I have always purchased Leupold's for my rifles. Lately I have heard a lot of very positive comments about Nikon being a great deal for the money. So, I stopped by the gun shop and took a look at a couple Nikon's with the BDC (Bullet Drop Compensator) reticle. I have to say that the clarity was very good. The BDC was a small set of circles similar to the mil-dot but hollow. I am not sure how well they would stand out against the black or brown hide of a bruin but they were a lot larger than the Leupold's. The price seemed somewhat low for the perceived quality of the scope. I am the old guy who believes you get what you pay for so I am just a little hesitant on purchasing one of these scopes, throwing it on my 300 Weatherby and have the thing fail or fall apart on a hunt. Has one had any experience with the Nikon's?
Specifically I am looking at the Nikon Monarch 2.5-10x42 for my Weatherby. I want something that gathers a pile of light, can go low for close shots (2.5 power) or higher for much longer shots. The BDC is appealing although the jury is out on how well it will work in the field. My concern is that my 300 kicks like an ol' pissed off mule. I don't want the scope to sound like a baby rattle after a box or two of rounds going through the rifle.
I know they are relatively in expensive but I don't want it failing at the very moment I really need it or on day 3 of a 7 day hunt.
So, any opinions after all that?