Elite 4200 vs Nikon Monarch

The Nikon is at least as clear (IMO, in my opinion), and provides nearly twice the internal elevation (39 MOA in Nikon, a crappy 20 MOA in Bushnell).

Nikon is shorter, the Bushnell is a long sucker.

Nikon furnishes two sets of target knobs, and a sunshade, and elastic corded lens covers.

Nikon dealer cost (matte finish, plex or crosshair reticle) is $371.00

Bushnell dealer cost (matte finish, plex) is $345.00

Get the Nikon, then you can tell the rest of which is really the better performer/bargain, because you'll have both!

 

Chetc,
I own the Nikon Monarch UCC in 6.5x20x44 with fine crosshairs and it's a very nice scope. It came with all the things listed in the above thread. I really like the two sets of adjustment knobs and sunshade. One set of knobs has screw-on caps/covers and the other set doesn't take any caps. They're easy to read and adjust from any shooting position that I use. The tracking is as good as any other scope I've ever used and I own/have owned dozens of Leupolds. As a matter of fact, I traded a Leuy 4.5x14x40 with heavy duplex for the Nikon that I now own. I don't own one but I like the Bushnells, but don't think I'd trade my Nikon for one. Johnny K.

 

Agree with Nate and johnny k, Nikon is the pick. And theres nothing wrong with the Elite either...sakofan..

 

I would go with the Nikon. I think that it is clearer and brighter than the Bushnell, plus you get the sunshade and the extra target knobs.

 

I am in the process of selling my Nikon Monarch (never mounted). It has excellent optics and I am sure that mechanically it is great. It has more adjustment then the Bushnell.

Big problem. It doesn't fit. The scope body is short and I don't like ring extensions. So am selling this scope to get an Elite. Optically, they are equal and that means superb.

Jerry