Leupold VXIII versus Nikon Monarch

[Lone_Gunman]

I am trying to decide on a scope for a Savage Model 12 bolt action in 223, and have narrowed down to these two. I am going to mainly be shooting off a bench at 100, 200, and 300 yd ranges.

Both of these scopes are 6.5-20X. The Leupold has a 50mm objective and a 30mm tube, the Nikon has a 44mm objective and one inch tube. I am going to get the "Target Dot" reticle on either, but believe the Leupold's dot is smaller than the Nikon Dot.

The Nikon is about $250 less.

Which is a better scope for the money?

 

[jem375]

I have a couple of Leupold's but would have no problem putting a Nikon on one of my rifles. I used to work in a gun department and I always thought the Nikon Buckmaster was just as good as any Leupold scope in clarity for the price. The Monarch was also a decent scope and we sold quite a few of them.

 

[hossdaniels]

I bought an a-bolt about two months ago, and was looking at the vx-III and the monarch in 3-9x40. When i went to the store and looked through them, them nikon seemed BETTER than the vx-III that was $50 more expensive. Needless to say i came home with the nikon, leupolds are not the only one with lifetime warranty's anymore.

 

[slzy]

i agree with hoss

 

[rbernie]

Nikon glass may be a bit nicer on a dollar for dollar basis, but their tubes are not nearly as thick and sturdy. I've dropped Monarch UCCs and VXIIs and the Leupolds held up much better. Also, the anodizing on the Leupolds is far more resistant to marking and scarring than the Nikons.

Sometimes, it's not just about the optics but the whole package that holds 'em......