Just picked up a new Remington 700 SPS SS in 7mm-08 caliber. This will be used for deer hunting in areas where we shoot from 50-350 yds. I want a quality scope that is very reliable and yet around the $400 area. I have been considering the Bushnell Elite 4200 in 2.5 X 10 X 40 and also the Nikon Monarch 3.3 X 10 X 44. I did have a chance to look through a Nikon Monarch 3.3 X 10 X 44 and was very impressed by the clarity, sharpness, and brightness. I have not found a 4200 to look through yet though. What scope would you recommend.

How about the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40?

Ambrosius---My experience with Bushnells(not model you mentioned)has been very bad. Nikon???? No experience. Despite that,I'd say go with one of the American made that stand behind their product. Leupold very good experience. Their 3x-9x 40 should suit you well and be below your $400 price rang. Never had a Burris but hear equally good things about them.

I have experience with the Nikons and have found them quite sound... The only issue I've personally seen is my hunting partner broke 2 of the Monarchs with his 300 win mag (very light hard kicker)... Nikon did replace them, no questions asked... He mounted it on one of '06s (also a light rifle) and it's been rock solid....

Ken....

Leupold VX-II 3-9x40mm or Leupold VX-III 3.5-10x40mm. The Zeiss Conquest, Nikon Monarch and Bushnell Elite 4200 may be a little better optically (clarity, sharpness and brightness), but overall as an optical rifle sighting device for hunting the Leupold is superior.

The Nikon is the best for the money. Buy a Monarch and you'l be very pleased. The Monarch is quite nice in low light situations as well.

I've had several Nikons on 300 mags & various other cals and never had a problem.

Good Luck

Reloader

quote:

Originally posted by jackfish:
The Zeiss Conquest, Nikon Monarch and Bushnell Elite 4200 may be a little better optically (clarity, sharpness and brightness), but overall as an optical rifle sighting device for hunting the Leupold is superior.

Why? Because it says Leupold on the side?

No, because Leupold creates optical rifle sighting devices that are a better balance of the compromises that are inherent in the process and outcome of making riflescopes. I don't need to resolve a gnat's ass at 500 yards and don't need to make a shot 10 minutes after shooting hours, I just want to get on target rapidly and place my shot appropriately. Leupolds have been accommodating that for 59 years.

Well, you said that the others were better in clarity, sharpness and brightness (certainly 3 very important qualities) and I was wondering what you thought Leupold did better.

The first thing anyone will notice looking down a Zeiss Conquest, Nikon Monarch or Bushnell Elite 4200 is how difficult it is to gain a full sight picture when compared to a Leupold. In some cases it is like looking down a tube in a timeconsuming, often escalating into a frantic and sometimes futile effort to find the full sight picture. The marginal improvement in the three very important qualities you cite are not enough to make me favor those products over the Leupold due to the most important quality an optical rifle sighting device for hunting should possess. That is the ability to get on target rapidly and place the shot appropriately. The non-critical eye relief and generous eye box of the Leupold provide that. Leupolds are clear, sharp and bright enough for hunting purposes.

Okay, that is the one thing that turns me off most about the Leupolds I have looked through on other rifles I load for. It seems more difficult for me to find the sight picture than with a Zeiss or Kahles.

So we will just have to agree to disagree.

Thanks for the link, very interesting.

Very interesting article.... I knew the Nikon I have had a good site picture and just seemed quite good for the money but here is a more objective opinion then my own... I'm not a big fan of the VX-L anyway but that bears out some of what I've thought myself.... Haven't looked through a Bushnell yet but I have looked through the Zeiss Conquest which I like... Though the testing shows some interesting results I am more inclined to go with a Zeiss or a Leupold... Leupold backs their product with vigor which has a lot to do with it but I like the Zeiss optics... The 3 - 9 would be my choice because of the eye relief while the rest of the line drops to 3.5 inches and less.. At that point I would go with a Leupold...

Just my two cents...

Ken....

quote:

The first thing anyone will notice looking down a Zeiss Conquest, Nikon Monarch or Bushnell Elite 4200 is how difficult it is to gain a full sight picture when compared to a Leupold.

I use several different brands and I find just the opposit e of that comment. I find the Zeiss and Monarch scopes to be more user friendly in the sight picture department. I have a new VXII that also gives me that tunnel effect that I haven't noticed w/ Zeiss nor Nikon. They are all three good scopes, the best one is a matter of each persons opinion alone. I feel confident w/ any of the three on my rifles. I do like the optics in the Nikon and Zeiss alittle better.

Good Luck

Reloader

All of the scopes you are discussing will get the job done and last for many years with normal luck and wear. As you see we all have strong preferences based on our individual perceptions. Do a side by side comparison at a good store and make up your mind based on what you see. I would suggest you test at dusk to get the best comparison.

I would run to get a Zeiss Conquest myself. I bought a Leupold last time and kick myself for not getting another Conquest for about the same price. Just got back from Colorado with a Bull and a Buck in the coolers and couldn't be happier with my Zeiss scope - it always works well and outperforms the scopes discussed from my own observations.

Have a look at Saeed's rifle collection. The last time I looked there were about 200 rifles in it. Any of them with a scope had a Leupold on it.

quote:

Originally posted by 45/70 Govt.:
Have a look at Saeed's rifle collection. The last time I looked there were about 200 rifles in it. Any of them with a scope had a Leupold on it.

And that proves ................???

FWIW, the last several scopes I have purchased needed to sent back to the factory because they were not holding zero. One was a Burris 4x Compact mounted on a BDL in .308 (I was preparing for a specific, short range hunting situation.). One was a Leupold Vari-X III mounted on a 7 lb, custom M-70 .30-06. And the third was a Leupold 3-9 x 36 Compact mounted on the same 700 BDL. ABout four years ago, a Swarovski 3-9 x 36 AV also failed me in that talum powder like dust on a avery dry Colorado elk/deer hunt penetrated the power adjustment ring and "froze" it (fortunately on 4X). In each case, the factory customer service people took good care of the warranty issues, repared and returned the scopes promptly. However, it causes me to believe that one is taking a BIG chance to mount any scope and just go hunting after sight in. I'm thinking that one oughta send about fifty rounds or so down range before trusting a new scope to help cleanly harvest game with one shot.

What do y'all think about reliability issues in optics

-- No Plea

I would have placed the Monarch, then 4200 and finally Leupold optically from my experience. Weaver Grand Slam would place between the Monarch and 4200 in my opinion.

Leupold's are over priced unless you value their support enough for the difference in the price.