elite 4200 versus Monarch

[smc1]

Looking for a scope for my 22-250 used for coyotes at and around 300 yards. Which one do you like better?
Bushnell elite 4200 4-16 AO or a comperable Nikon Monarch?
Thanks

[Old English]

I have 4 rifles with Monarch scopes and I clearly like them. I just bought a 4200 to give me a decent scope which works in the rain. I already had a Bushnell 6500 which has proved to me that the rainguard works. I would be hard pressed to tell you that either scope is brighter or clearer than the other. I am leaning towards the 4200 purely because of the rainguard. I rarely have the time to mess with scope caps, so the rainguard is a great feature IMHO.

[smc1]

How do you like the 6500? Does it compare to a Leopold VXIII?

[Old English]

I only have 2 Leupolds, VX1 and VX111. I prefer the Monarch to the Leupolds, I also prefer the Bushnells to the Leupolds. One thing I hate about the Leupolds is the varying eye relief at different magnification. IMHO, the Monarch, 4200 and 6500 are all brighter and sharper than the VX111. I like all of them,don;t get me wrong but I am not sold on the Value for money aspect of the Leupold.
The 6500 I really like. In truth the 4200 is a little clearer. I bought the 6500 as I wanted a versatile scope, 2.5/16 is versatile. It is an excellent scope as it should be for $580. I might have been better buying two 4200's but I do not regret the 6500.

[Graybeard]

Where the heck did you find that Elite 6500 for $580? That's only about 75% of what I've seen them selling for.

[victorcharlie]

I have both and can't tell much difference between them.  That said, look on the bottom of the scope and you'll see the 4200 is made in Japan.  Not so for the Nikon.

[Bigeasy]

I am not very familiar with either scope, but I am a fairly serious photographer, and can attest to the quality of Nikon lenses.  Nikon is one of the few   who actually make their own glass.  Made in Japan used to mean cheap, but when it comes to optics, they are as good as any.

[KRP]

I had a 4200 mounted for two days and then sold it because my Nikons have much better glass.  It was a 6-24x50 Tactical versus my 6.5-20x44 UCC Monarchs.  Side by side with a 3" orange target dot at 400 yards and I couldn't get a crisp/clear view with the Bushnell but had no problem with the Nikon.  The Bushnell's lack of clarity was compounded in low light also as it was not nearly as bright as the Nikon.

[Zachary]

I own both Monarchs and Elite 4200s.  Honestly, it's hard for me to tell the difference.  That said, I have to give the edge to the Monarchs because they appear to be a wee bit sharper in their optics.  But you really can't go wrong with either one.

Zachary

[Old English]

Sorry Greybeard, I exaggerated. They are $549 at the Optic zone. So..... the optic zone .com  I tried to post the link and it said banned but, that is the price for the 2.5/16*42.

[Skunk]

Sorry Greybeard, I exaggerated. They are $549 at the Optic zone. So..... the optic zone .com  I tried to post the link and it said banned but, that is the price for the 2.5/16*42.

A respected seller on GunBroker has them for only $515.00 plus $10.00 Shipping.

[Graybeard]

I'd not buy from the optic zone if the price was 75 cents.

[Old English]

Greybeard, I am sorry, I never meant to cause any trouble. There is clearly some history involved here which I know nothing about.