I am shopping for an upgrade for $300. I can get either one of these scopes through Cabela's. After doing some research, I have came up with the pros to each scope:
Leupold-
-longer eye relief
-slightly larger field of view
-free shipping ($15 value)
-comes with free lens pen (kind of expendable, I really don't care)
-American made

Nikon-
-from what I hear, it has better optics

Which scope would you guys get? Commentary, experiences, advice, etc...

Without hesitation, I'd get the Monarch. And, you'll have some $$ left over as you can pick up a new one for around $240 from www.theopticzone.com

Jon also lists slightly used 3-9x40 Monarchs for under $200.

Oh they're both the 3-9x40

Get the Monarch, Better scope for a better price IMO. I've owned bothe the Monarch and the VXII as well as the older VariXII.

Both the scopes you are looking at are great scopes but, the Leupold is way overpriced and there are many other brands that have equal perfromance at much better values. Their Unilateral Pricing just chaps my rear, If a dealer should choose to lower his profit and make up for it w/ quantity it should be HIS choice and his choice alone!!


Back to the specs on each, I think you find that the Leupie will have about the same eye relief as the Nikon when it is set on 9X so mounting them will be almost identical becuase the Nikon doesn't have hardly any deviation in eye relief through the power settings from low to high.

The Nikon is very clear and very bright in late or early hours.

You may want to check out theopticzone.com Jon will usually beat anyones price on a Nikon.

Good Luck

Reloader

Used as merely a telescope, either is probably pretty good, as are most optics these days.

However, if you're planning on using the instrument as an optical gun sight, the Leupold is well adapted and appropriatly engineered for this very special purpose, while the Nikon is a good telescope with an adjustable reticle mounted in it.

Spoken like someone who is "blinded" by the leupold brand name.

I looked at both of these scopes side by side and determined that the monarch was brighter.That would be my choice.
http://www.midsouthshooterssupply.com/item.asp?sku=001256520

I own several Leupolds and a Nikon Monarch. That being said I am outfitting 2 of my 3 new rifles with Nikons. For the money i do believe the Nikon is better...especially in low light and more constant eye-relief.

Leupold though is a rock. I have only had one real problem in 22(?) years dropped by me. And in that case they sent me a replacement in I think a week.

I belive I am taking more risk when purchasing the Nikon, but getting a better product. It may come back to bite me in the butt. We'll see.

George

The choice maybe depends on what sort of rifle you want to mount it on . If it is a hard kicker , say 300 mag and up , I would unquestionably go with the Leupold.

Its going to go on My 243 sporter and if I like it enought I will put it on my 06 when hunting season comes around

quote:

However, if you're planning on using the instrument as an optical gun sight, the Leupold is well adapted and appropriatly engineered for this very special purpose, while the Nikon is a good telescope with an adjustable reticle mounted in it

I have to agree with Stonecreek here. I must be leupold blind as well. I would add that the Nikon is fine if you only hunt the states since a short drive down the road will usually get you to a gun shop or walmart to replace the Nikon if something happens. However if you're deep in the wilderness' of Alaska or much of Africa the leupold is my choice.

I guess someone forgot to tell MY Nikons that they should break after rough treatment. All these years, all these miles, all these dings and scratches, etc. -- and they are still going strong. Hmmm....

quote:

Originally posted by sdgunslinger:
The choice maybe depends on what sort of rifle you want to mount it on . If it is a hard kicker , say 300 mag and up , I would unquestionably go with the Leupold.

Someone should tell that to my Nikon Monarch that's mounted on my .300 Ultra Mag. Sighted in once at 1" high at 100. 3 years, 500 rounds, at least 20 trips strapped to the top of a rough riding hunting vehicle, and it is still, without one adjustment.........you guessed it, 1" high at 100. Leupold blindness is contagious, and I own two. They are good scopes for sure, but for the money in my opinion there are better options. Wonder why ALL these people know how great Leupold's service is.......... Must admit that I've never had a problem with mine.

Yes, that is my problem, Neverflinch, I cannot in honesty comment on how Nikon supports problems with scopes. Despite owning several, I haven't been able to use their service. Mine just keep shooting and performing to my liking.

quote:

Originally posted by Esldude:
Yes, that is my problem, Neverflinch, I cannot in honesty comment on how Nikon supports problems with scopes. Despite owning several, I haven't been able to use their service. Mine just keep shooting and performing to my liking.

I know the feeling. Maybe I should hit mine with a 10 pound sledge to test their service? It probably wouldn't compare to Leupolds though. Just ask all the guys here that have used Leupolds service extensivly and know just how great it is!!

Good for you if you like your Monarch , for myself ; in that price range ; I'll take the longer more flexible eye relief and proven reliabilty of a Leupold on a firm kicker . IMO , a Burris FFII is really a better buy than either .

just made the order on the opticszone.com. Im now a proud owner of a nikon monarch 3-9x40. I ended up paying for the 200$ used monarch in matte.

Great choice -- and that goes for both the scope and the business you purchased it from.

Well, I have a Monarch UCC 2-7x32 sitting in my gun safe right now- The Monarch cant even beat the 2-7 Leupold RIFLEMAN I am using on a rifle. The rifleman is much better anytime of the day-its not even close. Funny, I bought the Monarch to replace the rifleman. Silly me. Go figure.

If any of you nikon lovers have a leupold you want to trade, shoot me a pm.

Well, seeing that it's such a piece of junk, I will gladly give you $50 for it and get it out of your way.

E-mail or PM -- and I'll send you a money order.

Bobby- I didnt say it was a piece of junk. I said it couldnt compare to the Leupold rifleman I have. Sorry if that upsets you.

Chromosome cowboy,

I would like more detail on how the Rifleman is better than the Monarch. Now I admit I haven't used a 2-7x Monarch. But unless it differs greatly from the 3-9x, 4-12x and 6.5-20x Monarchs, there would be no comparison.

The Rifleman has a single coated set of lenses. The Monarch would have some of the best fully multi-coated lenses. Monarch's normally have very good glass.

If the Monarch isn't better than that Rifleman, I would suggest it is defective. And you get it fixed.

So how is the Rifleman better?

Esldude- Maybe your right, maybe it is defective. In fairness, this is the ONLY monarch I have had experience with-Ill send it to Nikon.
As to why it is better.
#1-It is a brighter scope. I can continue to see through the Rifleman much after everything has gone dark in the Monarch.

#2-A wider field of view-or perhaps its more of an illusion due to the black tunnel I see when looking through the Monarch. I swear it feels Im looking through a 28mm scope.

#3 the crosshairs are much better defined. The monarchs change shade constantly- back to reddish, back to black, red, etc. I have a few old varix 2s that have this problem, but nothing like the monarch.

#overall, it is a better image in the rifleman.

Maybe I have a bad one-Ill ship it back to Nikon and see what they say. Do you think I should tell them my RIFLEMAN is head and shoulders better?

Yes, I would send it back with just that description. Of all the things you say, the fact the Rifleman provides views after the Monarch goes dark is way wrong.

Monarch's typically will work a few minutes later than Vari-X III's or VX-II's. It should easily work later in the day than a single coated Rifleman. Something is amiss.

chromosome cowboy-

It was said in jest -- and it certainly didn't upset me.

But if your Rifleman looks better than the Monarch, something is definitely amiss. Nikon's customer service is superb, and I'm certain they'll take care of the situation.

By the way, even the BuckMasters are superior to the Rifleman series.

quote:

By the way, even the BuckMasters are superior to the Rifleman series.

Amen. I would even take it a step further and say the the "old" Buckmasters are better than the new VX-1's. Definately something wrong with Cowboy's Monarch, although I doubt it. If the crosshair's are changing color the are not focused properly, simple as that. Probably just another case of "Leupold blindness." All in good fun Cowboy......

quote:

Definately something wrong with Cowboy's Monarch, although I doubt it.

What exactly does that mean? Im having a wee bit of dificulty figuring out how to make sense out of that sentence.

Im not sure why anyone would "doubt" that a Nikon could be bad. All those "refurbished" Nikon products you see all over the place-there is some reason they wound up in the refurbished pile.

I am sending the scope back on Monday. HOPEFULLY, you all are right, and the scope is indeed defective. Ill be sure to post if I get a new scope, or they send the original scope back with an "all is well" designation.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
Great choice -- and that goes for both the scope and the business you purchased it from.

That about sums it up. 'nough said.

I have owned several leupolds including a mark 4, and VX 111's, Nikon Monarch 3-9x40, Burris, and Zeiss both the conquest and the V series. I only own one VX 111 now its a 3.5-10x50 like it real well, most of my scopes now are Zeiss's 3-9x40's and a 3.5-10x44 sitting atop my 22-250. Ever since Louy jacked their prices up I haven't looked at them, for the price they want theres better glass availiable. Side by side I think my Nikon is clearer and brighter than my VX111.

So anyway Great choice with the Monarch and Great choice buying it from Jon @ the opticzone, thats where I bought my Nikon, best transaction I've ever had I will buy there the next time I need optics, Good luck!

Chromosome cowboy wrote:

quote:

All those "refurbished" Nikon products you see all over the place-there is some reason they wound up in the refurbished pile.

YEs, and that doesn't mean anything is wrong with them or ever was wrong with them. Some stores allow returns no matter the reason (Wal-mart is an example). You can buy a scope on Sunday, hunt with it on Monday and return it on Tuesday -- with virtually no questions asked. But that scope can't be sold as "new," so it's returned to the factory for inspection, hence the "refurbished" status.

Well, what about the other returned items, you know the defective ones. I purchased a "refurbished" buckmaster rangefinder. Got it home, the refurbished rangefinder didnt work.
Sent it back to Nikon, they sent me a new pro staff rangefinder-turned out buying the refurb was the best $100 I spent!

Leupold's VX 3 scopes are good quality optics across the board. In my opinion there is a HUGE difference between those and the VX2's. The VX2 have a goofy scope adjustment that is more of a dial versus the "clicking" 1/4 MOA adjustment on the VX3's. I have seen the VX 2's start to wander over time and not maintain a consistant point of aim which is bothersome. If it were my dollars I would go with the Nikon and not look back.

Thanks for all the commentary guys the Nikon comes in tomorrow

I've got a nikon buckmasters 3X9 on my AR-15 and think its a very good scope.I paid $125 for it at walmart on clearance.