I just bought a nice 270 Winchester Model 70 in 270 win and it has a Nikon Monarch UCC 3-9x40 on it. All of my other rifles have Leupold VXlll on them. I was thinking about replacing the Nikon with a VXlll.

Do you think the Nikon is a good scope and I shouldn't waste my money or should I replace it?

Put a golden-ringed scope on it and send me the Nikon...

In all seriousness, the Monarch optics are exceptional and what I consider to be the best value in any sub-$1000 scope.

Keep the Monarch on it!

quote:

Originally posted by joedjr:
I just bought a nice 270 Winchester Model 70 in 270 win and it has a Nikon Monarch UCC 3-9x40 on it. All of my other rifles have Leupold VXlll on them. I was thinking about replacing the Nikon with a VXlll.

Do you think the Nikon is a good scope and I shouldn't waste my money or should I replace it?

Since you have the VXIII's you should have seen an improved sight picture when you looked through the Monarch.

Both have very good glass quality and it is difficult at best "for me" to tell any real differences between them. Everyones eyes are a bit different as well so what is great for one person may not be for another. Its best to compare them side by side if possible. Thats what I do and thanks to Cabelas for the ability to do so, as they have nearly every brand there for the testing.

Went to the range today, the gun shot great and the scope wasn't that bad.

quote:

Originally posted by joedjr:
Went to the range today, the gun shot great and the scope wasn't that bad.

It's OK to say it...'The Nikon was as good, if not better than my VX-III for hundreds less.'
Good choice.

thinkingman wrote:

quote:

It's OK to say it...'The Nikon was as good, if not better than my VX-III for hundreds less.'

Keep the Nikon on the rig.