Nikon Buckmaster vs Nikon Monarch

silentstorm16 · January 19, 2009, 06:58 PM

I'm looking between the Nikon buckmaster Riflescope, 4.5x-14x, 40mm with nikoplex site for $267 and the Nikon Monarch Riflescope, 4x-16x, 42mm, Mil-Dot for $382 or Nikon Monarch Riflescope, 3x-12x, 42mm, Nikoplex with lustre for $339. Anybody have experience and also does anyone know what the difference between lustre and matte finish I look all over and cannot find any website showing the difference or describing the difference.

tINY · January 19, 2009, 08:01 PM

The Buckmaster line is the "good" line and the Monarch is the "high end" line.

The Monach will have a bit better optics, but it's crawling up the dimminishing return curve...

-tINY

BeCoole · January 19, 2009, 10:45 PM

Glass isn't the only place they cut corners to make cheap scopes.

Fat White Boy · January 19, 2009, 10:54 PM

I have a 3-9X49 BuckMaster on my Model 70 Winchester in .270 Win. It is durable, accurate and has held its zero...A good investment...

Brad Clodfelter · January 19, 2009, 11:24 PM

Both are great scopes. The Nikon Monarch lenses transmit 95% of available light. The Nikon Buckmasters lenses transmit 92% of available light. I had a Monarch scope. One of the best I have owed for the money.

Swampghost · January 20, 2009, 01:22 AM

I didn't notice the difference and cheaped out with the Buckmaster for a .243. It's all been good so far.

I worked a total of 32 days in '07 so you can guess where my finances are.:barf:

Kreyzhorse · January 20, 2009, 07:59 AM

The Buckmaster is a good scope and will certainly serve you well for hunting and shooting. The Monarch transmits more light than the Buckmaster and in my opinion, tops any thing that Zeiss or Leupold makes in that same price range.

You can't go wrong with either, but if you have the extra money, you won't be disappointed in the Monarch.

kenjs1 · January 20, 2009, 11:28 AM

Silentstorm- the Buckmaster matches your needs very well. Paper punching in daylight conditions is not very demanding and I doubt you would gain much from the Monarchs capabilities under those circumstances. Not to sell the Buckmaster short by saying that- it is a good scope. You are on the right track with good choices here- but I would still have you look at the 3-12x42 Sighton I mentioned. It compares favorably to the Monarch as far as glass and coatings. The Sightron has a superior reputation for tracking ability and a lifetime replacement warranty. Sightron may have a little better eye relief and costs roughly what a Buckmaster does. Seems to me to be the perfect fit in so many ways including size\power and extremely capable should low light hunting or darker conditions enter into it. You were interested in side focus and turrets - what about mil-dots of some kind? Seems like the three sort of go hand in hand.

thinkingman · January 20, 2009, 12:40 PM

I had a BM 6-18 sidefocus and it just wasn't clear at 18X.
Traded it and got a Monarch 6.5-20 and all is good at full power.
There is a big difference.

tkofoid · January 20, 2009, 05:18 PM

I opted for the 6.5X20 monarch simply to get the the fine crosshair. I think the buckmaster is a good scope,too. Depends on intended usage,mostly.

Antihero47 · January 20, 2009, 09:49 PM

I have not used the Monarchs, but I do have a BM 4.5x14x40 MilDot. Works perfectly for target shooting and would serve me fine for hunting.

silentstorm16 · January 21, 2009, 02:56 PM

Thanks for all your input I opted for the buckmaster 4x-16x 40mm with mildot for $267 + free shipping. I opted to upgrade in the future. Also the $120 I saved I spent on a egw 1 piece picannty mount, burris xtreme tactical 1inch med rings, a caldwell front shooting bag, and butler creek scope cap covers.

kenjs1 · January 21, 2009, 05:03 PM

congrats - looking forward to hearing how it shoots and how you like it. Go have a blast!

January 19, 2009, 06:58 PM	#1
silentstorm16 Member Join Date: January 5, 2009 Posts: 59	Nikon Buckmaster vs Nikon Monarch I'm looking between the Nikon buckmaster Riflescope, 4.5x-14x, 40mm with nikoplex site for $267 and the Nikon Monarch Riflescope, 4x-16x, 42mm, Mil-Dot for $382 or Nikon Monarch Riflescope, 3x-12x, 42mm, Nikoplex with lustre for $339. Anybody have experience and also does anyone know what the difference between lustre and matte finish I look all over and cannot find any website showing the difference or describing the difference.

January 20, 2009, 01:22 AM	#6
Swampghost Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2008 Location: Florida, east coast Posts: 2,106	I didn't notice the difference and cheaped out with the Buckmaster for a .243. It's all been good so far. I worked a total of 32 days in '07 so you can guess where my finances are.:barf: __________________ NRA Patron Member

January 20, 2009, 07:59 AM	#7
Kreyzhorse Senior Member Join Date: April 12, 2006 Location: NKY Posts: 12,463	The Buckmaster is a good scope and will certainly serve you well for hunting and shooting. The Monarch transmits more light than the Buckmaster and in my opinion, tops any thing that Zeiss or Leupold makes in that same price range. You can't go wrong with either, but if you have the extra money, you won't be disappointed in the Monarch. __________________ "He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

January 19, 2009, 08:01 PM	#2
tINY Senior Member Join Date: April 26, 2005 Location: Orygun Posts: 2,589	The Buckmaster line is the "good" line and the Monarch is the "high end" line. The Monach will have a bit better optics, but it's crawling up the dimminishing return curve... -tINY

January 19, 2009, 10:45 PM	#3
BeCoole Junior member Join Date: October 2, 2002 Posts: 170	Glass isn't the only place they cut corners to make cheap scopes.

January 19, 2009, 10:54 PM	#4
Fat White Boy Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 2005 Posts: 1,276	I have a 3-9X49 BuckMaster on my Model 70 Winchester in .270 Win. It is durable, accurate and has held its zero...A good investment...

January 19, 2009, 11:24 PM	#5
Brad Clodfelter Registration in progress Join Date: January 26, 2007 Posts: 925	Both are great scopes. The Nikon Monarch lenses transmit 95% of available light. The Nikon Buckmasters lenses transmit 92% of available light. I had a Monarch scope. One of the best I have owed for the money.

January 20, 2009, 11:28 AM	#8
kenjs1 Senior Member Join Date: July 10, 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 129	Silentstorm- the Buckmaster matches your needs very well. Paper punching in daylight conditions is not very demanding and I doubt you would gain much from the Monarchs capabilities under those circumstances. Not to sell the Buckmaster short by saying that- it is a good scope. You are on the right track with good choices here- but I would still have you look at the 3-12x42 Sighton I mentioned. It compares favorably to the Monarch as far as glass and coatings. The Sightron has a superior reputation for tracking ability and a lifetime replacement warranty. Sightron may have a little better eye relief and costs roughly what a Buckmaster does. Seems to me to be the perfect fit in so many ways including size\power and extremely capable should low light hunting or darker conditions enter into it. You were interested in side focus and turrets - what about mil-dots of some kind? Seems like the three sort of go hand in hand.

January 20, 2009, 12:40 PM	#9
thinkingman Senior Member Join Date: March 27, 2008 Location: western WA Posts: 691	I had a BM 6-18 sidefocus and it just wasn't clear at 18X. Traded it and got a Monarch 6.5-20 and all is good at full power. There is a big difference.

January 20, 2009, 05:18 PM	#10
tkofoid Senior Member Join Date: October 10, 2008 Location: N. D. Posts: 149	I opted for the 6.5X20 monarch simply to get the the fine crosshair. I think the buckmaster is a good scope,too. Depends on intended usage,mostly.

January 20, 2009, 09:49 PM	#11
Antihero47 Senior Member Join Date: October 2, 2008 Location: Southern California Posts: 111	I have not used the Monarchs, but I do have a BM 4.5x14x40 MilDot. Works perfectly for target shooting and would serve me fine for hunting.

January 21, 2009, 02:56 PM	#12
silentstorm16 Member Join Date: January 5, 2009 Posts: 59	Thanks for all your input I opted for the buckmaster 4x-16x 40mm with mildot for $267 + free shipping. I opted to upgrade in the future. Also the $120 I saved I spent on a egw 1 piece picannty mount, burris xtreme tactical 1inch med rings, a caldwell front shooting bag, and butler creek scope cap covers.

January 21, 2009, 05:03 PM	#13
kenjs1 Senior Member Join Date: July 10, 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 129	congrats - looking forward to hearing how it shoots and how you like it. Go have a blast!