Looking for input on a few scopes thanks

[Slaymoar]

I would like to know your first hand experience with the following scopes?

Different price ranges;

Redfield Revolution 2-7x33 ~ $230
Very limited hands on a few months ago, but people keep saying they are amazing. I remember the eyebox being pretty crazy, and the scope almost dissapeared from the view other than the glass itself.

Burris E1 2-7x32 ~ $200
I have hands on, limited, but it seemed like a really nice scope in the store. The picture was better than its 3-9 version to me, and the eyebox on the 2-7 was bigger. Just want input from someone who has more experience with it. So far I am leaning towards this one unless it is worth spending more on the higher end stuff.

Monarch 3 2-8x32 ~ $300No hands on, some people say they are dissapointing, some people say they are top notch.. Who actually owns one and what do you think? The prostaff in my opinion was unimpressive, hoping nikon really stepped it up for the monarch..

Leupold Ultimateslam 2-7 ~ $300
Seemed quite good, almost identical to the VX1 in terms of the picture, but different magnification range.

Leupold VX-2 1-4 and 2-7 ~ $380
I looked through the shotgun/muzzleload VX-1 1-4x20 and I thought it looked great, but they didn't have the VX-2 line there. Also the VX-1 1-4's reticle was too thick.

Zeiss Terra 2-7x32 ~ $400
No hands on at all, some people recommend it, some people say it is not the same quality of the Conquest series it replaced (probably placebo effect from knowing it was built in China) I would pick this one if it beats all the others in a way that is worth it.

I like when a scope has an almost seemless shroud where the scope dissapears and it just seems like glass suspended on the rifle - which the redfield seemed to have decently accomplished. However, there are also many other factors that make a scope awesome. I don't have that much experience with them yet, so I ask here where people have already bought and either sold or kept several of the mentionned scopes.

The problem with checking out scopes in a store is that there is a lot of pressure on hurrying up and not always much availability on hand so its not a comfortable situation, hectic, and nothing to mount them on to get a half-decent feel of shouldering and eye relief etc..

Thanks

 

[sheephunter]

The problem with checking out scopes in a store is that there is a lot of pressure on hurrying up and not always much availability on hand so its not a comfortable situation, hectic, and nothing to mount them on to get a half-decent feel of shouldering and eye relief etc..

Thanks

Some stores do have rifle stocks to mount scopes on for testing. Just a word of caution about looking at scopes in the store is that indoor lighting tells you nothing about the optical quality of a scope. You need to take it outdoors to really see, preferably in a lower light situation. If the store is pressuring you to hurry up, perhaps time to find a new store with better customer service.

 

[Slaymoar]

Some stores do have rifle stocks to mount scopes on for testing. Just a word of caution about looking at scopes in the store is that indoor lighting tells you nothing about the optical quality of a scope. You need to take it outdoors to really see, preferably in a lower light situation. If the store is pressuring you to hurry up, perhaps time to find a new store with better customer service.

I wish there was that option... not many places around here.

 

[sheephunter]

I guess one question that begs asking is what are you putting it on? For what it's worth, I've had the opportunity to test all of the models listed, not necessarily in the magnification ranges listed but personally I'd eliminate the Burris and Grand Slam from the running. The Redfield really impressed me for its price but I'm not sure about long-term durability. Not that I've heard anything bad, I just honestly don't know. I've used loads of Monarchs and they are nice scopes and I've never had an issue with them....same as the VXII. The Zeiss Terra is really nice. I'm not sure I'd put it on par with the Conquest but it stacks up well in its price range. Another scope to consider in the Bushnell Elite. It stacks up well with scopes in its price range as well. One thing to consider is that unless you are comparing scopes in relatively the same magnification range, you really aren't getting a true picture of how they compare.

 

[Slaymoar]

Its for a 30-30 for now - all around short and midrange. Why get rid of the Burris? I was interested in that one... parallax issue? And is the Zeiss worth the extra $100 over the Monarch 3?

Thanks

 

[sheephunter]

My personal experience with Burris quality hasn't been that great and I'm just not impressed with their optics...perhaps it's just a personal thing. Is the Zeiss better than the Nikon? I'd say yes but in your application would the extra cost be worth it? Quite possibly not. Only your eyes will tell you for sure

 

[Slaymoar]

My personal experience with Burris quality hasn't been that great and I'm just not impressed with their optics...perhaps it's just a personal thing. Is the Zeiss better than the Nikon? I'd say yes but in your application would the extra cost be worth it? Quite possibly not. Only your eyes will tell you for sure

Great perspective, thanks for taking the time to explain your point of view / experience. I think the Monarch seems to be where I'm going to be headed, but still waiting for suggestions..

 

[chappy]

i have owned the redfield, burris, luep vx11 and had a buddys monarch for a while to trouble shoot for him. i sold the redfield, didn't like the qualty of the glass. mine seemed particularly bad, others i have looked at seam much better, its possible it was a one off problem. the burris was good for the $. the monarch was crap opticaly for the $ value. it was mounted on a light 7 mag and required a lot of head bobbing to get a decent sight picture. my buddy sold it off for a conquest. i would go with the vx 2 my pick of the bunch. good glass and durable. i look at my vx2's as workhorses on hunting rifles. the terra's are not the same as the conquest but are cheaper and i would rate as a good value. there as good or better than the vx2 series.

 

[Slaymoar]

i have owned the redfield, burris, luep vx11 and had a buddys monarch for a while to trouble shoot for him. i sold the redfield, didn't like the qualty of the glass. mine seemed particularly bad, others i have looked at seam much better, its possible it was a one off problem. the burris was good for the $. the monarch was crap opticaly for the $ value. it was mounted on a light 7 mag and required a lot of head bobbing to get a decent sight picture. my buddy sold it off for a conquest. i would go with the vx 2 my pick of the bunch. good glass and durable. i look at my vx2's as workhorses on hunting rifles. the terra's are not the same as the conquest but are cheaper and i would rate as a good value. there as good or better than the vx2 series.

Thanks, it seems like the burris and nikon are quite polar in opinion.. Maybe QC is to blame?

 

[Nikon Travis M.]

I would like to know your first hand experience with the following scopes?

Different price ranges;

Monarch 3 2-8x32 ~ $300No hands on, some people say they are dissapointing, some people say they are top notch.. Who actually owns one and what do you think? The prostaff in my opinion was unimpressive, hoping nikon really stepped it up for the monarch..

Keep in mind the Prostaff is our entry level 2 piece scope, while the Monarch is our higher end one piece with better glass and coatings. Hopefully the sales rep showed you the zero reset turrets and if you haven't had a chance check out our Spot On ballistic software over at www.nikonhunting.com

I think you'll really like it!

 

[Slaymoar]

Keep in mind the Prostaff is our entry level 2 piece scope, while the Monarch is our higher end one piece with better glass and coatings. Hopefully the sales rep showed you the zero reset turrets and if you haven't had a chance check out our Spot On ballistic software over at www.nikonhunting.com

I think you'll really like it!

Thank you. I have read great things about the nikon turrets. Unfortunately the sales rep here was pulled from another department to supplement for volume customer service.

A few questions for you though;

a) Monarch 3 reticle, how thick is it? Reviews and pictures are hard to find of these scopes. (monarch 3) I would love to get a picture of the monarch 3 bdc reticle under proper eye relief conditions

b) How is the low light performance of the monarch 3? I currently have a Vortex Crossfire II and am satisfied with its low light performance. However, even with higher end gear, sometimes the focus is elsewhere. The Vortex scopes are said to be exceptionally good at low light performance - beyond their price range. I'm not looking for night vision, but I don't want to downgrade from the Crossfire II either.

c) Weather performance? If in cold and snowy conditions (moose season up north), would the monarch 3 still provide a non-fogged picture? Or reasonably within similar performance parameters of other scopes in its pricerange?

d) What do you think is the strongest point, or most important feature of the monarch 3 in terms of optical performance? (other than SpotOn)

Thank you, hopefully this is not too much to ask.

 

[sheephunter]

Seems people can tolerate the Nikon BDC or they hate it...yet to hear of anyone that loves it. If you are in the market for a BDC, you may want to check the Nikon version out for yourself. I personally think the circles offer just way too big of a point of aim but I guess on a 30-30 it's not like you will be shooting long ranges so perhaps it may not be as bad.

 

[skypilot]

I've had a Burris 1.75-5 on a .375 H&H for years with no issues, good scope.

The Leupy Vari x II is a good scope, I still use one from the early 1980's.

Bushnell makes a good optic for the money, the come ups aren't exactly 1/4" but repeatable(on mine)

Never been a Redfield fan.

No matter the name brand scope, the real dollar difference in scope quality is not "jump out at you obvious" inside a store. Only when you are up against dark, or in really bright sunshine do you begin to see the glass and coating quality differences.

Not a "BDC reticle" fan although I use Mildot.

If you're putting it on a 30-30 dialing up and down won't be a biggie, BUT a good scope last decades and will end up on many different rifles so good glass and turrets are worth considering

 

[1899]

For a .30-30 why not just an FX-II in either 4x or 2.5x? Both are excellent scopes and will give you no problems.

 

[Slaymoar]

For a .30-30 why not just an FX-II in either 4x or 2.5x? Both are excellent scopes and will give you no problems.

The idea of a fixed scope is attractive in the way of no worries in the adjustment department, but if I get the 2.5x, then I can't zoom a bit more for a longer distance shot - and if I get the 4x then I will be limited in the bushes..

Who knows, maybe it would be most practical to just get the 2.5 and be done with it, but for now I think it would be better for me to get the 2-7 range.

 

[Nikon Travis M.]

a) Monarch 3 reticle, how thick is it? Reviews and pictures are hard to find of these scopes. (monarch 3) I would love to get a picture of the monarch 3 bdc reticle under proper eye relief conditions

The Monarch 3 has a fixed 4 inch eye relief on all series of scope, size of the reticle will depend on the magnification however. For example on the 5-20x44 the inside smaller line is just .1 inches thick.

b) How is the low light performance of the monarch 3? I currently have a Vortex Crossfire II and am satisfied with its low light performance. However, even with higher end gear, sometimes the focus is elsewhere. The Vortex scopes are said to be exceptionally good at low light performance - beyond their price range. I'm not looking for night vision, but I don't want to downgrade from the Crossfire II either.

We advertise our light transmission as 95% which is based on all the pieces of glass in the scope, not just the front element itself. I'd point out to you this is the same glass as in the Nikkor camera lenses used by professional photographers the world over. We're a world leader in low light situations.

c) Weather performance? If in cold and snowy conditions (moose season up north), would the monarch 3 still provide a non-fogged picture? Or reasonably within similar performance parameters of other scopes in its pricerange?

Full Monarch 3 lineup is Water, Fog and Shock proof. Everything is nitrogen purged to prevent any internal fogging and as mentioned earlier in the post, our lens coatings prevent fogging the front or rear element. I'm in Calgary and my Pro Staff guys hunt Northern Alberta all the time with no issue.

d) What do you think is the strongest point, or most important feature of the monarch 3 in terms of optical performance? (other than SpotOn)

I'd throw a couple of things at you, the first and one of the most important. In our price range we are the only company that is our own glass house. Nikon scopes feature only Nikon glass. We have a little bit (94 years) of experience with glass manufacturing. All the R&D in the camera side for coatings, preventing lens flare, refraction, ghosting gets passed to the Sporting side. Have you ever met that photographer that swears by his Nikon glass on his camera lenses? Its the same in our rifle optics. Give it a try.

I would never protest to be the be all and end all of scopes. Other manufacturers make great products that are exceptional as well. However I'd suggest you take the idea of another poster above. Look at the Nikon and price and compare that against something in the same range. I think value for the money you won't be disappointed.

 

[Slaymoar]

Well I have to tip my hat for answering everything.. You know, I do know several nikon camera fans. I think I will simply get one and test it out for myself. Just because you took the time for me, when I get it, I promise I will take my time and post my thoughts here

Edit: Wait, wheres the picture of the reticle? lol



Edit #2:
Here, is this representative of the Nikon BDC on the Monarch 3 series? If its thicker than that I think I'll just get teh nikoplex.

 

[1899]

The idea of a fixed scope is attractive in the way of no worries in the adjustment department, but if I get the 2.5x, then I can't zoom a bit more for a longer distance shot - and if I get the 4x then I will be limited in the bushes..

Who knows, maybe it would be most practical to just get the 2.5 and be done with it, but for now I think it would be better for me to get the 2-7 range.

I respectfully disagree about the 4x not being good in the bushes, or about the 2.5 power not being enough for a longer shot (given the limitations of the .30-30). I'd be tempted to stick with a 2.5x in your case. You can easily shoot a deer with one at 200 yards - but choose a regular duplex - and they are super light and compact. The FX-II 2.5x has 4.9" of eye relief and weighs only 6.5oz. It has all of the good Leupold coatings, index matched lens system and rock solid reliability. I have an older M8 version with a heavy duplex. I would suggest a wide duplex if you are planning on shots out to 200 yards.

Keep in mind too that the other scopes you mentioned are quite heavy, and to me anyways, would likely seem odd on a quick handling little .30-30. The Nikon and Zeiss are both listed at 13.4oz, the Burris is 12oz, the Redfield is 11.1oz and so forth. The other Leupold scopes you mentioned are the next lightest, but of course they are still a few oz heavier than the 2.5x

 

[Slaymoar]

I respectfully disagree about the 4x not being good in the bushes, or about the 2.5 power not being enough for a longer shot (given the limitations of the .30-30). I'd be tempted to stick with a 2.5x in your case. You can easily shoot a deer with one at 200 yards - but choose a regular duplex - and they are super light and compact. The FX-II 2.5x has 4.9" of eye relief and weighs only 6.5oz. It has all of the good Leupold coatings, index matched lens system and rock solid reliability. I have an older M8 version with a heavy duplex. I would suggest a wide duplex if you are planning on shots out to 200 yards.

Keep in mind too that the other scopes you mentioned are quite heavy, and to me anyways, would likely seem odd on a quick handling little .30-30. The Nikon and Zeiss are both listed at 13.4oz, the Burris is 12oz, the Redfield is 11.1oz and so forth. The other Leupold scopes you mentioned are the next lightest, but of course they are still a few oz heavier than the 2.5x

Thank you, I still lack experience in these matters, so I am open to advice. As for weight, it is my last concern.. The extra 8 oz wouldn't be a concern to me, but the compactness of the 2.5 definitely plays into the maneuverability of the lever. Thanks

 

[1899]

Thank you, I still lack experience in these matters, so I am open to advice. As for weight, it is my last concern.. The extra 8 oz wouldn't be a concern to me, but the compactness of the 2.5 definitely plays into the maneuverability of the lever. Thanks

Well, keep in mind that 8oz is 1/2 lb - an extra 1/2lb slung on top of your well balanced, designed for open sights carbine. It changes the way your rifle feels. Swapping my M8 2.5x for a VX2 3-9x40 on a Tikka T3 lighweight made a very noticeable difference in handling. Does it matter? That is up to you to judge and decide, depending on your style.