Author Topic: Nikon Monarch vs. Leupold VX II (Read 1653 times)

longshot · « **on:** February 19, 2006, 02:05:16 PM »

I looking at both of these scopes for a Winchester Featherweight in 22-250 and am having a tough time making a decision. Looking at the 3-9x40 in both. Which one has the advantage over the other, in your opinion, and why?

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 19, 2006, 02:23:45 PM »

I like the Leupold best. Just because I know they have never let me down.

379 Peterbilt · « **Reply #2 on:** February 19, 2006, 03:14:48 PM »

I have been contimplating these 2 scopes as well, along with the Ziess conquest. The luepy has by far the best eye relief. Not even a contest.

I looked through both of the at the same time. They were mounted on a double stack "dummy gun".

Some folks dont care about eye relief, but I do..

That bushnell elite 4200 is a great scope for the money, but at only 3" of relief, DANG

Grubbs · « **Reply #3 on:** February 20, 2006, 04:37:01 AM »

Both the Zeiss and the Monarch are optically superior to the VX II. From personal use the Zeiss is a little better than the Monarch and I love the etched reticle on the Conquest. VX II is pretty darn good but way overpriced.

longshot · « **Reply #4 on:** February 20, 2006, 02:39:54 PM »

Well, ordered the Monarch 3-9x40 today from Jon at the Optic Zone. After much deliberation (and some jabs from a fellow poster on this website

) I decided on the Nikon. Went with a set of Leupold dual dovetail bases and a set of Burris signature rings. The best part is, I called Jon today around 11:00 EST this morning, and I received a UPS tracking number about 8:00 EST tonight. Those guys at the optic zone really have their act together when it comes to customer service and providing us with the best optics at the best prices!! Can't wait to get it mounted up and try it out!!

Thanks Jon!!

Zachary · « **Reply #5 on:** February 21, 2006, 02:23:44 AM »

I agree that the Monarch has better glass than the VX-II. I own several Monarch, and they have never failed me, but for some reason I think that the Leupold is built a tad better. However, you should consider that the Leupolds are generally noticeably more expensive within their respective category.

One of other benefits of Leupold is that they are generally shorter and lighter than most other scopes. You could say that the Elite 4200s are on the opposite side of the spectrum, with the longest and heaviest scopes. As such, if you want to save weight, then the Leupold might be worth the extra money.

Another benefit of Leupolds is that they generally have longer eye relief - which to me is almost, if not just as, important as optics. What good is perfect glass if the scope is going to hit you every time you shoot the gun? Granted, a I have an Elite 4200 4x-16x-50mm that has about 3.6" of eye relief and, when mounted on a 7mm ULTRA MAG, it has never touched me (although barely).

As such, I generally buy Leupolds on heavier kicking, lighter weight rifles.

For an example, I own a Kimber Montana in .300WSM. This is a lighter weight rifle, so it would be silly to mount a long and heavy Elite 4200 2.5x-10x-40mm that also has short eye relief at 3.3"

I narrowed it down to the Monarch 3x-9x-40mm and Leupold VX-III in 3.5x-10x-40mm. The VX-III has noticeably better glass than the VX-II, and slightly better glass than the Monarch. ON THIS PARTICULAR RIFLE, I purchased the VX-III because it was lighter, shorter, and had longer eye relief.

The point that I am trying to make is, yes, Leupolds are definately generally overpriced. However, in some situations, they are not.

Still, the Monarch is an excellent scope. Congrats!

Zachary

Grubbs · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2006, 04:19:22 AM »

I do not believe the Leupold has better eye relief than the 3-9x40 conquest (constant 4"). I would think the shooters of hard-kickers would appreciate the etched reticles on teh Zeiss also. That being said, I do have the VX III on a .338.

Ranger413 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 21, 2006, 04:25:33 AM »

The main reason the Zeiss won out over the rest that I was considering was they 4" of constant eye relief. I have a 338-06 project I'm working on and wasn't really sure what the recoil would be like.

Ranger413

The Sodbuster · « **Reply #8 on:** March 04, 2006, 08:30:01 AM »

Just a followup on eye relief. Granted, on a hard kicking, light, magnum rifle, long eye relief is a great thing. But I don't think that's always the case.

I've got a Rem 700 VSF in .308 that I put a Nikon Buckmaster scope on. Catalog says 3.6-3.7" of eye relief. I wish it were less. I mounted it in a pair of standard leupold rings on a one piece base as far forward as it would go. It's great for shooting off the bench, standing, or kneeling. For sitting and prone I could do with less eye relief.

I can shoot it prone without a sling, but with the rifle tightened in to me with the sling, I can't get my head far back enough to get a decent picture. I need to get one of those extended front rings so I can slide it forward about 3/8".

Remember, putting the gun up to your shoulder at the store may give the impression it's mounted just fine with respect to eye relief, but for some shooting positions you'll want less.