Nikko Stirling Gold Crown

One of these has come into my possession on a rifle I bought. I'm guessing its 1970s vintage. It's a 3.5-10×40 duplex. Kinda surprised how clear the optics are although clearly (pun intended) eclipsed by an older Leupold I have and a new Vortex Crossfire II ($400)scope.

I'm not super big on expensive glass as most of my shooting is under 250m. Well, pretty much all of it actually.
So if it holds zero I'll probably leave it on the rifle as it is.

I'm interested any anyone else's experiences of these. Yea I know I should spend 10 times the value of the rifle on an optic.....etc etc... But it would be interesting to know how much bacon (veni), comes home courtesy of budget or less than stellar optics. I have an acquaintance in his mid-70s who showed me his original beat up 222 BSA he bought new as a govt culler back in the day. He had rebarreled it having worn the original out, but still had the original scope on it. Dented, scratched and God knows how he could see thru it but he could still clover leaf 3 shots at 100m with it - an old Nikko Stirling, made in Japan, 3-9×40.

So c'mon guys, we hear plenty about long ranger shots with adjustable this that and the other, with dope cards, anemometers and ballistics calculators. Let's hear about some ordinary rigs that regularly fill the freezer.

Here's my new/old Nikko Stirling Gold Crown...

Attachment 185349

the 3x9x40mm version has the best field of view by a large margin of any 3x Ive ever seen...... one came on my .223 25 years ago and is still going strong on rifle finnwolf now owns....
Ive killed 2 of them,both on .270...rough handling and possibly overuse of CRC 5.56 etc for cleaning when rifles soaking wet more than likely the deciding factor in the dreaded fogging. but the darn things never lost zero and the light gathering and field of view more than made up for anything else.

The early Nikko scopes were made in Japan and were ok for the price. Had a Gold crown for years , first on a .308 then many years on a Rossi .357. Always held zero... don`t actually remember what happend to it.

The old 70s issue gold crowns were made in Japan.
Think they were steel and meant to be relatively robust cost effective scopes but the glass not up to the level of the better ones.

Iv got a old nikko stirling diamond 1.5x6x44 on my 308.Made in Japan.Deadly little scope,good glass and very accurate dialing.No problem shooting deer to 300yds.Attachment 185354Just waiting on my new delta.

Have an old 1978? Nikko Stirling Gold Crown 4x40 scope sitting in the cupbourd. Lived on three differant 308's, .222 for a while and stupidly put it on a BSA Meteor air rifle. The air rifle f#cked it, reticle broke at crosshair. Up until then it never lost zero after untold number of shots, was as clear as most scopes I've looked through and performed well at dawn/dusk. Have every so often thought of getting it repaired but never got around to it. Still got it just out of nostalgia I guess. As stated on another thread I think that even the newer Nikko Sterling scopes are under-rated, certainly can't bag them considering the punishment I give them at times. But then again I also rate my 2x Leupold M8 4x scopes and steel Burris 3-7 mini fairly high.

I have a nikko sterling 4 x 40 platinum? I think, sitting in the cupboard waiting to be mounted on my jw15. Have had it for ages. Can't even remember where I brought it.

I have a Zastava 308 with one, mounted nice and low in steel rings. It is a great combo that points really well. They are way better than their price point would suggest and they have a great field of view.

I had the same model switched it between several rifles. It always worked. One feature I liked was that although not "tacticool the turrets were marked off so you could see how many rotations you had wound on.

Great lenses and great with a spotlight but the Ali tubes are soft so dont bash it around

Attachment 185362
Zastava 308 with Nikko Stirling Gold 3.5-10x

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bol Tackshin

Attachment 185362
Zastava 308 with Nikko Stirling Gold 3.5-10x

---

Same as mine, how long have you had it? How do you find it?

I've had it for just over 3 years. It's an honest scope that holds its zero, is well made, is actually quite clear for the money. There are many scopes that have more features, but I enjoy having a set and forget scope on my hunting rifle.

I don't shoot often enough to feel confident with dialling. If I was to go that route, I'd get a tacticool scope for the rimfire and learn on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jhon

So c'mon guys, we hear plenty about long ranger shots with adjustable this that and the other, with dope cards, anemometers and ballistics calculators. Let's hear about some ordinary rigs that regularly fill the freezer.

---

You do not need scopes to shoot animals either, but you use scope nevertheless because scopes makes shooting accurately easier.

Same logic applies to better scopes. Better scopes makes shooting accurately easier yet again.

In the end of the day it whether the gain from the better scope is worth the money is a personal decision based on personal circumstance. If you have free hunting access, plenty of time to hunt, thus plenty of opportunities to get an animal, then there is little value in getting a better scope. But if you have a full time job and little kids and live in the middle of a big city, hunting opportunity is scarce, then that extra chance afforded by a better scope is quite important.

And it depends on your disposable income too. For some it's no the amount spent is no object; whereas for some of us we look for the best bang for buck :)

I’ve a loopy 2-7 X 33 that I’ve close to 20 years. Set and forget. If too far away get closer…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bumblefoot

And it depends on your disposable income too. For some it's no the amount spent is no object; whereas for some of us we look for the best bang for buck :)

---

…and yes money is a consideration when you don’t have a abundance of it…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiroahunta

…and yes money is a consideration when you don’t have a abundance of it…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Yes I could no doubt find the $$$ to put $10k combined into rifle and optics, and I'm not for a minute knocking those who do. Its just not me. Apart from doubting I would be good enough to maximize the value of that sort of expenditure, there are other calls on the $$$ in my world that are far more worthy and justifiable. Further, I get a lot of pleasure from getting a little to go a long way. Someone looking at my collection could justifiably observe I could flog the lot off and use the proceeds to buy one or two really high end combos. But where would the pleasure be in that? Some, but again, not really where I'm at.

So it's great to hear there are plenty of others "getting by" with less spendy gear. Not that that has ever really been in doubt. I still love to hear about the high end and fondle it with my eyes when I get the chance. I like it even more when my $800 rig gets a bit better group at the range than the guy next to me sporting $8k worth of shiny kit, lol. Then, occasionally I watch in awe as a bloke tack-drives a target with that class of kit in a display I could never match. Different boats, different floats.

@Jhon I'm sorta in the same boat and mindset as you. For scopes I ended up settling on the Bushnell Elite series for the 223 and 308. I scored 2 new ones; the dearest was $699. For me, they seemed about the best bang for buck. Especially as I'm not a long range dial-up shooter.

It all boils down to the fact that some people simply have more disposable income than others. and that applies to every sport. I could be wrong; but considering the number of package rifle deals that stores offer, I'd bet that even now there are probably more animals taken with Nikko Stirling scopes (especially the Panamax package deal ones) than most other brands put together. But then again, I could be wrong! and often am! ;) Not dissing other scope brands; just thinking and wondering out loud.

Sometimes I think being on a forum can skew people into thinking that everyone can afford a Swaro or VX5 Leupold. However I know a ton of hunters, most who don't frequent forums, who buy a package rifle, and just use it as is. Again; NOT dissing what people spend on scopes, hunting gear etc. What they spend is their prerogative :)

Greetings all,
This has been a most interesting thread. I asked a question about what people were using for short to medium range shooting a little while ago. The answers were interesting to say the least. Much lower power scopes than I expected were suggested by many. After reading through this thread I realised that much more economical scopes can be used by most of us. The phrase "fit for purpose" is a good one to keep in mind rather than absolute best. The scope needs to be fit for the purpose that we use it for.
Thinking this way I did a mental check of the scopes on my rifles. The only one that didn't seem to make the grade is a fixed 10 power on my bolt action .308. This rifle is used mostly for testing these days so it is probably adequate. If needs change then the scope may need to as well but I will cross that bridge when we come to it.
Regards Grandpamac.

@grandpamac - a fixed scope is fractionally better for testing than a variable power*, because there is no possibility of the reticle varying if the magnification wasn't correctly set. The reticle subtensions depend on the magnification. That is largely the reason early sniper and marksman rifles were equipped with fixed 6 and 10 power scopes, even though the US military could afford the best variables available. Variables with the reticle in the second focal plane are particularly susceptible to this. If you need a bit more versatility, and don't mind losing a fraction of precision, then the trade off may be worth it.


Edit: * I am talking about scopes that mere mortals can afford without needing to sign divorce papers over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bol Tackshin

@grandpamac - a fixed scope is fractionally better for testing than a variable power*, because there is no possibility of the reticle varying if the magnification wasn't correctly set. The reticle subtensions depend on the magnification. That is largely the reason early sniper and marksman rifles were equipped with fixed 6 and 10 power scopes, even though the US military could afford the best variables available. Variables with the reticle in the second focal plane are particularly susceptible to this. If you need a bit more versatility, and don't mind losing a fraction of precision, then the trade off may be worth it.


Edit: * I am talking about scopes that mere mortals can afford without needing to sign divorce papers over.

---

Greetings @Bol Tackshin.
I rather prefer the fixed power as well. The 10 power is a 10X40 Bushnell costing well under $500.00 these days. I have three of them. My favourite is a Leupold FX2 6 x 36 with the long range duplex. Very light so it does not load up my T3 Lite at about 3kg all up and probably more than I actually need.
Regards Grandpamac.