Nikon Monarch: upgrade over VX-II?

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by fireroad, Jul 25, 2009.

  1. fireroad

    fireroad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    308
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    Longtime Leupold fan. Would like to upgrade the recticle on my VX-II 4x12x40 AO to a recticle I can use for holdover, like the mil dot. While the vx-ii is a decent scope, I don't think it is good enough to warrant the $150 upgrade from the Leupold Custom Shop. Antoher Mark 4 or or VX-3 is not in my budget right now. I have read in a few places that the Nikon Monarch 4x16x42SF is a step up from the VX-II in terms of clarity and low light performance, is cheaper, and still has the lifetime warranty. Have folks found this to be true (that the Nikon is an upgrade) and is the Nikon worth it...or should I just save up for a VX-3? Another Mark 4 or VX-3 would be a year out, and Icould sell the VX-II for the cost of a new Monarch. Rifle is a 243 used for medium (400 yds) range varmit and range practice.
     
  2. fireroad

    fireroad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    308
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    What...nobody owns a Monarch?
     

  3. RJ338

    RJ338 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    97
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Monarch's are, IMHO optically better than the VX II though they are 2-4 oz heavier. Their BDO isn't to my liking though as I fully believe in the KISS theory. Check them out and pick the one that fits your needs, then save up and only pay once!
     
  4. DropDead

    DropDead Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    62
    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    I have an older monarch 6.5x20x42 with ao. It is decent quite clear and low light performance is very good. My main gripes are crank it up past 16 and quality starts going down fast, just not very clear at 20 imo. The mildot reticle is nice for ranging and holdover but it is quite thick on my monarch. Very low amount of elevation and windage adjustment, i think the new ones are even worse, not sure exactly but i think less than 40 moa. I would definately look into how much it has and how much you need. It has never failed me tho, and low light performance is a very good.
     
  5. Jon Jackoviak

    Jon Jackoviak Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    385
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2003
    In my opinion, I would take a Nikon Monarch over a Leupold VX-II.
     
  6. fireroad

    fireroad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    308
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    Good to know, thanks! How does the Monarch compare to the VX-III/VX-3?

    dropdead - I hear that the mil dot on the new Monarchs is thinner....
     
  7. stonepony

    stonepony Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    61
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    I have the 4-16x50 tactical and really like it! The mildot reticle is not big at all and is very thin compared to the older ones! I was a leupold man for years and have owned every style out. I can say that the nikon glass wins hands down and is has very repeatableadjustments!
     
  8. fireroad

    fireroad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    308
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    I really wanted the tactical scope you have but with 40-44 mm objective as I like to keep my scopes low. Who's mounts did you use,and how tall are they?
     
  9. fireroad

    fireroad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    308
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    Also, how does the Monarch comnpare to the Bushnell Elite 4200? Ihear that they are pretty close...unfortunbatley Bushnell does not put mil-dots in the 4-16x40 ...
     
  10. RJ338

    RJ338 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    97
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Big difference between the Bushnell and the Nikon is eye relief, I have a Bushnell 4200 in 3-9 on a 300 Mag and a Monarch 3-12 on a 338 RUM and I keep getting reminded of the relief on the bench with the Bushnell.
     
  11. fireroad

    fireroad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    308
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    Last question...how is the resolution at 14x? Good enough for a coyote at 400 yds? 60yds? I would go with the 5-20x44SF, but Nikon doesn't offer it with a mil dot reticle.
     
  12. rdmega

    rdmega Active Member

    Messages:
    28
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    I have a couple nikons, I really like them. I have even found that my buckmaster which is a step down from the monarchs is just as clear as my VX-II. The Monarch is better for sure IMHO. I only wonder, my monarch is a 1" tube and most VX models are 30mm arent they? does this make a big difference?


    Best of luck, and the mildot on my monarch is awesome for hold over at the 16X
     
  13. fireroad

    fireroad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    308
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2009
    The VX-II models all have 1" tubes and only the VX-3 LR models have 30mm tubes. Benefit to 30mm tube is greater range of wind and elv adjustment. 30mm tubes are not any stronger, nor do they gather more light.

    How is the resolution on your Monarch at 16x?
     
  14. rdmega

    rdmega Active Member

    Messages:
    28
    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    I dont have a lot of experince with anything else but the resolution seems fine for me. It is a little clearer at 16X than my buckmaster was at the same.

    In fact the VX-II is actually my shooting buddies, I think the Nikon is a little clearer on the high power with sharper images and less mirage. I believe mine was cheaper than the LP too.