Huntr2

I just got back from Bass Pro doing a test on two scopes, the Nikon Monarch 2.5-10 x 42 vs the Burris 3-9x40 E1. I wanted to see the new C4 reticle but they didn’t have them yet. The Nikon should have had the advantage with the larger main lens. I want to set up a new rifle and had the Nikon Monarch 3-12x42 as my top choice. After comparing the two scopes mentioned having both scopes set to 9 on magnification, I couldn’t believe what I saw. The Burris was noticeably brighter looking at several different objects dark and light and it was just as clear. The sales person was a Nikon person and made that clear before we did the test. I asked him to look and compare and he couldn’t believe it and agreed the Burris was brighter. The Nikon was my first choice but now I am not sure. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Mojotex

OK .. here I go ! And I am prepared to duck the Nikon fans!!

I traded for a rifle had a 2011 vintage Nikon Monarch mounted on it. The scope was a 50mm varialble. Because it MSRP's for a tidy sum, and becasue I have a Nikon Venturer bino that I really like, I was prepared to replace an Elite 4200 that was on my ML with the Monarch.

But before I did, I decided to see how just good this scope realy was. I "tested" the Monarch against several others that I ahd that were in the $500-700 range. Long story short, I sold the Monarch and left the 4200 in place. I was stunned at the poorer quality of the image and how "quick" the Monarch became useless as the light faded. Unless there has been a heck of an upgrade of the Monarch since 2011, I'd not buy one. There are better values out there in my opinion.

Huntr2

I thought the Nikon would be so much brighter with the 42 vs 40 mm objective lens and its a Nikon. The artificial light in a modern store in photo terms is about 5000K vs evening light 5500-6000K if I remember correctly so its apples to apples and the Burris was so much brighter. I think many just assume the Nikon is better never having held them side by side. The o rings are better and the clicks are more pronounced according to some on the Burris. I haven't tested that. The guy in the store seemed shocked he is a Nikon guy.

SecondChance

I have a Nikon pistol scope on one of my Lone Eagles and Burris LER's on the rest. No comparison. And after the snafu with Nikon last year with replacement of a scope, no thanks.
If I were to have a free lifetime supply of Nikons as to buying a Burris, I am getting out my checkbook!!!!!

slowr1der

I have a couple Monarchs that I got good deals on, as well as several Burris FFII's. IMO the FFII's have much much better glass. I do prefer the resettable turrets on the Monarch, but that's the only thing I like better of them and since the ones I have aren't repeatable in tracking, the turrets really aren't an advantage. IMO the Burris is quite a bit better scope and if I was looking for something in that price range it's what I'd go with. IMO you can't get much better until you step up to a Zeiss Conquest.

fritz1

Yep for the money it is really hard to beat the Bushnell Elite 4200 and 6500, top notch glass as good or better than alot more expensive scopes have. I think everyone knows what I think about Nikon, they should stick with cameras!!! Burris is decent but not my first choice either.

Sheridan

Nikon Binos & Rangefinder, Burris Rifle scopes IMO for the $$$$.

Don't own a spotting scope.