Straight up, are nikon monarchs cheesy?

The monarch 2.5-10 with nikoplex reticle is probably my favorite comparing it with the elites and leupolds I have for hunting purposes. Had a 6-24 monarch for awhile that was very clear but didn't like the BDC reticle and once I sold the rifle I had no other application that needed such a scope.
 
I will try a monarch some day, but I found a used Zeiss conquest and the guy was good to deal with.

Thanks to most who replied
 
i have 5 monarchs on various rifles, glass is great for the money.. and they have held up from .22 to 300 win mag. no complaints. the newest monarch 7s are sleepers to be sure.
 
Just got mine yesterday - time will tell. Got it to the range briefly last night and I really liked the eye relief and clarity.

1974 rifle, meet 2015 glass. Coming soon to a moose near you

 
Yea, I have two, a 4-16x 'monarch' that lives on my .223 and a 1-4x 'monarch 3' that lives on my mini 14. Both look very clear to me, and both have great consistent eye relief.
My 4-16x has the BDC reticle, which I just ignore. The 1-4x has the super cool german #4 reticle.

I would of put one on my .308 as well, but a leupold vx1 was cheaper.
 
Just picked up a Prostaff 3.5x14x40 FFP, side focus, fast focus eyepiece, and a BDC reticle , lots of good features for less than $500 all in.
Did a sxs comparison with the Monarch and decided to save the $100, nothing to gain for me.
The little circles that get some guys worked up seem okay, leaves that crucial space for getting the shot in the eye when you want.
Nikon hass put together a good package , with their own Spot On ballistic software specific to get the best from their scopes.
Looking forward to some real world testing
 
I've owned several Nikon's and still have a couple. I agree the monarch didn't offer me more than any prostaff I own. I think they are ok and will buy Nikon again. I do have Leupold on all of my go to hunting rifles. They are better in clarity and low light, in my opinion.
 
double gun said:
I will try a monarch some day, but I found a used Zeiss conquest and the guy was good to deal with.

Thanks to most who replied
Click to expand...

I've had a couple Zeiss Conquests and while the glass is remarkably crisp, I found the reticle thick and
the weight on the upper end.
I'd sure appreciate your experience on this Zeiss when you get some time on it and care to update your thread.
 
I'm a fan of leupold vx-3's, but done some shooting with a friend's rifle last fall with a monarch on it... I thought it was a pretty nice scope. Real nice glass, and they are pretty affordable.
 
I recently purchased a monarch 5 for a build I just did. Haven't hunted with it yet but had it to the range doing load development and shooting it beside my other rifles with leupold vx3's on them, I have to say that the nikon has clearer and brighter glass than the Leupolds.
Moose hunting is a week away so time will tell how it performs in low light and #### weather.
 
I have 7 Nikon Monarch 3's that are on various calibres from 223 up to 450 Rigby. I also have Leupold VX 3's, VX 3i's, & Zeiss HD 5's. The Nikon Monarch 3's are just as good if not better in some instances. The Zeiss has the edge in that it has a 5x magnification zoom, and has slightly better light retention in low light conditions.
 
Nikon has really nice glass (bright, clear & sharp) for the money but I feel the exterior could be "refined" for lack of a better word. I don't mind the circles in the BDC reticle but I suppose it comes down to personal preference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom