Home Main Category General Firearms

Nikon Monach Scopes

tubabucknuttubabucknut BannedPosts: 3,520 Senior Member
Who has one? Do they hold zero and stay together on the big thumpers. I need an inexpensive scope for my .338 Win Mag, and or my 45/70.

Replies

  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,127 Senior Member
    They are decent for the money. I have had a 2-7x Monarch on a slug shotgun (and the punishing recoil that they give) and have not had any problems. You could do worse.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    Thanks Jerm. The slug gun should be more than comparable to my two rifles. Money is tight right now and I need something to get by with until I can afford what I want.
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    Sorry Wambli. I didn't mean to imply anything. I usually purchase in the upper end range. I have seen some more expensive scopes fail on some big guns. Price does not mean quality, but the trend is there. I have a couple of the prostaff on some .22s. That is what got me thinking of the Monarch. I have enjoyed the Prostaff scopes.
  • twatwa Senior Member Posts: 2,236 Senior Member
    I am a Nikon guy, 90% of the scopes I own are Nikon and 100% of the scopes I buy now are Nikon. The Monarch is not on the inexpensive end of the Nikon line they are the upper echelon. I own two, one on my Sendero .300 Ultra Mag and one on my VTR .308, I have never had to make an adjustment on either scope, every year I pull them out the safe just ahead of deer season and they are always dead on. Extremely clear, extremely fog proof and they can take hard hunting with no problems. I highly recommend this scope.
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    Thanks twa. That is want I wanted to hear.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,127 Senior Member
    Mine must be the lower end one (non-Monarch). I didn't spend a whole lot of money on it. Still not a bad scope.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,624 Senior Member
    Nikon Pro Staff, I guess, it's a pretty good scope. I've had a couple, never let me down. Maybe I'm thinking of Bushnell. Most scopes nowadays are pretty damned good.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • HvyMaxHvyMax Senior Member Posts: 1,786 Senior Member
    Nikon is the Sony of optics. Their lowest rent stuff is middling decent at the worst
    Wal Mart where the discriminating white trash shop.
    Paddle faster!!! I hear banjos.
    Reason for editing: correcting my auto correct
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    The one I am looking at is in the 3 bill range. I didn't consider that very expensive for an optic. I know it is still 3 bills, but you can easily drop a grand on a very nice optic now a days.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,127 Senior Member
    If you are looking for something for the 45/70 (if it is one of those lever Guide Guns that are light and handy) this is an awesome no compromise scope for a fairly reasonable price...
    http://www.midwayusa.com/product/1362116910/leupold-vx-3-rifle-scope-15-5x-20mm
    Not good for precision work at 100 yards, but good enough out to 150. It is awesome for quick shots close in, and rocks in low light. It makes a great woods scope.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    Thanks Jerm. I have had my eye on those as well. I think for the 45/70 I will settle on something in the 1ish to 4-5ish range.
  • shootbrownelkshootbrownelk Senior Member Posts: 2,035 Senior Member
    Thanks Jerm. I have had my eye on those as well. I think for the 45/70 I will settle on something in the 1ish to 4-5ish range.

    Nikon has a Monarch3 1x4x20mm with a BDC reticle for just over $200.00. I'm putting one on my AR-10. The Monarch 3 is top of the line, I think.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,788 Senior Member
    I can afford Leupolds on my favorite rifles but I use Nikon Buckmasters because the optics are as good as comparable Leupolds, if not better. They return to zero properly, after adjusting, and I've never had one just 'lose zero.' I don't have anything larger than .30-06, though, and I haven't owned a Monarch, which are supposed to be even better, so I can't speak to that. Supposedly, the Buckmarks are more in line with the newer Redfields that are made under Leupold standards, but I like the Buckmark better, personally.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    Sorry Wambli. I didn't mean to imply anything. I usually purchase in the upper end range. I have seen some more expensive scopes fail on some big guns. Price does not mean quality, but the trend is there. I have a couple of the prostaff on some .22s. That is what got me thinking of the Monarch. I have enjoyed the Prostaff scopes.

    I believe Price should mean quality and it usually does in the more reputable brands. Nikon is very high quality through its entire line. I don't own any Monarchs yet, but judging from their bottom line Prostaff and mid line Buckmaster, of which I own some of both, I'd have to say Monarch is on par with Leupold in quality.

    The Buckmaster is a bit superior to the Prostaff or at least that's as advertised, but in actual field performance I can tell no earth shaking difference. In fact, and I hate to say this on here for fear I'll be committed to the nut house, I will go so far as to say that my one Prostaff, a 3-9x40, doesn't give up much to my VX-3L Leupold. I know that sounds like a stretch but I've used them both in low light situations and there's not enough difference in light and briteness for me to tell. And my VX-3L has a 56mm Objective and a 30 mm Body. So take it for what it's worth, but thats a fact. And also, a big plus for the Nikon is Eye Relief. Mine have 3 3/4 to 4 inches minimum on any power setting.

    I have the 3-9x40 on my Rem. 700 SPS 30-06, my 4.5-14 x40 Buckmaster on my .250 Savage, and I have a 6-18x40 with BDC Reticle on my Rem. 700 ADL Synthetic 22-250 and another 6-18x40 with Mildot Reticle on my Stevens Model 200 .223 Remington. I love em all and would not hesitate to buy more Nikons. And as for standing up to recoil, I shoot a 200 grain bullet load out of that 30-06. I would put them up against Leupold for toughness and dependability.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • shootbrownelkshootbrownelk Senior Member Posts: 2,035 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    They now have a Monarch 7 line which is meant to compete against the European brands.
    I didn't know that Wambli, I'll check them out. Thanks
  • twatwa Senior Member Posts: 2,236 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    I believe Price should mean quality and it usually does in the more reputable brands. Nikon is very high quality through its entire line. I don't own any Monarchs yet, but judging from their bottom line Prostaff and mid line Buckmaster, of which I own some of both, I'd have to say Monarch is on par with Leupold in quality.

    The Buckmaster is a bit superior to the Prostaff or at least that's as advertised, but in actual field performance I can tell no earth shaking difference. In fact, and I hate to say this on here for fear I'll be committed to the nut house, I will go so far as to say that my one Prostaff, a 3-9x40, doesn't give up much to my VX-3L Leupold. I know that sounds like a stretch but I've used them both in low light situations and there's not enough difference in light and briteness for me to tell. And my VX-3L has a 56mm Objective and a 30 mm Body. So take it for what it's worth, but thats a fact. And also, a big plus for the Nikon is Eye Relief. Mine have 3 3/4 to 4 inches minimum on any power setting.

    I have the 3-9x40 on my Rem. 700 SPS 30-06, my 4.5-14 x40 Buckmaster on my .250 Savage, and I have a 6-18x40 with BDC Reticle on my Rem. 700 ADL Synthetic 22-250 and another 6-18x40 with Mildot Reticle on my Stevens Model 200 .223 Remington. I love em all and would not hesitate to buy more Nikons. And as for standing up to recoil, I shoot a 200 grain bullet load out of that 30-06. I would put them up against Leupold for toughness and dependability.

    I won't send you to the nut house, I agree with what you stated, that is the reason I switched from Leupold to Nikon. All the Nikons I have own have better light gathering abilities better than any Leupold I have ever owned.
    I also have a hard time telling the quality difference between the Pro Staff line and the Buckmaster line, not really worth the difference in price - although the Cabelas here in KC has the buck master line priced at the Pro Staff prices right now. I just picked a couple up last week since the pricing was good.
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    Thanks again all for the replies. I have been done edumacated.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,387 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    I can afford Leupolds on my favorite rifles but I use Nikon Buckmasters because the optics are as good as comparable Leupolds, if not better. They return to zero properly, after adjusting, and I've never had one just 'lose zero.' I don't have anything larger than .30-06, though, and I haven't owned a Monarch, which are supposed to be even better, so I can't speak to that. Supposedly, the Buckmarks are more in line with the newer Redfields that are made under Leupold standards, but I like the Buckmark better, personally.

    What is a Buckmark? Or did you mean Buckmaster?

    I believe the Monarch is supposed to compete with the Leupold VX-3 and the Buckmaster the VX-2. The VX-3 has an advertised light transmission of 98% while Nikon advertises the Monarch at 95%. However, the VX-2 and the Buckmaster are advertised at the same 92%. Then I've heard that anything above 95% the human eye cannot detect. I don't have a clue as to how different companies light transmission figures compare.

    The lowly Prostaff I guess is comparable to the VX-1, and they do compare pretty close in price, but in my opinion that's where the comparison ends. I have a few VX-1s and I don't bad mouth them, they're great entry level scopes. But the Prostaff has an advertised light transmission of 90% as compared to the VX-1s 86% and it shows. My one Prostaff is very very clear. For the money You can't beat it. At about $160 starting price it's a whole lot of scope for the money. I have mine on my 30-06 as I said, and it's like the old Timex Watch, it takes a lickin and keeps on tickin'.

    My other 3 Nikons are Buckmasters. To me for a hunting rifle you can't beat them or any Nikon. I have my Leupolds and they are probably the best scope made outside of Europe, but for the money I think with Nikon you get all you will ever need in a hunting rifle scope.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,702 Senior Member
    Nikon is my go-to optics company, though ironically neither of my hunting rigs currently wear one. I hunted with a Nikon Buckmaster on my 7mm08 for years before upgrading. It was my intent to go with a higher end Monarch but Sightron was having a massive model end sale on the SII Big Sky so I ended up with one of those. I wouldn't hesitate to put a Monarch on top of anything.
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement