5 replies to this topic

[Smokewagonokc]

Went out yesterday to sight in new scope. I had gone to Nikons site and put in the speed of my Predator,arrow, and broadhead weight. It shows after 20yard sight in the next dots down will hit at 33,53,69,77 yards. NOTTTTTT! The first dot was dead on at 33 yards. Moved back to 53 and hit about 8" low. I moved up to 43 yards and was dead on with next dot. Moved back to 53 yards and 3rd dot was right on. Moved back to 63 for last dot. Shot, heard arrow hit bag, but didn't see my Luminok. Arrow was not in target, still haven't found it. Not sure if it was low or high. So in my opinion this scope is no better than the others with hold over crosshairs or the triple red dot I replaced. Nikons spot on program is far from spot on. My 2 cents.

[xbowguy]

Smoke

So it appears that your crossbow/arrows are running slower than the Nikon program. Stupid question but I’m sure you personally shot some of your arrows through a chronograph?

As I have said and tried to tell others these so called programs are only a guide. Everyone wants to cram speed in and have it do all the hard work based on simple math. As you found out doesn’t work that way. What these programs lack is a ballistic profile if you will a drag model. As I’m sure you know with bullets there is a BC which gets factored in and today is pretty damn accurate. With arrows its only weight. Nothing factors in profile for vanes or points, broadhead and any type of drag. With crossbows loosing energy fast over distance it’s kind of critical. No matter what it’s always best to shoot the additional aiming points in and assume they will be nothing more than close. Sometimes you can get lucky.

Also you have the issue of tolerance. Tolerance vs. actual draw weight and speed of your crossbow vs. the as advertised. How accurate was the reticle in the scope and what is its true or actual magnification.

Guess the sad thing here is that based on their Name or BRAND you and most assumed they had a clue. Well they don’t. I doubt anyone there understands crossbows or what we need as users. MARKETING baby! I believe some of the crossbow makers have a better idea than some of those so called bigger names in optics. Companies like Ten Point and Excalibur have been working with their optic makers for a long time and understand what they need so don’t discount all optics that come with the crossbow. Some are pretty good while others are really cheap pieces of crap and thrown in just to increase the perceived value of the package.

Nikon is really no different than the rest. Most of the so called big names really don’t make anything. They have what I will call makers tweak things for them and add their name. Realize where most of these things are made the people making them have never really even seen a sharp stick let alone an arrow.

I think your spot on.

[Smokewagonokc]

Xbowguy, I just pray someone doesn't buy one of these and then go and wound a bunch of animals because they believed the program and did no testing themselves.

[Bmwgsboy]

To me nikon should have come up with a simple
Ballistic turret. Were you can set your own markings
Down to the yard. No guess work there.
I have one on my air rifle works like a charm.

[SEW]

Nikon needs to use a system like the Hawke Xb30; but then, you could just get the Hawke. I do like the small size of the Nikon. The small size of the Nikon is nice.

[gww]

I think the Nikon Bolt XR was designed for the Horton Vision 175. The aiming points are set-up for a 400gr arrow at 305 fps. The Vision matches those specs exactly. The scope is very clear and also very bright in dim light.
I put one on my Vision and it shoots bullseyes at 20, 30 & 40 yds using the first 3 aiming points. That's as far as I have shot it yet. I would recommend the Nikon to anyone shooting the Vision 175.