Nikon Buckmaster vs Monarch

[megaton]

After a few days of agonizing deliberation, I finally made a purchase today. I opted for a 4-16x42sf Monarch with Mildot reticle. Very pleased, can not wait till it arrives so I can get out to the range and get it sighted in.

Thanks again for all the input it is much appreciated.

 

[ole farmerbuck]

You did fine. Enjoy it.

 

[viking499]

Good choice.

 

[Harley Rider 55]

Whew........I just bought another Nikon in my mind.........spent the last hour trying to figure out how to get it in the house undetected........

The minister of finance watching?

Go Monarch - it's brighter and if you change rifles and hunting situation, you might NEED the brighter scope.

That said, I've got a 2.5-10x Monarch on a 7MM WSM I'm taking to Africa. It's that good of a scope.

I didn't see the second page and it looks like you went Nikon. Great choice!

 

[Ky Larry]

Tim nailed it. For target shooting, get the BuckMark. For hunting, get the Monarch. I don't hunt anymore but I have a CZ-550 in 6.5X55 Swede with a Monarch 5.5-16.5X44 A.O. scope. If I get the urge I'm ready.

 

[Ash]

I own both the FFII and the Monarch (plus Monarch Binocs as well as a nice pair of Burris Sig Select binocs). The Monarch is a better scope than the FFII, but I like the Fullfields just fine. The Sig Select binocs are better than the Monarch, but are now discontinued. Burris will replace any broken Selects with a Steiner pair.

I think you will be very pleased with your choice of the Monarch scope in any case.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

Interesting to see folks saying the Zeiss Conquest blows higher end Leupold and Nikon away. - Not in my experience. The conquest is the bargain basement of German glass and you get exactly that, bargain basement glass and durability. They're not bad scopes, but in my experience they're not close to the Leupold VX-3 quality of the optics or durability.

mirrors my opinion exactly. Ive owned two conquests and would take a monarch or vx3 over them anyday.