vortex diamondback vs nikon monarch 3 vs bushnell 4500??

Have recently had the monarch 3 2-8x32 and a Bushnell4500 2-10x40. Both have excellent glass but chose the nikon for it's better eye relief and eye box. Also the nikon resettable turrets were nicer to work with over the bushnell's version. The Diamond Back HP 2-8 was crap next to the 4500.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, I have the Diamondback HP 2-8x32 on a nice .22LR and was quite happy with it other than the fact that it's really a 2.5-8x32 since below 2.5x the field of view doesn't change but the image gets smaller and less crisp around the edges.

On my .308 I have a Leupold VX3i 3.5-10x40 that I think has better glass than either the equivalent Nikon Monarch 3 or Bushnell 4500. Both of those seemed to get cloudy when pointing near a light source, while the Leupold stayed clear.
 
emerson said:
My 375 Ruger ate my Vortex Diamondback in 60 rnds.
Click to expand...

Had my replacement Diamondback out today on a 30-06. It was -27C, the clicks were mushy and seemed to vary in they adjustment of my point of impact. Rings torqued with a tq wrench properly. I had it on a 338WM in between.
 
xdmer said:
Bushnell for sure, don't even consider the vortex or nikon, but i would take the nikon over vortex (not a fan of the nikon reticles though).
Click to expand...

Interesting, I just checked out the Nikon BDC in person today and found it hard to pickup against dark backgrounds. I had no idea the reticle was so fine, hard to see those little circles. Bushnell DOA for me.
 
I like my Bushnell Elite 6500 just fine. I would buy Nikon for targets from what I've read around here.
I have read too many bad things about Vortex low end scopes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom