Nikon Monarch good scope??

[Deerhunter264]

I have a browning x bolt medallion (gloss finish) .243 I was wondering if the Nikon 3-12x42 Monarch Riflescope would be a good scope its product number is 8418 it is a gloss scope. IS it a good scope?

 

[JP Sarte]

Just my opinion but I don't think that Nikon makes any bad scopes. They all seem to be at least above average. I have several and they have all worked quite well. Also just my opinion, but after a point (maybe $400.00 ???) I think people are just throwing money out the window. I have held, looked through, examined, etc. more expensive scopes (i.e. $600-$800 range) and I just can't see enough difference (if there is any) to justify the added (sometimes very large) additional costs.

On the other end (the low end) I think you can buy junk. I try and stay with the mid-range stuff (i.e. Nikon Monarch, Bushnell 3200 and 4200, etc).

What I also find interesting is how some people can buy a $1400.00 Sako for example and then top it with a $70.00 scope. The two just don't seem like they go together. But that is a different topic alltogether. Just my thoughts.

JP

 

[Wildalaska]

Good scopes, but not Leupold

Also just my opinion, but after a point (maybe $400.00 ???) I think people are just throwing money out the window. I have held, looked through, examined, etc. more expensive scopes (i.e. $600-$800 range) and I just can't see enough difference (if there is any) to justify the added (sometimes very large) additional costs.

Check out Zak Smiths website for info on spendy scopes

www.demigodllc.com

WildihavealowendonebasedontheonesherecomendsAlaska TM

 

[Horseman]

JP Sarte is right on the money as far as the law of diminishing returns. The law of diminishing returns is very relevant when buying optics IMO. The difference between a $450 scope and a $800 scope is usually not worth it to most people IMO. I own some higher end scopes and they are better than $400 scopes but not by much IMO.

The Nikon's built their reputation building great scopes from Japan. Japanese optics are highly regarded and have been for some time. The Bushnell Elites are made there and are considered by many to be the best scope for the money. Nikon does not make scopes in Japan anymore. They moved production of most scopes to Thailand, and then last year moved again to the Phillipines. They are still good scopes from what I've seen. If it were me I'd also be considering the Bushnell Elite 4200's, Zeiss conquest, and Leupold VXIII. They are all going to be in the same price range. I believe the Bushnell and Zeiss will have noticebly brighter optics and the Zeiss will have a laser etched reticle. Any of these 4 scopes would be excellent choices and I believe this price point is where anymore money spents gains very little.

This is not to say more expensive scopes are a waste of money. They are better than the moderately priced scopes, but not much IME.

 

[zoomie]

I love my 3-9x40 Monarch. It's the best scope I own. I'm replacing my cheapos slowly, and I'd be happy with 2 more Monarchs. I voted a 4 because I know it's not the best. But I'm not discriminating enough to make the best "worth it."

 

[Johnc]

I posted these links recently in another thread. They were very helpful to me when I just had to select a scope.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/recommended_riflescopes.htm


http://www.chuckhawks.com/few_recommended_riflescopes.htm

http://www.chuckhawks.com/staff_riflescopes.htm


http://www.chuckhawks.com/scopes_price_class.htm


http://www.chuckhawks.com/scoping_out.htm



http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8185

 

[hoytinak]

I've got Nikon's on all my scoped rifles and have been very happy with them.

 

[Swampghost]

I'm on the low end of the spectrum. Today I bought a Simmons? $150 for my Marlin .44 mag. It worked out fine. My new .243 came with a BSA that rocks. I see them at Wallyworld and don't know about the long haul.

 

[LanceOregon]

The Nikon's built their reputation building great scopes from Japan. Japanese optics are highly regarded and have been for some time. The Bushnell Elites are made there and are considered by many to be the best scope for the money. Nikon does not make scopes in Japan anymore. They moved production of most scopes to Thailand, and then last year moved again to the Phillipines

Well, while the final assembly factory is indeed in the Philippines, the actual lenses are still being designed and manufactured in Japan. Like many companies, Nikon is naturally trying to lower their labor costs to stay competitive, while keeping their quality good.

Japan is actually facing similar labor problems as we have, as their population is aging too. And young people don't want lower paying factory jobs. I recently found out that both Nikon and Canon ( their biggest competitor in the camera market ) are actually importing factory workers from the Philippines into Japan to work at their lens manufacturing facilities there. I doubt that either company would be employing Filipino workers if they were not getting good results from them.

At least the Philippines is a predominately Christian nation, and is friendly to the USA. I would never buy a Nikon or Canon product that was made in Red China.

.

 

[Big Caliber]

I got 3 Monarchs: 1 on a .308, a 25-06, and a 45/70. The middle one spent 10 years on the .308, not one lick of trouble. Great glass & lifetime warrantee. The $$$ I save over a Leupold, ie, goes for reloading components. Don't get upset, if I could afford a Leupold... I'd probably still get a Nikon. If I win the lottery I'd go for a Zeiss Take your time and look through the scopes you want and "listen" to what your eyes tell you.

 

[sholling]

They best be great I ordered two 3-9x40 Team Primos/Monarchs this week. A heck of a deal at $199 each.

 

[Forwardassist]

OBTW, Leupold uses Japanese glass in their scopes. Not sure which manufacture s makes their glass. Nikon makes their own glass.

 

[Stiofan]

I though you were buying that other brand. Or are you just buying all brands now!

I have a Monarch, I like it very much, and I choose it over a similarly price Leupold (which may be the reason I like it better).

I think you really have to spend more to get the same quality with some other brands like Leupold. I've used Nikon's cameras for years, and their lenses are top notch. Always have been.

 

[BlondieStomp]

The new monarchs are great scopes! Nice, bright, crisp, true in color, with good, positive adjustments. What's not to like? On some of the other optics forums, the new monarchs are compared positively to the leupold vx3, so take that for whatever you think it's worth.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

JP Sarte is right on the money as far as the law of diminishing returns. The law of diminishing returns is very relevant when buying optics IMO. The difference between a $450 scope and a $800 scope is usually not worth it to most people IMO. I own some higher end scopes and they are better than $400 scopes but not by much IMO.

I couldn't agree more. When I bought my Nikon, I was set on buying a Leupold or a Zeiss. The salesman pointed out the Nikon and after a long side by side comparison, the Nikon won out. I feel I actually bought a scope that was equal to, or better than the Leupold or Zeiss for much less money.

 

[LanceOregon]

I though you were buying that other brand. Or are you just buying all brands now!

In another thread I told him about a dealer selling Monarchs for only $15 more than the price of the Fullfield II that he was considering.

Just the sidefocus parallax feature alone is well worth more than that difference in price.

.

 

[bigautomatic]

Well, I don't have much experience with Nikon rifle scopes, but I do own a couple of their handgun scopes. I have a Monarch 2x that has seen time on two .44 mags, and is currently catching a ride on my .460 XVR. Not sure how many rounds through the 44s, but it has taken a serious pounding on the Smith. Over 1k rounds, and still works like the day I bought it.