08-03-2007, 10:04 PM
Ok here is what I thought of the two; I compared the Nikon Buckmasters 600 and the Bushnell scout 600 (this was a few years back and now the models have changed a little). The Nikon has a better reputation for optics but the image seamed darked than the bushnell especially in low loght conditions. The Nikon gave a faster reading and it was in half yards. Does it really matter if your off by 1.5 feet? No, not a relavant comparison. As I said before I have had issues trying to range a rock in the tall grass. So I find something else like a tree or taller rock to range. I have been told that the Nikon has a narrower beam and will shoot through brush better, but I have not compared that (kinda hard in the store).
Either way you go, you should be fine. What I do is range an object two or three times and see what the average is. If there is something in the way you should be able to tell if the figure is close or not. I did have one case last year where the trees were so thick and so much brush I couldnt get a good reading and just had to wing it. Don't completely rely on the finder though cause sometimes you don't get the time to use it before the shot.
[signature]
Either way you go, you should be fine. What I do is range an object two or three times and see what the average is. If there is something in the way you should be able to tell if the figure is close or not. I did have one case last year where the trees were so thick and so much brush I couldnt get a good reading and just had to wing it. Don't completely rely on the finder though cause sometimes you don't get the time to use it before the shot.
[signature]