Hi,
Wondering what the range of opinions was for the 4x40 buckmaster. Is the Leupold woth the extra money? These are supposed to have better light transmission. Worth the xtra bucks for the Monarch?

Thanks
Mike

The Nikon Buckmasters are excellent scopes for the money. In my opinion, the Leupold is not worth the extra money. The Monarch is a step up, but the upgraded Buckmaster is tough to beat for the money.

I wholeheartedly agree. While the old BuckMasters was a good scope, the newer, 2005 version is even better. I woud take it over a comparable Leupold any day, though I'd actually be inclined to put the extra cash forward for the Monarch, which is in another league altogether.

I don't have any experience with the 4x Buckmaster; but the 4x Monarch that I have on my Ruger No. 1 in .375 H&H has held up perfectly through 400+ full power loads.

I'm with Jon on the Buckmasters.
And I would suggest whatever you chose, deal with Jon, he's a class act and will not mislead you with advice he gives you.

What is the upgraded buckmaster? What changes didi they make?

Thanks
Mike

Last year Nikon upgraded the lenses and the coatings. They now offer 92% light transmission. In my opinion, you can notice the difference between the upgrade Buckmaster and the older model. Also, they added the side parallax adjustment instead of the Adjustable Objective.

I have the older model. It's a great scope, period. Currently undergoing torture testing on a 300 WBY.

ZM