Straight up, are nikon monarchs cheesy?

[double gun]

I am looking at higher power scope and the monarchs seem to have prices that are pretty reasonable. So are they cheesy? Is it like shooting a Tasco, scorpion, or vortex - or are they decent and underrated?

 

[Bowie]

I wouldn't buy any but if I had to choose, it would definitely be a Monarch rather than the rest of the #### you mentioned.

 

[marcoman]

The older Monarch UCC's (late 90's - mid 2000's) were good looking/performing scopes for the money.
The current models dont do anything for me personaly. I would rather buy a used Leupold than new Vortex, Nikon, Burris etc if I was on a budget.

 

[FromTheNorth]

a buddy of mine has a monarch, i find it has better glass then my leupold.

 

[stubblejumper]

Having owned three Monarchs, I find them to be an excellent scope for the money. They have a good field of view, fairly constant eye relief, they are fairly bright, and they track better than other similarly priced scopes that I have tried.

 

[Bowie]

I talked with a guy at the range who had one on his Axis in .270. He spoke highly of it.

 

[double gun]

Ouch

 

[TDizzle]

I have a Monarch 3 6-24x50 on my 6.5 Creedmoor. I haven't had any issues with it so far. Great glass on it, very clear and like you said, affordable.

 

[CreamySmooth]

a buddy of mine has a monarch, i find it has better glass then my leupold.

I have 2 Monarchs and an M223. The glass is far and away better than Leopolds anywhere near the price. You have to double the price to get equal.... Which is pretty easy with a Leupold. The Leupolds definitely match up better if you wear, say, Gucci while hunting. The pretty ring dresses you up nice.

 

[rodregier]

I like my Nikon Monarch, I would buy another. An optics guru who I respect says they are excellent quality for the money.

 

[Zedbra]

I've been eying up the Monarchs now for 6 months, thinking I am now going to buy one. It's just hard finding shops that stock them. Now I guess I have time to research compact binoculars. lol

 

[bearkilr]

I've seen a couple with the rubber on the eyepiece missing, not sure if that's a common problem or they were just abused. Other than that they seem to be good scopes and I'd pick them over the others you have listed.

 

[jzz30tt]

I only have a prostaff but I've used a few Monarchs. I think the unique thing about Nikon is that you're going to have excellent glass. Being a microscope and camera lens manufacturer, scopes made by Nikon will punch above their weight when it comes to optical quality. The rest of the package is where you'd have to make your choice. Do they track well enough and do they last?

 

[r204]

The only thing keeping me from buy a Monarch 3 is there version of a BDC reticle. Like really what retard thought that putting circles on there was a good idea? If they went to just regular hash marks they would prob sell a lot more than they do now.

 

[8 ball]

I am looking at higher power scope and the monarchs seem to have prices that are pretty reasonable. So are they cheesy? Is it like shooting a Tasco, scorpion, or vortex - or are they decent and underrated?

Tasco and Scorpion do not belong in the same sentence as Vortex in my humble opinion.

 

[double gun]

... I'd pick them over the others you have listed.

I should clarify, I'm not looking at the other brands - I could never slum that low. I just wanted to know if the nikons are considered low end like them or if they are a step up.

 

[scott_r]

Obviously the poster has no clue as to the Vortex line up....Ever look through a Vortex Razor HD Gen 2 many Pro shooters prefer these over S&B PM III's.

 

[double gun]

I appreciate your input Scott, but vortex is not on the short list.

 

[bearkilr]

I should clarify, I'm not looking at the other brands - I could never slum that low. I just wanted to know if the nikons are considered low end like them or if they are a step up.

No, Nikon's are definitely not considered low end, especially the Monarch.

 

[double gun]

Thanks kilr