new buckmaster vs the monarch

[corbanzo]

So I was taking a look at a good long range scopes, and I am a fan of nikon, so the first one that struck a chord with me was the monarch 5-20 with the BDC reticle.   It looked like a great scope to me.

Then I took a look at the buckmasters, and know they are also good scopes.  Now here is the thing, the monarch is about 5 oz lighter, which I don't care about.  Has pretty much the same FOV and eye relief at power, and now with the change in lens coating, the buckmaster is getting 92% transmission as compared to 95% in the monarch.

Now here is my question?  Where in the hell are $200 worth of differences between the two?  To me it is looking like the buckmaster is going to get the go ahead....  unless you guys can come up with some pretty damn good reasons the monarch is $200 better.

[KRP]

The Buckmaster scopes are nice but the old style Monarchs were definately better scopes.  I don't own a new Monarch yet but I have heard they are as good or better then the old ones.  My old style Monarch's glass is better and it tracks better than my new style Buckmaster.  If you plan on shooting in low light and use the turrets to dial for elevation and windage you will see a difference.  The difference in tracking is worth $200 in my opinion but if you aren't going to crank on the turrets it may not be worth it to you.