this then you should purchase a rifle with a smoother finish on the steel.

The H&R has a satin finish (about 400 grit) that is not nearly as course as the bead blasted finish on the ADL and thus does not rust as easily. This finish is similar to what is on the Remington 700 CDL.

The rifles that have mirror polished blued steel, such as a Winchester 70 super grade, perform almost as if they were stainless steel because the surface of the metal is so smooth.

It tells me you bought 2 cheap rifles and one rusted due to neglect.

so "it" shoots 3Xs larger groups @ only double the distance :confused:Hmmmm are you sure its the rifle?

So you really think you know something because some hoser posted about it on opticstalk???

Why do you keep recommending Vortex. You only know what you read.

I wouldn't have any issues if you put disclaimers before you post, that you read it somewhere.

My cousin lives in Nashville, TN. He had just moved there. He had three Remington shotguns in his collection, A Benelli 390, A shot gun that was made before 1900, A couple of air rifles and his bow all sitting in his Wooden display cabinet with glass doors. Within a month or two of moving there. His Remington shotguns were all rusted. All the other guns in his cabinet were fine. Including the one made before 1900.

Are there some potential lurking variables here. Maybe. Lets say there was some neglect. Which I don't particulary think so but if there was they were all neglected the same.

Tom