Nikon Monarch, Buckmaster and Leupold vx3
07-20-2008, 07:49 PM
#1
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 1,184
Nikon Monarch, Buckmaster and Leupold vx3
I'm going back and forth on these three scopes. I wantsomething around the4.5 x 14 range. This will be mountedon my savage 300 win mag for grizzly and elk hunting, so I don't want to go too cheap.
I don't mind spending the money, but I want a quality product. I'm leaning towards the nikonmonarch BDC reticle, since it seems to be middle of the road.
Any thoughts on any of these scopes? Thanks
I don't mind spending the money, but I want a quality product. I'm leaning towards the nikonmonarch BDC reticle, since it seems to be middle of the road.
Any thoughts on any of these scopes? Thanks
07-20-2008, 08:56 PM
#3
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
RE: Nikon Monarch, Buckmaster and Leupold vx3
nikon monarch with the BDC comes in 3-12, which is a great range IMO, esp since talking grizzly, and 12x is still plenty powerful for long range, and 3x is still relatively low power, certainly more so than 4.5x,
Have a vx-iii 4.5-14LR, on my antelope rig, great setup.
Also have had nikon monarchs, also very nice. Wasn't crazy about circles on the BDC vs. crosshairs, but that's your decision....
Have a vx-iii 4.5-14LR, on my antelope rig, great setup.
Also have had nikon monarchs, also very nice. Wasn't crazy about circles on the BDC vs. crosshairs, but that's your decision....
07-21-2008, 02:32 PM
#4
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 1,184
RE: Nikon Monarch, Buckmaster and Leupold vx3
ORIGINAL: salukipv1
nikon monarch with the BDC comes in 3-12, which is a great range IMO, esp since talking grizzly, and 12x is still plenty powerful for long range, and 3x is still relatively low power, certainly more so than 4.5x,
Have a vx-iii 4.5-14LR, on my antelope rig, great setup.
Also have had nikon monarchs, also very nice. Wasn't crazy about circles on the BDC vs. crosshairs, but that's your decision....
nikon monarch with the BDC comes in 3-12, which is a great range IMO, esp since talking grizzly, and 12x is still plenty powerful for long range, and 3x is still relatively low power, certainly more so than 4.5x,
Have a vx-iii 4.5-14LR, on my antelope rig, great setup.
Also have had nikon monarchs, also very nice. Wasn't crazy about circles on the BDC vs. crosshairs, but that's your decision....
07-21-2008, 04:58 PM
#5
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
RE: Nikon Monarch, Buckmaster and Leupold vx3
the biggest i own is 14x, so that's as far as I'm comfy with....at 14x, for hunting rigs I can't imagine having anything over 14x or 12x, a 500-600yd shot is far, not sure when I'll need to shoot past 600yds.
If I were doing exclusively long distance shooting, and had time to get setup, I may consider a bigger scope, but 14x you can lose game/hard to get in the crosshairs maxed out...power.....
my swaro is 3-12, great range IMO, if not perfect.
tons of guys have 3-9x and would shoot 500yds+
12 or 14x makes it easier, past that I think trouble can arise.... but if its a specialty rig where you plan to only shoot far, no close shots, then maybe an 18x.....i just don't forsee ever having a scope that big.
If I were doing exclusively long distance shooting, and had time to get setup, I may consider a bigger scope, but 14x you can lose game/hard to get in the crosshairs maxed out...power.....
my swaro is 3-12, great range IMO, if not perfect.
tons of guys have 3-9x and would shoot 500yds+
12 or 14x makes it easier, past that I think trouble can arise.... but if its a specialty rig where you plan to only shoot far, no close shots, then maybe an 18x.....i just don't forsee ever having a scope that big.
07-21-2008, 05:43 PM
#6
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: El Dorado, Arkansas
Posts: 2,174
RE: Nikon Monarch, Buckmaster and Leupold vx3
I own some buckmasters in the 4.5 - 14 x 40 ..... great scopes.....
I own some Nikon Monarchs in 4 - 16 x 42 and 5 - 20 x 44 ..... better scopes ......
Don't like the Leupolds on price / value of scope...... no better than a Nikon Monarch but more expensive.... Not even sure if the VXIII is up to Monarch standards these days but they definitely cost more.
The 16 and 20 power Nikons are wonderful scopes, and while I do use the 5 - 20 and love it completely, some cannot use a scope that long ( distance ) ..... The 4 - 16 might be a better choice, or the 3 - 12 would be the bottom I would consider..... Some folks say don't get a scope that big, but I'll put it to you like this..... If you buy the 3 - 9 , you never have 14 or 16 or 20 if you need it .... But a 3 - 12 , 4 - 16 or a 5 - 20 all have a 9X or 12X on them if you need it ...... always get more scope than you think you'll need ..... then you have it when you want it....
I own them all,so I can speak with knowledge...
God Bless
MET
I own some Nikon Monarchs in 4 - 16 x 42 and 5 - 20 x 44 ..... better scopes ......
Don't like the Leupolds on price / value of scope...... no better than a Nikon Monarch but more expensive.... Not even sure if the VXIII is up to Monarch standards these days but they definitely cost more.
The 16 and 20 power Nikons are wonderful scopes, and while I do use the 5 - 20 and love it completely, some cannot use a scope that long ( distance ) ..... The 4 - 16 might be a better choice, or the 3 - 12 would be the bottom I would consider..... Some folks say don't get a scope that big, but I'll put it to you like this..... If you buy the 3 - 9 , you never have 14 or 16 or 20 if you need it .... But a 3 - 12 , 4 - 16 or a 5 - 20 all have a 9X or 12X on them if you need it ...... always get more scope than you think you'll need ..... then you have it when you want it....
I own them all,so I can speak with knowledge...
God Bless
MET
07-22-2008, 11:28 AM
#7
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,186
RE: Nikon Monarch, Buckmaster and Leupold vx3
If you are going to spend around $500-$600 on a scope, I'd certainly take a look at a Zeiss Conquest.I really like this scope as those who have read my comments know.
I have 1 top end Zeiss scopes and 2 of the top end Swarovski and 1 top end Kahles scope. Frankly these 3 set me back roughly 3X the cost of the Conquest. I am not yet convinced that any of these 4 scopes are 2X to 3X as good as the Conquest. I have only had this Conquest about 1 year. It is on a 50 cal. ML that I load pretty close to the max. I'd guess I've put 200 rounds through it. Not really a "longevity" measure as such, but so far the scope has taken the recoil and the wide range of weather conditions we run into here in the deep south fine. As far as low light ... seems fine to me. It is not a crisp edge to edge as these other I mentioned, noir is the contrast at long distance as sharp. But I am about convinced that the additional $1000 - $1500 was a very big expense for a very marginal improvement in useful performance.
Commneting on two that you mentioned being interested in, I have a 2 Vari-X III's (1.5-6x32 Compact and 3.5-10x50) and had a Monarch (3.5-10x50). In my opinion from using these in the field too, as well as the Conquest, the Conquest is a step above. Mine is the 3-9X50 MC with the #20 Reticle. So just might want to keep that one in mind though you didnot mention it.
I have 1 top end Zeiss scopes and 2 of the top end Swarovski and 1 top end Kahles scope. Frankly these 3 set me back roughly 3X the cost of the Conquest. I am not yet convinced that any of these 4 scopes are 2X to 3X as good as the Conquest. I have only had this Conquest about 1 year. It is on a 50 cal. ML that I load pretty close to the max. I'd guess I've put 200 rounds through it. Not really a "longevity" measure as such, but so far the scope has taken the recoil and the wide range of weather conditions we run into here in the deep south fine. As far as low light ... seems fine to me. It is not a crisp edge to edge as these other I mentioned, noir is the contrast at long distance as sharp. But I am about convinced that the additional $1000 - $1500 was a very big expense for a very marginal improvement in useful performance.
Commneting on two that you mentioned being interested in, I have a 2 Vari-X III's (1.5-6x32 Compact and 3.5-10x50) and had a Monarch (3.5-10x50). In my opinion from using these in the field too, as well as the Conquest, the Conquest is a step above. Mine is the 3-9X50 MC with the #20 Reticle. So just might want to keep that one in mind though you didnot mention it.
07-22-2008, 12:33 PM
#8
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 1,184
RE: Nikon Monarch, Buckmaster and Leupold vx3
ORIGINAL: Mojotex
If you are going to spend around $500-$600 on a scope, I'd certainly take a look at a Zeiss Conquest.I really like this scope as those who have read my comments know.
I have 1 top end Zeiss scopes and 2 of the top end Swarovski and 1 top end Kahles scope. Frankly these 3 set me back roughly 3X the cost of the Conquest. I am not yet convinced that any of these 4 scopes are 2X to 3X as good as the Conquest. I have only had this Conquest about 1 year. It is on a 50 cal. ML that I load pretty close to the max. I'd guess I've put 200 rounds through it. Not really a "longevity" measure as such, but so far the scope has taken the recoil and the wide range of weather conditions we run into here in the deep south fine. As far as low light ... seems fine to me. It is not a crisp edge to edge as these other I mentioned, noir is the contrast at long distance as sharp. But I am about convinced that the additional $1000 - $1500 was a very big expense for a very marginal improvement in useful performance.
Commneting on two that you mentioned being interested in, I have a 2 Vari-X III's (1.5-6x32 Compact and 3.5-10x50) and had a Monarch (3.5-10x50). In my opinion from using these in the field too, as well as the Conquest, the Conquest is a step above. Mine is the 3-9X50 MC with the #20 Reticle. So just might want to keep that one in mind though you didnot mention it.
If you are going to spend around $500-$600 on a scope, I'd certainly take a look at a Zeiss Conquest.I really like this scope as those who have read my comments know.
I have 1 top end Zeiss scopes and 2 of the top end Swarovski and 1 top end Kahles scope. Frankly these 3 set me back roughly 3X the cost of the Conquest. I am not yet convinced that any of these 4 scopes are 2X to 3X as good as the Conquest. I have only had this Conquest about 1 year. It is on a 50 cal. ML that I load pretty close to the max. I'd guess I've put 200 rounds through it. Not really a "longevity" measure as such, but so far the scope has taken the recoil and the wide range of weather conditions we run into here in the deep south fine. As far as low light ... seems fine to me. It is not a crisp edge to edge as these other I mentioned, noir is the contrast at long distance as sharp. But I am about convinced that the additional $1000 - $1500 was a very big expense for a very marginal improvement in useful performance.
Commneting on two that you mentioned being interested in, I have a 2 Vari-X III's (1.5-6x32 Compact and 3.5-10x50) and had a Monarch (3.5-10x50). In my opinion from using these in the field too, as well as the Conquest, the Conquest is a step above. Mine is the 3-9X50 MC with the #20 Reticle. So just might want to keep that one in mind though you didnot mention it.