I used to think so, not anymore. I have 2 as well. 1 Prostaff and 1 Buckmaster. Both have proven to be flukes. Both have broken inside turrets due to recoil, and light recoil on top of that from a 25/06.
I just bought two a few months ago. a buckmaster 6-18X40 for my Remington 700 VTR ,. 223 and a prostaff 3-9X50 for my Ruger M77 hawkeye . 308 and they both look and work great and they are crystal clear.
I also own 2 of them and only use them on my 22 plinking rifles.
Try this trick. If it’s a variable power scope, set the power on the lowest power and then focus the scope using the focus ring so that both the image and the crosshairs are crisp and clear. Fine. Then dial the scope up to the highest magnification. Guess what? Either the image or the crosshairs are going to be slightly blurry when you do this. This doesn’t happen with a Leupold.
yes
even their bottom end scopes are good. are you saying you aint pleased with your Nikons?
Definitely. Good quality and reputation. I have one on my Parker-Hale Model 1200 . 270
I used to think so, not anymore. I have 2 as well. 1 Prostaff and 1 Buckmaster. Both have proven to be flukes. Both have broken inside turrets due to recoil, and light recoil on top of that from a 25/06.
I just bought two a few months ago. a buckmaster 6-18X40 for my Remington 700 VTR ,. 223 and a prostaff 3-9X50 for my Ruger M77 hawkeye . 308 and they both look and work great and they are crystal clear.
I also own 2 of them and only use them on my 22 plinking rifles.
Try this trick. If it’s a variable power scope, set the power on the lowest power and then focus the scope using the focus ring so that both the image and the crosshairs are crisp and clear. Fine. Then dial the scope up to the highest magnification. Guess what? Either the image or the crosshairs are going to be slightly blurry when you do this. This doesn’t happen with a Leupold.
Yes they are.