I just bought a Nikon Monarch 3-9 x 40 on sale at Dick's for $199. Planned to use it to replace Burris Fullfield II, which I was going to transfer to a new gun I bought my son. When I mounted the Nikon in place of the Burris, I can't get the scope close enough to my eye to get a full field of vision in the scope. It is mounted all the way back in the rings, and I have to lean way too far into the gun to get the proper view. Long story short, I took it off and put the Burris back on. Is this normal or can it be a problem with the scope. I'm wondering if my aging eyes (61) are creating the problem. By the way, I have to mount my burris all the way back in the rings to get the right field of view also. I feel like the Monarch has a little bit better light gathering, so I would like to use it if I could... suggestions?

Why not try a different mounting system? Perhaps some extension (offset) type rings or get a picatinney / Weaver type rail then move your rings back a bit. Some scopes just have more ER than others.

Might get a little more reach by flipping the bases around, or as mentioned get extension rings

Thanks for the info... I didn't even know there was such a thing as extension rings... I think that would give me the adjustment I need.

Hand hold the scope to your eye to make sure you are getting the "full" eye relief you are suppose to (Eye Relief (in): 3.6-3.5), before you start working on a new/different mounting system.

If not, send it back........................

Sheridan - Great advice... brings me back to my original question about if it could be a scope defect. I will try to get someone to measure while I hold the scope in position (kind of hard to do that yourself). The Burris and Nikon have the same eye relief specs, so if one works, so should the other. If it is the scope, does anyone have an idea about Nikon response time on this sort of thing? Rifle season is right around the corner.

Why not call Nikon and ask. They deal with this kind of stuff everyday.
Just a suggestion. Something doesn't sound right to me. Same specs one is fine and the other isn't.
Good luck

I had that problem with my Nikon,(I won ) and put it on my gun, a few years ago.I gave it away to a forum member, who was in need of a scope and who didn't have the funds to purchase one. I was upfront with him about the issue I had with ,it but just thought it was me. He wanted it anyway, so I shipped it to him. He PM'd me saying thanks and he recieved it but I havn't heard from him since. So I don't know if he has that issue too or not.

The eye relief problem could be a simple as the mounting surfaces (distance of the flats of the tube between the turrets and lenses) are not the same on both scopes thus not allowing you to move the Nikon as far to the rear on the rifle as you can the Burris.

The Burris has nearly a full inch more mounting surface available on the main tube between the turrets and the lenses. In other words the main tube is longer on the Burris than it is on the Nikon.

The nikon has 2.05" mounting surface available vs. 2.5" available on the Burris for the front ring.

The Nikon has 2.03" mounting surface available vs. 2.5" available on the Burris for the rear ring.

So, the Burris is able to be mounted at least a half inch farther to the rear than the Nikon. You're going to have to get extension rings or a different base to get the Nikon to the same position.



.

bigbulls is spot-on!
I currently have eight Nikon scopes in use. No two of the rifles have the same rings and bases. A 3X9X40 on my long action rifle definately requires extensions.
GOOD LUCK and GOOD SHOOTING!!!