Thread: Nikko Stirling Gold Crown

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

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

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.

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.