Nikon Monarch Vs. Buckmaster

Kirch · 08-21-2007, 09:28 AM

guys,
I just bought a .243 WSSM Abolt Stalker and am looking to put a Nikon scope on it. This is not going to be a primary gun..... at least not intended at this point in time as I have a .300WSM for deer.

Anyway, I'm looking to put either a Monarch 4-16x42 or a buckmaster 4.5-14x40 and am wondering if the Monarch is really worth the extra $150. Is the claimed 3% light transmission different between the Monarch and Buckmaster really noticable?

Thanks
Dave

ericstokes250 · 08-21-2007, 10:43 AM

I wouldn't pay the $150 dollars more difference because its a secondary gun and the only difference is your paying for a bit more light transmisson that you won't even be able to tell the difference. Alot of difference in prices these days arelight transmission, material, quality of glass. Nikon is a good way to go either way you get a goodwarranty.

Kirch · 08-21-2007, 11:15 AM

is the only difference between the buck and monarch the glass? The rest of the scope has the same quality? I really like the idea of the more powerful eye box 4-16 for the monarch vs. 4.5-14 for the buck. I don't mind spending the money. But is the difference worth it??

timbercruiser · 08-21-2007, 02:18 PM

I, personally for a secondary gun, would put either a Nikon Monarch 3x9x40 at about $215 or a Bushnell Elite 4200 3x9x40 at about $265 on it. Both are better scopes than the Buckmaster.

Kirch · 08-21-2007, 02:31 PM

for a .243 @ 4100 fps w/ a 55 grain bullet I'd like somethinga little more powerful than 3x9. Was thinking 4-16 would be SWEET. But not going to spend $150 if the only difference between Monarch and the Buckmaster is 3% light.

So back to the original question is the light transmission the ONLY difference between these 2 scope?