Between these two scopes which one would you choose and why? Thanks! Mike

Leupold VX2 3X9X50
Nikon Monarch UCC 3.5x10x50

Nikon hands down. I believe the optical quality of that Monarch scope exceeds the VXIII model. The Nikon offers much greater value for the price.

I have owned Leupolds and no longer own them. I don't think the modern ones are nearly as good as they used to be. (A buddy's 14 year old Vari X III is one of the best scopes I have ever looked through though.)

On the other hand, if Leupold has one thing going for it, it is that they are hell for stout with a great warranty.

Put another way, I own three Nikons and zero Leupolds.

LWD

I own one of each... My Nikon however is the Buckmaster 3 x 9 - 40 and my Leupold is a VXIII 3.5 x 10 - 40...

My Nikon has very good optics but not quite as good as the Monarch series but very close to the Leupold... I have that scope on a light weight '06 and have had zero issues with it... I do like this scope....

I put the Leupold on my 338-378 for obvious reasons... They ARE stout... The eye relief is also important on that rifle so again the Leupold was a good fit... I also have had zero issues with this scope and do indeed like it very much...

My hunting partner had 2 Monarchs break on his 300 win mag... Now that rifle was pretty light and this is a few years ago... I did like the optics on that scope and Nikon has probably learned a little since then about recoil...

Either one is a good choice... The Nikon offers alot of scope for the money... The Leupold offers excellent durability for the money...

Ken....

Thanks for the feedback guys i appreciate it. The scope will be going to a Rem Classic 25.06 if that makes any difference and my shots go out to about 300yds. I'm going to purchase one of these scopes but having a hard time deciding which one to buy. The Leupold is about $25 more than the Nikon which really isn't a big deal i just want some feedback between the two before i decide. Again Thanks! Mike

Go to a shop where you can see how both fit on your rifle. You may find you don't want either of them at that point.

I own several Nikon cameras and lens systems and my scopes are Leupold or Zeiss......Leupold is responsive if you have a problem and sturdy and holds their value very well........I have/had nearly 30 Leupold scopes-spotting scopes with few problem scopes....most were second hand.....NO personal Nikon scope experience but my 30yr gun dealer sells both and says Leupold still has the overall edge in scopes........hth..good luck and good shooting with a clear-non wandering scope!!!!

I realize this is an opinion thread, but facts are facts. First of all, the current VX II line meets or exceeds the quality of decade old Vari X III's. Second, the Nikon Monarch is a super value, but its resale value does not match the Leupold. Third, both scopes have very good track records, & in my opinion will offer very good utility and value.

That said, I think both offer advantages over each other. The 3.5x10 is a slightly more versatile magnification than the 3x9, especially for the type of shooting you describe. It's also my opinion that in the store, or on a very clear day, the Nikon will appear to have clearer optics. However, having used both in the field, I can say that the Leupold tends to be more durable & more fog resistant. I would also give the warranty & customer service nod to Leupold, but I've heard that Nikon has made tremendous strides in these areas.

In the end, go with your gut feeling. Sometimes we make our best decisions when we don't overanalyze.

I work with optics on a daily basis and can offer an unbiased assessment based on years of experience.

The Nikon Monarch will outperform the Leupold VXII in virtually all critical optical performance categories. And when it matters most -- in the gray light of early dawn and the long shadows of late evening -- the Monarch holds a distinct advantage in edge-to-edge clarity & the ability to resolve detail in the shadows while rendering a range of contrast that is highly beneficial to top image quality in low-light situations. This allows you to discern detail long after your naked eyes (and lesser optics) would have to throw in the towels.

With that being said, the Leupold VXII is a good, solid scope -- one that will serve you well for years to come. But the Nikon Monarch is better and priced lower as well.

As to holding up under recoil, I've seen a number of "scope failures" over the years, and these have spanned all makes and models, from $29.95 Wally World specials to high-dollar Euro glass. And what most had in common was that the scope was improperly mounted to begin with and was then destroyed by the G-forces of recoil, even on docile numbers like the .243 WCF.

Mounted correctly, the Monarch will easily withstand the recoil of the mild 25-06.

six4atd wrote:

quote:

I can say that the Leupold tends to be more durable & more fog resistant

I must beg to differ. I have battered and abused Nikons for years, and they are still going strong. That includes pre-Monarchs, Monarchs and BMs. And when our home was destroyed by a flood in '97, the only scope in the entire house to take on water was a Leupold 2x EER. (Even the "cheapies" were OK, but that certainly doesn't mean that they were/are better than the Leupolds...)

As to fogging, I assume you are talking about exterior condensation. Both the Leupy and Nikon feature good coatings, and neither is more susceptible to fog than the other. That being said, BOTH will fog when shifted from temperature/atmospheric extreme to the other.

quote:

[B]ut facts are facts. First of all, the current VX II line meets or exceeds the quality of decade old Vari X III's.

Says who? Leupold? With their equally unexplained but equally hyped Index Match lens system? That statement is marketing hype direct from Leupold that has never been substantively quantified.

On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree that "In the end, go with your gut feeling. Sometimes we make our best decisions when we don't overanalyze."



LWD

I use both Nikon and leupold, Monarchs, BMs, VXIIs, VXIIIs, and Varix IIs & IIIs. Honestly, they are all good scopes and you really can't go wrong with either on a hunting rifle.

Best bang for the buck? Nikon hands down. Nikon Monarch scopes have good glass, very crisp and clear, and great light transmission in the late evening. To my eyes the Monarch seems to focus better on paper than the new VX lines.

Another thing that gets me about these two scopes is the claimed magnification levels, what I mean is if I take my Nikons and set them on say 10X and I take some of my Leupies and do the same, the Nikons "zoom" in more and I can make out the target much better. Have no idea why they both can't "zoom" the same and it really doesn't matter.

The only down fall I see with Nikon is resale value, the Leupie will pull more in resale but, you do have to pay more up front. Resale doesn't mean much to me, when I buy quality glass I intend on using it for quite a few years.

Both good scopes, like others said try and find a shop that carries both and have a look for yourself.

Good Luck

Reloader

I have an older VXlll 3.5-10X 40mm and a Nikon Monarch 3-9X 40mm and the Leupold beats it hands down, no comparison. I do like the Nikon but the Leupy is clearer, the Nikon almost has a slight bluish tint to it, kind of weird but its mechanically sound.

i own both go with leupold

fgulla wrote: "the Nikon almost has a slight bluish tint to it, kind of weird but its mechanically sound."

You'd better send it for repair. That's NOT typical. Also, your older VX-III comes up short in every pertinent optical category when compared to a comparable Monarch -- so get that Nikon serviced and see what you've been missing.

Based solely on my experience with Leupold's warranty service--go with them. I've sent 4 back to them over the years, and the only price I've paid was to have a new reticle installed.

Also, for the past 4-5 years, I've done all my 'smith's zero work and worked up loads for a number of customers' rifles--with only one Leupold problem. That was a brand new, just mounted 4.5-14 VX III that just wouldn't hold zero. Back to Leupold, returned in 13 days and then no further problems.

I've never sold a scope in my life,and I've never sent one back for repair. In other words,I don't own any leup(old) scopes. 'nough said.



Nikon all the way.

Nikon. The Monarch is top Nikon.

I don't have a lot of experience with nikon but I do with leupold, I currently have leupolds on all of my rifles except one, that wears a burris. I have I currently own 9 leupolds and 1 burris. The durability, quality, weight, and size has been my main reasons for going with leupold. I know I can count on them. I also know if for some reason on should break, they will stand behind it. There is definately a reason why most of the scopes I see up here in our hard hunting conditions are leupolds, they just work, period.

Because of the extremely reasonable price of Nikon Monarchs I always have this feeling that it might not be up to other slightly more expensive scopes. Problem with my way of thinking is after owning 4 of them I have yet to find a problem with any of them and find them first rate scopes. They may also be the easiest scope to sight a rifle in with ... my answer is NIKON

I have one Nikon about a dozen leupolds, two Leicas, and have had others. Leupold stands behind their products. My Nikon is no brighter than any of my Leupolds. I know it is old fashioned but I like the idea of giving someone who may have a hunting heritage a job other than the mailman. Adrian

Adrian Parham wrote:

quote:

I know it is old fashioned but I like the idea of giving someone who may have a hunting heritage a job other than the mailman.

Adrian-If you are under the impression that Leupold is 100 percent American, think again. That is a misconception that many have had.

Dustoffer wrote:

quote:

Based solely on my experience with Leupold's warranty service--go with them. I've sent 4 back to them over the years

Really? And you still recommend them after that many problems??? I've been shooting with Nikons -- lots of them -- for years and have only had to send ONE back, and that was my fault.

A custom 6.5-06 rifle took a fall during a photo shoot, and the Monarch scope caught the brunt of the impact. I had it back in DAYS, compeletely checked out and looking like new -- all at no charge.

I just don't get it: A scope can come out ahead in all or most critical optical categories and cost LESS than the scope it was compared to -- and folks still want the more expensive scope.

Mike either one of those scopes will do you good if it is for deer up to 300 yds or beyond,but if you're going to varmit hunt or shoot targets also I would go with a little higher power.Midway did have the 6.5x20 monarch for $120 bucks less but don't know if they still are on sale now or not.I bought one and they are a great scope.And another one to save money is the buckmaster,at last count I had 9 buckmasters and 4 monarchs in different powers.I have burris and lepoulds also.I think I like the nikons better.I shoot a lot and have had to send ones back for repair from all of them.Have had great fast service from nikon and leupold.have had to send 3 out of 4 burris back for repair,one of which I had to send back twice,I sharttered the lenses shooting muzleloader,they sent it back saying it was fixed but when I turned the power ring up or down the the crosshairs would turn too,after the second time it has worked good though.Broke the crosshairs out of a nikon (again shooting muzzleloader) had it back in about 2 weeks no questions asked.Bought a leupold second hand that wouldn't hold zero,sent it back and got it back in short time no questions asked.Summer before last one of my buddies was at the range and he had a swift scope on a 7 mag that went south.We loaded up and took it back to the dealer and I got him to looking through some leupold,monarch,and buckmasters,he picked the 4x14x40 buckmaster he said it looked the best to him,and thats what he got.This past year he got a savage muzzleloader guess whats on it.

I have 3 Rifles with 3-9 Monarch`s on them.I have a 4 power on another.They are top notch scopes.I do have a 2 power Ext eye r on my Contender and dont like it because the Cross hairs are to thin,but it is clear.

Any idea of when the new Monarch's will be available. I need a 6-24 and their latest offering lookes ideal

smallfish--do you buy the blister pak scopes at W-M and throw them away when they break?

Both are good scopes.I have never had an iota of trouble with either brand.Nikons rangefinders are another story

quote:

However, having used both in the field, I can say that the Leupold tends to be more durable & more fog resistant. I would also give the warranty & customer service nod to Leupold, but I've heard that Nikon has made tremendous strides in these areas.

Nikon has a replacement clause in their warranty . Does Leupold? I have owned more Leupolds then Nikons but never ever had to send a Nikon back to its maker irregardless of what type of gun it was mounted on . They have better tracking as well.

If you drive a Land Cruiser over your rifle and mash your Leupold, they will replace it immediately and without question. I've nothing but good to say about that company and its products, from VariX II's to LPS's to DG scopes. I've used them in bright light, low light, and no light, from .25'06's to .375's, in temps from minus 25 to plus 110, dust, rain, and ice.
I will continue to use them, because they have performed so well for me for 25 years and continue to do so today.

I put Nikons on my rifles until or unless I put on Leupolds. I like Nikons, but I like Leupolds better.

Heres my 2 cent's......first its not a fair comparison as the vari x lll would be the optical comparison to the monarch. That said the monarch will have slightly brighter more resolute lenses and win out in a straight optical comparison. Now....and this will no doubt be a more devisive opinion........

The monarchs have a smaller eye box and thus a more critical eye position requirement. The monarchs are prone to quicker flare out, or they develop a halo at the edges faster than a leupold when looking towards a setting sun or strong light source. They also usually (and this don't apply to all models) have a smaller ocular and hence a smaller overall field of view.

I believe in a head to head comparison the leupold will have less critical eye position - more eye relief - faster service - usually more field of view - less sun flare - and far better resale value. The monarch will have a brighter sight picture in low light - and probably slightly more resolute lenses. Weight - holding POI - and tracking should be a wash between them if preforming properly. Just my honest opinion from experience with them, neither would be my first choice.

woods

I have Nikon binoculars:
Monarch 12x56
Travelite 9x25

I have Leupold rifle scopes:
VX1 2x7x28
Vari-X-ii 4x28, 3x9x40, 3x9x50
Vari-X-iii 1.75x6x32, 6.5x20x40
Mark IV 8x25x50

I think the Monarchs are made in China and the Leupold are made in the USA.

Nikon and Leupold are my two favorite brands of optics that I own. I hear there are better brands like Swavorski binoculars and US optics rifle scopes.

I think I like Leupold better than Nikon.

But I hasten to say, all my other riflescopes and binoculars suck in comparison to Leupold and Nikon.

I have several Nikon scopes and binos, and I have several Leupold scopes.

I don't own a single Leupold that is better than any of my Nikons.

I have a Vari-X III Leupold 3.5-10 on a Blaser K95 in 30-06. It's ok, but compared to the Nikon Monarch 3-9 it's crap.

Binocular wise, I don't own a single pair of binoculars from any company as good as the 8.5x58 Nikons. Be that several pairs from Pentax, Canon, and several Signature Burris, and I would doubt anyone that told me that their $1400 Zeiss, Swarovoski, or Leica 8x56 binos were 3 times better, even though they cost that much more.

I had a pair of Swarovski EL 8.5x42s. I thought they were ok, but not worth what I paid $1200 in 2004. I sold them in 2006 for $1200.

Well...Nikon Monarch is my choice. Here's my reason...I went on a Big Horn Sheep Hunt...we had a "party permit", 5 hunters. All had different makes of scopes, the best model Leupold, Burris, etc.
I was the only one with a Nikon Monarch...the day
before the hunt, we waited until twilight & compared our scopes in less & less light. The Nikon Monarch was way brighter than the others in low light conditions...and when you could no longer see well through the others, the Nikon Monarch still was good. That's my point & why I prefer it. I had my dealers license at that time, and some of the others had me order Nikon Monarchs for them, including the Leupold owner.
Low light capability is most important to me.
Best Regards,
Tom

quote:

Originally posted by white bison:
Well...Nikon Monarch is my choice. Here's my reason...I went on a Big Horn Sheep Hunt...we had a "party permit", 5 hunters. All had different makes of scopes, the best model Leupold, Burris, etc.
I was the only one with a Nikon Monarch...the day
before the hunt, we waited until twilight & compared our scopes in less & less light. The Nikon Monarch was way brighter than the others in low light conditions...and when you could no longer see well through the others, the Nikon Monarch still was good.

That's the kind of "brand X vs. brand Y" post I love to read; one with real-world experience and testing under field conditions.

I'm a Nikon photo nut, and have a couple of the older Nikon scopes (2x7x32 and 3.5-10x50) that I am somewhat happy with. The optics are decent but the adjustments can be frustrating. After I make an adjustment, it takes a shot or two to get the POI to move and it's not very predictable in the amount of movement.

I was thinking I was done buying them. After reading this thread, I'd consider trying a Monarch. I recently bought a Sightron SII 3-9x42 and I think it is superior to my older Nikons. I am planning on trying another at some point. One reason I picked it was a review that was similar to Tom's story above. The guy that bought it pulled out his other Leupold VXII and Nikon Monarch and compared them, head-to-head. He thought the Sightron SII was easily the best.

Good shooting,
desmobob