I'm trying to decide between these 2 Nikon scopes. The 3-9 would be a Buckmasters, the 2-7 a Monarch, because that's what my budget can stand. I'm in my mid 30's with good eyes, so the magnification level of either should be sufficient for my hunting needs.

My main thoughts are the difference in low light performance and weight. The 5 oz. reduction in weight and better glass has me leaning toward the 2-7x32 Monarch, the larger objective should improve the low light capabilities of the Buckmasters...if the larger objective has more effect than the better glass of the Monarch!

So, AR world, how much difference in evening/shadow clarity does one have over the other?

This will be for a new Ruger M77MKII .280 Remington, blued/walnut that became mine a week or so ago!

Thanks in advance!

I think you are on the right track.

The Monarch is probably a better scope than the Buckmasters.

A GOOD 2-7 scope is going to be better than a so-so 3-9 scope.

I would rather have a Leupold 2-7 or 3-9 VX-II than either one of the Nikons, but that is just my opinion.

The 2-7 Leupold VX-II is a great scope. Very small, compact, but bright and clear. I think it is even smaller than the Leupold straight 4X scopes.

CHD over the years on these forums I've heard very little bad about the Nikons the Monarchs in particular. On the other hand if there was ever a negative about Nikons it seems it mostly was always the Buckmaster in question.

The 2 X 7 is one of my favorite power ranges on a variable scope. I currently have one on
a calling/walking Varmint rifle. The lower powers really help you acquire your moving targets with ease. Either power range would do it’s a personal choice thing. But the Monarch would be a much better scope and in the long run, I do believe you would be happier with it.

I would go with the highest quality scope you can afford. I like a good 2-7 best personally, but 3-9s seem to be more popular.

quote:

A GOOD 2-7 scope is going to be better than a so-so 3-9 scope.

No kidding. Other than when sighting in at the bench, you'll find no practical difference in hunting due to the top-end magnification. If you can't see game clearly when magnified 7 times, then you should't be shooting at it!

I don't know how the Monarch is priced, nor am I familiar with its important features such as sight window, adjustments, or watertightness. I do know that a Leupold VX-I in 2-7 is very economical, compact, lightweight, has a wide range of eye placement (for quick target acquisition), is nearly bulletproof in field performance, and is backed by the best service in the industry (according to those who have had the rare need of it). Like r flowers, I would buy the Leupold (I believe the VX-I is a bigger bargan than the II), but the Nikon may be an adequate scope. Roll the dice and give it a try if you're a gambling man.

You can get a used Monarch 3-9x40 for just $195 from www.theopticzone.com.
Stonecreek wrote: "...but the Nikon may be an adequate scope. Roll the dice and give it a try if you're a gambling man"

You have to be kidding, right??? Even the BuckMasters outperforms the VX-1 (though by a relatively small margin), and that's not just opinion.

I am not a gambling man, and I err on the side of caution. THAT'S why I use NIKONS....

If you decide to opt for a 2x7 , the Leupold VXII in that size blows away the Monarch , and the price is not much different one way or another. If you like a tunnel effect , the 2x7 Monarch is your baby........

I have vx1 and vx11 scopes in 2-7 and am very satisfied with both. In fact I can't tell any difference between them so if your budget only goes to $225 I would get the vx1 and never look back.

I highly recommend the Nikon 2-7 monarch. I have one on my favorite Deer rifle. It performs great, is light weight,compact and very bright image. Duplex reticle is superior to many more expensive scopes IMHO.

quote:

would rather have a Leupold 2-7 or 3-9 VX-II than either one of the Nikons, but that is just my opinion.

The 2-7 Leupold VX-II is a great scope. Very small, compact, but bright and clear. I think it is even smaller than the Leupold straight 4X scopes.

Why do you think the Leupold is brighter or more rugged? Just asking...

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
Even the BuckMasters outperforms the VX-1 (though by a relatively small margin), and that's not just opinion.

Of course it's not just opinion, it's fact; just like my wife is prettier and my kids are smarter than yours.

Now, if you'll look at the market for used Leupolds versus used Nikons, you can find that the market has a really prejudiced opinion.

For hunting purposes, 2-7x is a better choice.

Compare the Leupold VX1, VX11 and Monarch at a store. Pick the scope you like and shop for the best price.

Danny

Stonecreek-There's no point in going into details as they'll not make a difference to you anyway. But I will say that "market" and actual performance have absolutely no standing relationship. Anyone who believes so needs to take a short course in real world economics. After all, I don't buy a scope thinking about what it will sell for tomorrow; I buy a scope to USE it today, tomorrow and beyond.

My livelihood depends on optics and their performance. So I know I can evaluate them fairly and without bias -- much as I have done for quite a few years now. I don't (and won't!) participate in generalized bashing as some here often do. Overall performance in critical areas is the bottom line with a secondary consideration to price.

I don't care what you or anyone else chooses to use. That's your business. But for me, I want the best performance value for the dollar. That's why I use Nikon (not exclusively, mind you, but nearly so).

quote:

I'm trying to decide between these 2 Nikon scopes.

The question was pretty simple, the man wanted some advice on NIKON scopes. I didn't see Leupold scopes on his short list! With that said my advice would be to buy the best Nikon you can afford. Personally I would go for the 2x7. I have owned Leupolds and sold every last one of them, they didn't impress me at all. JMO

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
But I will say that "market" and actual performance have absolutely no standing relationship. Anyone who believes so needs to take a short course in real world economics.

It is certainly true that even the most efficient of markets is not always accurately reflective of utility, quality, or practical value. The very existence of Dodge trucks proves this point convincingly.

My point is that the market consistently values Leupold scopes above Nikons (as well as all other Asian and American brands) in terms of the percentage of new price that a used model commands. Whether the market is "right" or "wrong" on this issue, or whether it is a result of manufacturer marketing, customer service, historical reputation, or some other factor unrelated to the actual performance of the instrument I cannot say.

What I can say is that the use of a telescope as an optical gunsight requires a great deal of balancing of optical and physical trade-offs in order to acheive performance that is uniquely demanded of a gunsight as opposed to a telescope. Few, if any, manufacturers have as successfully acheived these balances as well as Leupold.

There are a lot of good telescopes out there, but a much more limited number good of optical gunsights. Who knows, maybe some of that limited number of good optical gunsights are produced as a sideline by some camera company? I'm in no position to say, in that every time I've looked into using a scope other than Leupold, I've been disappointed in one feature or another -- bulk, weight, critical eye placement, shifting of zero with power, inconsistency of adjustments, lack of watertightness, or some other feature -- so I just quit looking, particularly since there was no notable shortcoming in the Leupold to begin with.

Now, not having tried one of the scopes branded with the name of your favorite camera company, I can't say that they're not the cat's whiskers. In fact I'm glad you (and a whole lot of other people) are willing to purchase them instead of buying a Leupold, in that the price of a Leupold would presumably be much higher were there not other makes absorbing some of the market.

By the way, the next time you see a listing of the equipment of the winners of any major benchrest competition, count how many camera companies are represented among their optical gunsights.

quote:

Originally posted by joecool:
I have owned Leupolds and sold every last one of them JMO

At least with a Leupold you have that option! And, you can sell them quickly, too.

Some other makes of scopes are a little like herpes: You're never going to be able to get rid of it, but it only bothers you when you go to use what it's attached to.

quote:

Some other makes of scopes are a little like herpes: You're never going to be able to get rid of it, but it only bothers you when you go to use what it's attached to.

Stonecreek wrote:

quote:

By the way, the next time you see a listing of the equipment of the winners of any major benchrest competition, count how many camera companies are represented among their optical gunsights.

Being that I don't shoot benchrest, I really don't care. Yes, Leupold makes terrific riflescopes (excepting, of course, the Rifleman series). Then, too, those benchrest guys you refer to are only shooting at paper, and their lives and the lives of others don't hang in the balance. So to bring some fairness to your suggestion, I recommend you take a look at some of the statistics regarding SWAT teams and sharpshooters/snipers. You'll see that Nikon is fairly well represented in that regard.

Personally (since it IS my thread) I found Loopy to be a little too proud of their wares for the quality/features they offered. Besides, growing up everyone had to have a .270 with a Leupold. To me, it's as plain vanilla as it comes, and I like chocolate syrup on my vanilla...IOW I was turned off them at an early age, and later life has only reinforced that. I don't (and won't) own a .270 for the same reasons.

It's great for them that they have a position in the market where they can charge a premium for their scopes...I just refuse to pay it. I don't resell much either...

Nikon is currently my personal sweet spot in the price/performance curve and nothing has changed that thus far. IMO you have to get to the VXIII line to compare with the Monarch line, and for the same features the VXIII is higher priced than the Monarch. Nuff said...this isn't intended to be a Nikon vs. the world thread, I was really asking about the tradeoffs in glass quality vs. objective size+magnification range.

Thanks for the opinions!