Author Topic: Here we go round and round (Read 797 times)

foxcaller · « **on:** May 26, 2003, 07:20:00 AM »

I have been in the process of upgrading my optics over the past few months. Being a contender lover I started with the pistol scopes and now all my barrels wear either Burris or Leupold glass. Now it's time to start with the rifles. I recently bought a Bushnell Elite 3200 3x-9x with the fast focus I am very pleased with. I have a couple questions about the next step up in scopes from this. I know several of you own the Nikon Monarchs and I am wondering how they compare to the Leupolds and the Elite's (3200's & 4200's) as these are the scopes I am looking into now. I know the Leo's are quality and highly recommended by most but are they really $200 better than a Monarch or Elite. Looking at them in the store, which I know is not a real world test, the Nikon looks to me the equal if not a little better in the clarity and brightness. Really interested in the thoughts of you guys who own and use these scopes and have been able to compare them in actual hunting situations. Thanks a million for the info.

Bullseye · « **Reply #1 on:** May 26, 2003, 12:49:27 PM »

Well I favor the Leopolds, but I have been buying the VXI's. They are no more expensive (maybe even less) than the others you mentioned. I have a VARI X II on my muzzleloader and a VXI on my shotgun. When hunting in low light I cannot tell any difference between the two. No way I can justify the extra money, the VXI's still have a lifetime warranty.

longwinters · « **Reply #2 on:** May 26, 2003, 01:32:58 PM »

For the money the Nikon is better in light transmission than its "equal" in a Leo.II Look at their statistics. A Nikon Monarch has 95% compared to a Leo II at 88%. But the Leo scopes have had a history of fantastic service (so I hear . . . never having had one). I cant say for Nikon because of the 4 Monarchs I have had, I never had problems to send one back for repair for. Also, I have never heard a Leo owner gripe about their scope . . so that must say something. Sounds like you have compared them side by side (the only way to compare). I have looked through both the Monarch and Leo II at a shooting range and the Leo (over 10 years old) was very clear. To be honest though - after looking through the Elite 4200 or the Zeiss Conquest I would go with one of these (If you dont mind spending $400.00 - $510.00 or so. The clarity is better, the eye relief is longer and the eye relief doesnt change as you increase the magnification on the scope. Have fun shopping!

bigdaddytacp · « **Reply #3 on:** May 26, 2003, 02:54:34 PM »

Quote from: foxcaller

I have been in the process of upgrading my optics over the past few months. Being a contender lover I started with the pistol scopes and now all my barrels wear either Burris or Leupold glass. Now it's time to start with the rifles. I recently bought a Bushnell Elite 3200 3x-9x with the fast focus I am very pleased with. I have a couple questions about the next step up in scopes from this. I know several of you own the Nikon Monarchs and I am wondering how they compare to the Leupolds and the Elite's (3200's & 4200's) as these are the scopes I am looking into now. I know the Leo's are quality and highly recommended by most but are they really $200 better than a Monarch or Elite. Looking at them in the store, which I know is not a real world test, the Nikon looks to me the equal if not a little better in the clarity and brightness. Really interested in the thoughts of you guys who own and use these scopes and have been able to compare them in actual hunting situations. Thanks a million for the info.

.......I DON"T own any Nikon scopes....a bunch of Nikon Cameras and lens by Nikon......I do have over a dozen Leupolds the oldest from the early 80's.....my dealer sells both Nikon and Leupold and He told me to stick with Leupold vs the Nikon for now as the Nikon wasn't up to the durrability and quality standards of Leupolds...YET!!!!!! again this is second hand information but from a friend/dealer of nearly 30yrs of assocation and has seldom steered me wrong on the facts of equpment.....He does like the new Zeiss Conquest for the money?

?HTH..good luck and good shooting with nice clear durable optics.......with a gold ring???

John (Rojo) · « **Reply #4 on:** May 26, 2003, 07:55:01 PM »

foxcaller, With all there is out there in the marketplace, buying scopes can be confusing and a headache. Most of my rifles sport Leupold VX111's, Bushnell 4200's and Nikon Monarchs. I have been a lucky guy. So far, none of my scopes have gone south. I like the eye relief of the Leupolds, and clarity and brightness of the 4200's and Nikons. All three are pretty darn good. I think it boils down to what your eyes like, what fits your gun, and what type of shooting you are going to do.

John (Rojo)

Zachary · « **Reply #5 on:** May 27, 2003, 04:40:11 PM »

Foxcaller,

The Nikon Monarchs are very similar to the Elite 4200s as both have 95% light transmission. The Nikon Buckmasters are similar to the Elite 3200s as they both have about 88% light transmission.

But light transmission is not the only thing to look at when it comes to scopes. You should also look at resolution and clarity, and, of course, strong construction and warranty.

In my opinion, the Leupold Vari-X IIIs are great, but overpriced. I don't like the VX-IIs because, as I believe, they have a TWO piece tube (the Monarchs, Elite 4200s and 3200s, and Vari-X IIIs have a ONE piece tube.)

I have several Monarchs and have NEVER had any problems with them. In fact, I own several Nikons that are pre-Monarch and they have also been Flawless.

The only advantage that I see with the Elite 4200s is the rainguard feature. Other than that, the Monarchs are hard to beat.

Zachary