What are your thoughts on the new Nikon Monarch scopes? The older models seemed to be less then recoil proof and would start to have a zero drifting problem. Anybody out there with a new one on a hard kicker? What do you think of them?

Ken....

Heat wrote:

quote:

The older models seemed to be less then recoil proof and would start to have a zero drifting problem.

Really? I've used a number of them since they were first introduced and never had a problem, that despite subjecting them to some less-than-ideal conditions.

I am not saying this is your case, but most reported scope "failures" I have seen actually turned out to be user error: i.e., incorrect mounting, etc.

The new Nikons are very nice, but the older versions were (and still are!) splendid performers in their own right.

Geez I have 3 X 9 Monarchs on my 338 Win. and 416 Rem mags.They are about six years old and have no problems.I put a couple hundred rounds a year through both rifles.

I would have to agree with the statement that most scope failures once subject to closer inspection can be atributed to a cause other than the scope itself. I spend allot of time at a awesome website devoted to muzzleloaders and I was surprised when more than a few people there said Luepold scopes were not up to the recoil being generated by a 10ML-II shooting loads on parr with .375 H&H recoil, and only a scope in the price range of a Ziess Conquest could "Handel the recoil". I found this to be extreamly suspect in terms of credability as I own three VariX-IIs that combined have withstood 2000+ rounds of recoil from my .338wm, 209x50 ML to loads out of my 10ML-II that equal a .375 H&H. I commonly shoot loads out of my 10ML-II that push a 300grain Barnes Original SSP at or above 2400fps. I have one Grand Slam that has at least 275 of the same lods through it. All of these loads have been shot off recoil absorbing rests. All of my 10ML-II loads have been shot using the Caldwell Leadsled II DFT. For those who dont know, recoil reducing rests are prone to transfering more recoil to the scope and scope mounts, so it is beleived.
I have experienced no failings, shifts in POI, or any problems what so ever with eithor my VariX-IIs or Grand Slams.

Im not saying that Leupold or W/GSs wont fail, or even Nikon Monarchs cant fail, I just think there is usually more to why something failed than is always told. The fact I have experienced two scope failures is EXACTLY why I invested the $$$ in the nesasary tools, like a scope ring aligner, leveler for both the scope and base, lapping kit, excellent gun cradle, a top quality set of allens and torxs wrenches, and from a tool company possably the most important and expensive tool of all, a adjustable torque wrench, and dont forget the Lok tight, (not allot of money all in all) and the time to learn how to correctly mount a scope myself. In the now distant past, I had two scopes mounted by persons claiming to be "gunsmiths" incorrectly install a scope once then the second time incorrectly install my scope base so it litterally sheared off my slug gun and wack me in the face. That was it for me. Contacted Brownells the next day and ordered every scope mounting tool the tech there recommended I buy. Never had a scope or mounting problem since.

Oh, BTW, I have only heard great things about Monarch scopes.

Thanks for the input guys. My Buckmaster has been a very good scope as far as durability and repeatability. It doesn't have the glass of the mid and high end scopes but all in all it's been a good scope. This is the reason I was curious about the new Monarchs. Whatever I buy, I'll be mounting it on a 257 Wby Vanguard. I like the 4-16 mag range of these scopes for such a flat shooter as the 257 .

Ken....