Monarch 4-16x42
 

I am looking for a new scope for my .300 Win Mag. I am almost sold on the Nikon Monarch 4-16x42.

My problem is choosing the reticle. I have talked myself out of the BDC reticle, I just don't think I will like the circles. I am leaning towards the Mil Dot reticle. Has anyone had any experience with this reticle? If so, pros and cons?

I am still open to a different brand of scope, but I am about 80-90% sure I will get the nikon.

Thanks for your time,
Trent

Well .. I'd better get ready to take a beating ... but! I have had three Monarch scopes along the way and simply stated, I was not impressed for the MSRP. I got rid of mine as soon as I had a buyer. In that price range, I much prefer the Conquest.

The 4.4-14x44 conquest is nearly double the cost of the Monarch, I really like the rapid Z reticle, but unfortunately it is out of my price range. I have several things to purchase prior to my first elk hunt and it just won't fit in my budget for this year.

Mojo, if you know where I could find a better price please let me know.

Thanks,
Trent

I'm like Mojo...not a big Nikon Monarch fan. I'd suggest a Sightron SII Big Sky with the HHR reticle. Another possibility would be in the Vortex Viper line. Cruise over to SWFA and look around. Check the Samplelist for used, demos and / or discontinued models to save some $. Good luck.

It's not clear from your original post how you intend to use this optic.

For most hunting applications, a duplex-type reticle is perfectly adequate. If you're hunting at longer ranges, you might gain some utility from a mil-dot or BDC-type reticle, but your efforts will be enhanced most by reliable DOPE and target-type turrets, which I see are an option on this Nikon. If you're shooting at extreme ranges (which I would loosely define as beyond 600 yards), this is not the scope for you.

The mil-dot reticle is best used for "milling" range (using math rather than a laser rangefinder to determine range). If you simply plan to use it to assist with "holdover", I would recommend you reconsider the BDC reticle. Some ballistic apps might give you a reticle hold solution based on a mil-dot reticle, but in my experience, the mil-dot is less precise in that application than some of the newer reticles like Leupold's TMR.

As well, you should also consider that most consumer-oriented optics place the reticle on the Second Focal Plane (SFP). If your scope's reticle remains the same size as you increase magnification, you have a SFP optic. This arrangement makes any measurement or adjustment taken from the reticle reliable only at a particular power setting specified by the manufacturer (often somewhere around 14x). The higher-cost alternative is a First Focal Plane (FFP) optic, where the reticle increases in size as magnification increases. Measurements or adjustments taken from a FFP optic are generally reliable at any level of magnification.

Ultimately though, your use will dictate whether a mil-dot or enhanced mil-dot reticle holds any real utility for you. They can either clutter up your sight picture with dots or subtensions, or significantly enhance your firing solutions.

I agree, I have never had any luck out of ANY Nikon's, binocs or scopes. Great optics but dont seem to hold up, I have had a Monarch that litteraly started falling apart from riding arround on a fourwheeler. For the money Leupold is hard to beat, very rugged and reliable. Another scope that I am really impressed with is the Bushnell Elite 4200 and 6500 scopes.

One look in a Natchez catalog will let you know how good a Nikon is, they have pages of refurbished Nikon's, any model you want. These are scopes that have been sent back because of failure and needed warrantee work, Nikon fixes them and resales them a little cheaper but only offers something like a 90 day warantee. They actually sell the same scope twice, when it comes back for repaires. If it comes back a third time and it is a refurbish and it has been over 90 days you pay the repair bill. Pretty good scam if you ask me.

Well....after a lot of research, discussion, contemplating back and forth, I finally went ahead and ordered the 4-16x42 Nikon Monarch with the Nikoplex reticle.

I did really like the Zeiss but could not fork up the extra $ it was going to take to get it. Maybe next year I will put this Nikon on my .270 and get the Conquest for the .300 WM.

Thanks for the advice,
Trent

how much of Nikon Scrope?

Millertime,

Congratulations.................... I expect you to be very happy with the quality of their optics.

I just don't like their BDC reticle design with the "circles".

I do own their Monarch Binos in 12X 42MM and I have been very please with them !

I agree. I currently own 2 Monarchs, and while they seem to be durable, the glass imo leaves a lot to be desired, and you can get much better glass for less money. They also don't seem to track repeatably over time. They aren't a horrible scope by any means, but I feel they should be a lot better than they are for the price. The Burris Fullfield II's are cheaper, and blow them out of the water in every aspect.

That said, since you ordered it already, give it a shot as your experience may be different than mine.