I had been set on buying a new elite 4200 3x9x40 but after doing some reading it appears the elite 4200 doesn't have that great of eyerelief and the eye box is critical, I was wondering how a monarch stacks up to the elite 4200 in optical quaility and eye relief. since both scopes are priced about the same I still don't know which one to get

I personally like the Monarch over the Elite 4200. I think that they are slightly better optically over the Elite, being a little bit brighter and clearer.

If you have the opportunity, do a direct comparison but I believe you will find the Nikon to be an excellent scope... Eye relief is good and not critical. The optics are what you would expect from one of the best camera optics companies in the world.. I have used my hunting partners Monarchs and they are simply excellent for the money.. My Buckmaster simply put is some of the best optics for that price point I have seen... It's been through many range sessions for critical pre hunt sighting and a hunting season and worked flawlessly...

Ken....

I own Nikons of all three lines (Prostaff, Buckmasters, Monarch) and have never had a problem with any of them. I rate them all as excellent scopes for the money, but the Buckmasters and Monarch are optically better than the Prostaff. I have no experience with the 4200, but you wouldn't go wrong with a Monarch 3-9x40. However, in that same magnification and price range I would also recommend the Zeiss Conquest. I think mine is better than any of the Nikons I own.

LWD

Either will offer anything you'd ever need in any hunting situation. That being said, the Nikon Monarch is slightly superior in most critical optical categories. In a choice between the 4200 and the Monarch, I'd take the Monarch every time.

look through them side by side. i did and felt the monarch was a MUCH better scope all around.