Nikon Monarch or Leupold VX-II?
12-22-2004 | 01:59 PM
#11
Fork Horn
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
From: Alabama
RE: Nikon Monarch or Leupold VX-II?
ORIGINAL: driftrider
Nikon Monarch hands down. It's a much better scope than the VX-II in terms of features and optics, it's on par or slightly better than the VX-III, but costs a lot less. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
And for those who brag up Leupold's customer service as a primary reason to buy their scopes, consider this... if the scope is worth the top dollar that you'll spend on it, then you should never need the service in the first place. Instead buying a product because you know the company will fix it when it breaks, buy a product that you can be fairly assured will never need service. And in the event your Nikon Monarch scope ever does have problems, you can send it in to be fixed under warranty as well, but you'll probably never have to. It might take a little longer, and they probably won't give you freebies or upgrades (which is passed on to everyone else), but you'll get your scope fixed.
I think that might be part of the reason that Leupolds cost so much, because they're passing the cost of all the free repairs they do every time some careless moron bangs his scope off a boulder or tree trunk down to the rest of us.
Leupolds are good scopes, but they aren't worth what Leupold wants for them. You're paying for a name and for the "free" repairs they hand out like candy. I own two Monarchs and love them both. I've never owned a Leupold because I refuse to pay more for nothing. If someone gave me a Leupold, or I found one that was priced competitively with other COMPARABLE scopes, then I'd definately take it. As long as Leupold demands 125% or more compared to their competitiors products, they can keep them; I'll buy a better Nikon or top end Bushnell and never regret it.
Mike
Nikon Monarch hands down. It's a much better scope than the VX-II in terms of features and optics, it's on par or slightly better than the VX-III, but costs a lot less. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
And for those who brag up Leupold's customer service as a primary reason to buy their scopes, consider this... if the scope is worth the top dollar that you'll spend on it, then you should never need the service in the first place. Instead buying a product because you know the company will fix it when it breaks, buy a product that you can be fairly assured will never need service. And in the event your Nikon Monarch scope ever does have problems, you can send it in to be fixed under warranty as well, but you'll probably never have to. It might take a little longer, and they probably won't give you freebies or upgrades (which is passed on to everyone else), but you'll get your scope fixed.
I think that might be part of the reason that Leupolds cost so much, because they're passing the cost of all the free repairs they do every time some careless moron bangs his scope off a boulder or tree trunk down to the rest of us.
Leupolds are good scopes, but they aren't worth what Leupold wants for them. You're paying for a name and for the "free" repairs they hand out like candy. I own two Monarchs and love them both. I've never owned a Leupold because I refuse to pay more for nothing. If someone gave me a Leupold, or I found one that was priced competitively with other COMPARABLE scopes, then I'd definately take it. As long as Leupold demands 125% or more compared to their competitiors products, they can keep them; I'll buy a better Nikon or top end Bushnell and never regret it.
Mike
I agree 110%
I've had many Leupolds, a few Nikons & Just got a Bushnell Elite.
Leupold makes a fine scope, but they are over priced compaired to others
12-22-2004 | 05:01 PM
#12
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
From: Caribou ME USA
RE: Nikon Monarch or Leupold VX-II?
I'm biased but the last 2 scopes I've bought have been VX-IIs. All of my rifles now wear Leupold scopes ranging from M8s to VariX-IIs and VX-IIs. The VX-II seem to be a very good scope for the $$. The 2004 models are clear, much brighter than the VariX-IIs, they have great eye relief, and no matter how good a company or a product is, things can go wrong. Leupold will stand behind their products.
I have owned 1 Nikon scope, a buckmaster 3x9. I thought it was signicantly clearer and brighter than the Leupold it replaced. That being said, the eye relief was very critcal and the tire effect was terrible. I also have to admit that my one dealing with Nikon's Customer Service left such a bad taste in my mouth that the Monarch would have to be so superior to a Leupold, at any price, for me give it a serious look see. Maybe, and hopefully, their customer service had changed.
I have owned 1 Nikon scope, a buckmaster 3x9. I thought it was signicantly clearer and brighter than the Leupold it replaced. That being said, the eye relief was very critcal and the tire effect was terrible. I also have to admit that my one dealing with Nikon's Customer Service left such a bad taste in my mouth that the Monarch would have to be so superior to a Leupold, at any price, for me give it a serious look see. Maybe, and hopefully, their customer service had changed.
12-22-2004 | 07:22 PM
#13
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,984
Likes: 0
From: MB.
RE: Nikon Monarch or Leupold VX-II?
All I can say is that my Nikon Gold is clearer and brighter then both of my Leupold VXII and my Leupold Euro scope. As for costurmer service , that something I can't comment on.
12-25-2004 | 02:47 PM
#14
Fork Horn
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
From: roulette,pa usa
RE: Nikon Monarch or Leupold VX-II?
I prefer leupold because of their warrenty service.No questions asked no hassle if it's broke they fix it or replaces.What else can you buy only once and have forever?
