Elite 3200 Vs Nikon Monarch

[kc5rkg]

Hello!

I think I have narrowed my search to these scopes.

Bushnell Elite 3200   2-7x32  $169
                              3-9x40  $179

Nikon Monarch         2-7x33  $248
                              3-9x40  $255


Now I have two questions about these.  One, Is the Monarch worth the $80 more than the Elite?  Two, Would you reccommend the 2-7 or the 3-9?  Does the 40mm objective give you a big advantage over the 32mm?
Thanks for your help!!

Scott

[chk]

IMHO I'd go with the 2x7 for a greater field of view and they can be mounted lower on most rifles. I have no experience with either brand. I did buy a 3x9 Monarch for my son and he said it's as bright and clear as his Leupold Vari X III 2x8 if not better. If you can afford the more expensive scope I'd go with it since there's no free lunch in optics. As for your question on objective diameter the rule of thumb is divide the highest magnification into the objective lens diameter. That number is the exit pupil diameter. The human eye's pupil dialates to about 6mm on adults. The closer to that size the better.Over 8 or 9mm is good but only so much light will be let into the eye before the pupil starts to close. The 2x7 has a slight edge using this method.     Dave

[Zachary]

Let me directly anwer your questions:

One, Is the Monarch worth the $80 more than the Elite?

Answer:  YES!  The Monarch is the equivalent to the Elite 4200 (not the 3200).  If you want to compare the 3200, it should be to the Nikon Buckmaster line.  The Monarch (although it doesn't have the rainguard feature) it simply has much better glass than the 3200.

Two, Would you reccommend the 2-7 or the 3-9?

Answer:  The "standard" variable is the 3x-9x.  You can't go wrong with it.  Now, if you happen to shoot in heavily wooded areas, then you might want to consider the 2x-7x because you will not only have less magnification, but also more FOV.

Does the 40mm objective give you a big advantage over the 32mm?

Answer:  An advantage?  Yes, a "big" advantage?  Not really.  However, I would go with the 40mm objective because it will allow more light to come in, and also allow for better eye alignment.

Zachary

[kc5rkg]

I guess a better comparison would be the Elite 3200 to the Buckmasters, they are about the same price.  The 3-9x40 Buckmasters is $174, the Elite 3-9x40 is $179.   I do agree if I spend the extra $80 that the Monarch would be better, but how bout between these two that are same price.

THanks !!!!!

Scott

[Zachary]

That's a tougher call, but I think that I would go with the Elite 3200.  Their optics have rainguard, and the Elite warranty (both in practice and in theory) is, from what I understand, a bit better.

Zachary

[Graybeard]

The Elite 3200 2-7 sits on my 7-08 and I can tell you it really is all the scope you need for big game hunting. If you hunt in wooded areas where shots are generally at less than 100 yards even if an occasional shot to 300 could be possible it is all the scope you'll need. Is the Nikon better? I'll leave that to folks who own them. I have no experience with them so no opinion on them.

I am firmly of the opinion that no one has any real world need for more than 9X in a big game hunting situation and even less is usually plenty, often better. I own no hunting rifle at present that wears a scope more powerful than a 3-9 and only one wears that. The rest top out at 8X or less.

GB

[RandyWakeman]

I am firmly of the opinion that no one has any real world need for more than 9X in a big game hunting situation and even less is usually plenty, often better. I own no hunting rifle at present that wears a scope more powerful than a 3-9 and only one wears that. The rest top out at 8X or less.

GB

Amen. I've never taken an animal with a scope cranked past 5X. Last fall's moose was at 285 yards . . . never moved the scope off 2X.

There is nothing I can think of that you can't take with a 2 x 7. There is a 2.5 x 10 on my .30-06, but that's because I like the scope (B. 4200) not because of the high-end power that I will never use.

The super big objectives also make little sense (at least to me) on a hunting rifle. They add weight, bulk, and do more branch snagging than game-bagging.

[Cabin4]

There is very little if any differnace in light transfer from a 2-7x33 to a 3-9x40mm scope.

The perfect human eye is only capable of allowing/seeing roughly 4.7mm of light. Scope magnification and objective lens size have a relationship and particular function in any scope. That is why low poer scopes have small objective lens and the higher the power scope, the larger the lens size. The 2-7x33mm and the 3-9x40mm are two good examples and raise the question , why does the 3-9 have a 40mm and the 2-7 have a 33mm ? The answer is simple, since the perfect human eye can only allow 4.7mm of light in it, a 2-7x 33mm scope on 7 power will allow 4.7 mm of light transfer (33mm/7 = 4.7). So, a 40mm lens on a scope that maxs out at 7 power does no good since at 7 power it would allow 5.7mm of light transer to the eye. The 33m lens on exsists to support the highest power level of the scope. Another example is the 3-9x40mm, 40mm /9 power = 4.4mm of light transfer to the human eye. Again the 40mm lens is only there to support the 9 power setting.

My point here is that a 3-9x40mm scope does NOT provide more light transfer to the human eye. Scopes to not make light, they only transfer what light is available.

I use a 1-4x20mm Leupold on my 45-70 guide gun. On high power of 4, this allows 5mm of light transfer to my eye, still more light than a perfect human eye is capable of seeing. Under low light conditions, a 60mm lens would not allow any more light, or make the target seem more bright. Under the circumstances I use this gun, this is a perfect scopw for close in heavy woods shooting. On my 30-06, I use a Bushnell Trophy in 3-9x40. I use this gun for longer shots and I need to higher power magnification.

Focus your attention on determining what type of shooting you will be doing and buy the best scope for the money you can afford to spend. If you are doing long range shooting, than a 3-9 or greater is what you will need.  If close in woods shooting is what you need it for, say under 100 yards, then a 1-4 or 2-7 will work better with the wider FOV. You are not giving up anything concerning light tranfer. Don't be too concerned with light transfer, the manufactures make the scopes capable of tranfering as much light to your eye as the scope is capable based on the highest power setting.

Hope this helps.

[dbuck]

Gentlemen,

Thanks for the information, most of my hunting is use for long range shooting.  I go to Wyoming, Alaska, Newfoundland,  etc.  At home in Ohio were I hunt you can't use a highpower rifle.

Buck

[RandyWakeman]

There is very little if any differnace in light transfer from a 2-7x33 to a 3-9x40mm scope.

The perfect human eye is only capable of allowing/seeing roughly 4.7mm of light.

While our eye pupils can only dilate so much, less as we get older . . . there is a bit more to the story.

Exit pupil is an interesting topic. As far as exit pupil, Ken Marsh states it well: “If the exit pupil is very small, (less than 4mm) the eye must be held very precisely in line with the scope to see. While the human eye doesn’t use more than about 6mm at a time, a larger size aids in maintaining a clear view despite slight movements of gun, head, etc., and greatly speeds target acquisition as well.”

So yes, AFIAK, we are lucky to actually use huge amounts of exit pupil, and as our eyes age . . . we can use less. The 7mm figure that our eyes can dilate to in low-light is used by Zeiss. “Calculating it” is not easily done. Example: Bushnell Elite 4200 1.5 x 6 x 36 spec is for a 14.6mm exit pupil at 1.5 power - - - a far cry from the 24mm you would have in a perfect world.

Though the 6X exit pupil is spot-on at 6mm for this scope, the 1.5 isn’t. Naturally, I asked Bushnell what “the deal was.” Their response:  “The confusion is due to the fact that at low power some vignetting occurs. Given that the eye can only utilize about 5MM of exit pupil even in very low light, the vignetting is immaterial and is typical of lower power scopes (at low power only). The magnification is what is claimed. There is no vignetting at high power.”
The “vignetting” is what has been referred to as “tire ring effect,” I’ve always called it tunnel effect. In this case, the 4200 1.5 x 6 has no such effect to my eyes; nor should it - - - as the remaining 14.6mm exit pupil is twice what most any eye can dilate to. The “vignetting” is still there . . . we just can’t detect it (in this case).

[kc5rkg]

Well, I went to a gun show this past weekend.  I spent about an hour looking over different scopes and asking questions.  I think I am going to go with a Weaver Grandslam.  I keep hearing good things about them.  I am in no way knocking any of the other scopes, but something about the weaver really appeals to me.  Sometime in the near future I'll order one from Optic Zone, and I will keep everyone updated on how it goes!  Thanks again for all of your help!!!

Scott