I was comparing the nikon monarch 3X9 40mm VS the leupold VX2 3X9 40mm and to my eyes i liked the nikon better.It was clearer than the leupold.My next 3X9 scope will be the monarch by nikon.

The Nikon Monarch fares better than the Leu. VX-II in virtually every critical optical category. And, they cost less as well.

I agree. The Nikon Monarch series scopes are very nice scopes. They are very tough to beat for the price for an up end type scope.

I have owned both. I think the Nikon has an edge on clarity, but the Leupold beats it on eye relief and eye box hands down.

I've used Nikons for years and NEVER had any issues with eye relief or the proverbial "eye box." The key is using correct shooting stances and having a cheekpiece optimized to scope height.

quote:

I've used Nikons for years and NEVER had any issues with eye relief or the proverbial "eye box." The key is using correct shooting stances and having a cheekpiece optimized to scope height.

Didn't you just admit that you DID have issues if the key to obtaining proper eye relief and eye box with the Nikon is correct shooting stances and a critically positioned cheekpiece?

quote:

...but the Leupold beats it on eye relief and eye box hands down.

YUP!

The Nikon may be a bit better optically but there is more to making a good rifle sighting device than that.

Jackfish,

Try mounting your scope way high, and then get back to me and let me know how extra eye relief helps that issue.

Jackfish-
No...read the post and try and comprehend what was written. It's rather simple: I've never had eye relief issues with Nikon scopes. If YOU DO, then learning proper shooting stance may be in order. And this applies to every scope out there...

quote:

I've never had eye relief issues with Nikon scopes. If YOU DO, then learning proper shooting stance may be in order. And this applies to every scope out there...

I concur. At least the Nikon Eye Relief only goes from 3.5-3.6 instead of Leupolds 3.7-4.7 when going from the low power to the high power. That could cause a problem when mounting. Another basic rule of thumb is to mount the scope w/ the lowest value of eyerelief in mind and when you compare the two that virtually means they are the same in the eye relief department SO, the higher clarity and crispness of the Nikon prevails. Not to mention the better price which can be applied toward high quality mounts.

Reloader

Jackfish, Do you feel this way? You know you can lead a horse to water, but..... I guess my next scope will be mounted REAL high and as close to the bell as I can get it....jp

For the few who apparently aren't aware, unless you mount a scope -- ANY SCOPE -- to optimize eye relief and to have a consistent eye-to-scope position with every pull of the trigger, you can't expect to exploit the full accuracy potential of your rig.

Then again, I've seen how some folks shoot...

quote:

The Nikon may be a bit better optically but there is more to making a good rifle sighting device than that.

Can you say "warranty"?

Yes, I can say "warranty." And Nikon is SUPERB with their warranty service -- much better and quicker than my dealing with the Leupold folks.

When a Leupold 2x EER took on water when our home was ravaged by a flood, I sent it in for repair. (This was the ONLY scope in the house to take on water, by the way).

I was told to be expect to pay for this service. I told them in no uncertain terms (and outlined in a note sent with the scope) that if there were to be any charges for fixing their faulty scope to forget it. To their credit, it was fixed and returned. I had it back in app. 3 to 4 weeks.

When a rifle took a fall onto a concrete fall during a photo shoot, the Nikon scope took the brunt of the impact. I sent it in, explained what had happened and was prepared to pay for the work. In DAYS (9 total if I remember correctly), I had the scope back, and it didn't cost a cent.

So yes, I can say "warranty."

Bobby Tomek,

You just don't get it. Despite more eye relief variance, inferior optics and a good deal more money the Leupold is the way to go. Why you ask?

Well.....because.....you know....because...it says Leupold...so it must be better...right?

I mean if somehow Leupold isn't better, well it must be your fault or how you use it. Can't be because some other models offer more real performance for the money. Because even if they do, well they really don't. Not unless it has the gold ring and big L.

Why is it a problem that Leupold's shortest eye relief is still equal to Nikon's best? And at its longest, it is an inch better? That makes no sense. You guys are mad that there is an inch range in Leupold even though it is an inch better than Nikon?

I own both scopes. And the Leupold is way less critical to head position, and there is hardly even a black ring around the scope.

So it has less eye relief on high power than low, big deal. Scoot up a hair when bracing for the long shot. It is not like Leupold is only 1" eye relief at high power. You guys are just mad that Leupold is the only scope company that has mastered the forgiving eye box and long eye relief.

I have two Monarchs, and they aren't on big kickers. My bigger guns use Leupold.

dogcatcher223-I am not "mad" about anything Leupold offers. Leupold produces good, solid scopes. But being someone who depends on optics for his bread and butter, I feel like I can make an unbiased decision regarding quality, value and performance, and I therefore choose Nikon. I guess YOU are "mad" about that.

dogcatcher223-So where exactly is it that you stand???

On December 8th, this is what dogcatcher223 wrote:

"But...I think Leupold is overpriced for what you get. The Nikon Monarch is cheaper and better in my opinion. I think the blind loyalty to Leupold is because they had no competition 10-15 years ago. Now there is equal or better products for less money but people are in denial."

And then on Dec. 17th, he wrote: "Actually, I sold two Leupolds and bought Nikons to replace them. "

And as a capper: "I own the following brands: Weaver, Burris, Nikon and Leupold.

Out of all of them I think the Nikon is the best overall.

I think Leupold is overpriced and over rated today."

And all of this came before today's posting by dogcatcher 223 of "Why is it a problem that Leupold's shortest eye relief is still equal to Nikon's best? And at its longest, it is an inch better? That makes no sense. You guys are mad that there is an inch range in Leupold even though it is an inch better than Nikon?

I own both scopes. And the Leupold is way less critical to head position, and there is hardly even a black ring around the scope.

So it has less eye relief on high power than low, big deal. Scoot up a hair when bracing for the long shot. It is not like Leupold is only 1" eye relief at high power. You guys are just mad that Leupold is the only scope company that has mastered the forgiving eye box and long eye relief.

I have two Monarchs, and they aren't on big kickers. My bigger guns use Leupold."

---

More contradictions from dogcatcher223: "I just tried out my first Burris today at the range. I bought a 3x9 Fullfield II in balistic plex. Seemed nice and bright and clear. And for the money this scope won't be my last Burris."

ANd then: "Built in the Phillipines, or made in Greeley, CO by a bunch or wetbacks...take your pick."

Read my first thread in this post. I said Nikon is better in clarity, and Leupold is better in eye relief. I still stand by that. It depends on what is important to you.

The Leupolds I sold were the old Vari-x-II, hardly the same animal as the VX2, or VX3. But, the glass is no better in the Leupold, than Nikon, so as far as that goes, the Leupold is over priced.

And, with Burris, the arguement was not on quality, it was on people bitching about the fact it is not made in the USA. I think the Burris is a good scope regardless of where it is made. People are so hung up on made in the USA, even it if means cheap labor from other countries!

You are pulling in quotes that have nothing to do with each other, what point are you even trying to make?

Let me rewrite this so Bobby has time to sound it out with his dislexia...

Nikon has better clarity, Leupold has better eye relief. Leupold is overpriced in the clarity department. Nikon is cheaper because the eye relief sucks compared to Leupold.

Buy the one that has the features you value most.

The following statements were made by dogcatcher223:

"I think the Burris is a good scope regardless of where it is made"

"On a side note, the Burris made in America are built by a bunch of mexicans making $6.00 an hour anyway. Their building is pretty dumpy looking from the outside."

" Burris claims there optics are made in the USA and this scope is made in Japan. I guess a few of the Fullfield II's are made there. I talked directly to Burris to confirm this. Kind of pissed me off..."

SO WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?????

dogcatcher223 wrote:

quote:

Let me rewrite this so Bobby has time to sound it out with his dislexia...

If you have the gall to make light of a disease that millions of people suffer from, you should at least have the common courtesy to educate yourself enough to spell it correctly.