The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

View Poll Results: Nikon Monarch good scope? scale of one to 5. 1 is the worst. Give a reason please
5 5 20.00%
4 17 68.00%
3 3 12.00%
2 0 0%
1 0 0%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 29, 2008, 09:00 PM   #1
Deerhunter264
Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Posts: 82
Nikon Monarch good scope??

I have a browning x bolt medallion (gloss finish) .243 I was wondering if the Nikon 3-12x42 Monarch Riflescope would be a good scope its product number is 8418 it is a gloss scope. IS it a good scope?
Deerhunter264 is offline  
Old May 29, 2008, 09:45 PM   #2
JP Sarte
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 229
Just my opinion but I don't think that Nikon makes any bad scopes. They all seem to be at least above average. I have several and they have all worked quite well. Also just my opinion, but after a point (maybe $400.00 ???) I think people are just throwing money out the window. I have held, looked through, examined, etc. more expensive scopes (i.e. $600-$800 range) and I just can't see enough difference (if there is any) to justify the added (sometimes very large) additional costs.

On the other end (the low end) I think you can buy junk. I try and stay with the mid-range stuff (i.e. Nikon Monarch, Bushnell 3200 and 4200, etc).

What I also find interesting is how some people can buy a $1400.00 Sako for example and then top it with a $70.00 scope. The two just don't seem like they go together. But that is a different topic alltogether. Just my thoughts.

JP
JP Sarte is offline  
Old May 29, 2008, 10:21 PM   #3
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Good scopes, but not Leupold

Quote:
Also just my opinion, but after a point (maybe $400.00 ???) I think people are just throwing money out the window. I have held, looked through, examined, etc. more expensive scopes (i.e. $600-$800 range) and I just can't see enough difference (if there is any) to justify the added (sometimes very large) additional costs.
Check out Zak Smiths website for info on spendy scopes

www.demigodllc.com

WildihavealowendonebasedontheonesherecomendsAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 29, 2008, 10:30 PM   #4
Horseman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,065
JP Sarte is right on the money as far as the law of diminishing returns. The law of diminishing returns is very relevant when buying optics IMO. The difference between a $450 scope and a $800 scope is usually not worth it to most people IMO. I own some higher end scopes and they are better than $400 scopes but not by much IMO.

The Nikon's built their reputation building great scopes from Japan. Japanese optics are highly regarded and have been for some time. The Bushnell Elites are made there and are considered by many to be the best scope for the money. Nikon does not make scopes in Japan anymore. They moved production of most scopes to Thailand, and then last year moved again to the Phillipines. They are still good scopes from what I've seen. If it were me I'd also be considering the Bushnell Elite 4200's, Zeiss conquest, and Leupold VXIII. They are all going to be in the same price range. I believe the Bushnell and Zeiss will have noticebly brighter optics and the Zeiss will have a laser etched reticle. Any of these 4 scopes would be excellent choices and I believe this price point is where anymore money spents gains very little.

This is not to say more expensive scopes are a waste of money. They are better than the moderately priced scopes, but not much IME.
Horseman is offline  
Old May 29, 2008, 10:33 PM   #5
zoomie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: WY
Posts: 1,750
I love my 3-9x40 Monarch. It's the best scope I own. I'm replacing my cheapos slowly, and I'd be happy with 2 more Monarchs. I voted a 4 because I know it's not the best. But I'm not discriminating enough to make the best "worth it."
zoomie is offline  
Old May 29, 2008, 10:37 PM   #6
Johnc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2006
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 566
I posted these links recently in another thread. They were very helpful to me when I just had to select a scope.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/recommended_riflescopes.htm


http://www.chuckhawks.com/few_recomm...iflescopes.htm

http://www.chuckhawks.com/staff_riflescopes.htm


http://www.chuckhawks.com/scopes_price_class.htm


http://www.chuckhawks.com/scoping_out.htm



http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8185
Johnc is offline  
Old May 29, 2008, 10:37 PM   #7
hoytinak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,710
I've got Nikon's on all my scoped rifles and have been very happy with them.
__________________
"Four wheels move the body. Two wheels move the soul."
hoytinak is offline  
Old May 29, 2008, 10:53 PM   #8
Swampghost
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: Florida, east coast
Posts: 2,106
I'm on the low end of the spectrum. Today I bought a Simmons? $150 for my Marlin .44 mag. It worked out fine. My new .243 came with a BSA that rocks. I see them at Wallyworld and don't know about the long haul.
Swampghost is offline  
Old May 29, 2008, 11:16 PM   #9
LanceOregon
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,774
Quote:
The Nikon's built their reputation building great scopes from Japan. Japanese optics are highly regarded and have been for some time. The Bushnell Elites are made there and are considered by many to be the best scope for the money. Nikon does not make scopes in Japan anymore. They moved production of most scopes to Thailand, and then last year moved again to the Phillipines
Well, while the final assembly factory is indeed in the Philippines, the actual lenses are still being designed and manufactured in Japan. Like many companies, Nikon is naturally trying to lower their labor costs to stay competitive, while keeping their quality good.

Japan is actually facing similar labor problems as we have, as their population is aging too. And young people don't want lower paying factory jobs. I recently found out that both Nikon and Canon ( their biggest competitor in the camera market ) are actually importing factory workers from the Philippines into Japan to work at their lens manufacturing facilities there. I doubt that either company would be employing Filipino workers if they were not getting good results from them.

At least the Philippines is a predominately Christian nation, and is friendly to the USA. I would never buy a Nikon or Canon product that was made in Red China.

.
LanceOregon is offline  
Old May 29, 2008, 11:26 PM   #10
Big Caliber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 10, 2006
Location: S. CA
Posts: 396
I got 3 Monarchs: 1 on a .308, a 25-06, and a 45/70. The middle one spent 10 years on the .308, not one lick of trouble. Great glass & lifetime warrantee. The $$$ I save over a Leupold, ie, goes for reloading components. Don't get upset, if I could afford a Leupold... I'd probably still get a Nikon. If I win the lottery I'd go for a Zeiss Take your time and look through the scopes you want and "listen" to what your eyes tell you.
Big Caliber is offline  
Old May 29, 2008, 11:41 PM   #11
sholling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,260
They best be great I ordered two 3-9x40 Team Primos/Monarchs this week. A heck of a deal at $199 each.
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.
sholling is offline  
Old May 29, 2008, 11:56 PM   #12
Forwardassist
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2008
Location: New England.
Posts: 403
OBTW, Leupold uses Japanese glass in their scopes. Not sure which manufacture s makes their glass. Nikon makes their own glass.
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis.
Excuse my spelling, for sometimes the fingers are faster than the brain.
Forwardassist is offline  
Old May 29, 2008, 11:58 PM   #13
Stiofan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2006
Location: Panhandle, Idaho
Posts: 691
I though you were buying that other brand. Or are you just buying all brands now!

I have a Monarch, I like it very much, and I choose it over a similarly price Leupold (which may be the reason I like it better).

I think you really have to spend more to get the same quality with some other brands like Leupold. I've used Nikon's cameras for years, and their lenses are top notch. Always have been.
Stiofan is offline  
Old May 30, 2008, 03:06 AM   #14
BlondieStomp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2006
Location: cypress ca
Posts: 222
The new monarchs are great scopes! Nice, bright, crisp, true in color, with good, positive adjustments. What's not to like? On some of the other optics forums, the new monarchs are compared positively to the leupold vx3, so take that for whatever you think it's worth.
__________________
Hammer in my hands, still pounding on a screw!
BlondieStomp is offline  
Old May 30, 2008, 06:40 AM   #15
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 11,481
Quote:
JP Sarte is right on the money as far as the law of diminishing returns. The law of diminishing returns is very relevant when buying optics IMO. The difference between a $450 scope and a $800 scope is usually not worth it to most people IMO. I own some higher end scopes and they are better than $400 scopes but not by much IMO.
I couldn't agree more. When I bought my Nikon, I was set on buying a Leupold or a Zeiss. The salesman pointed out the Nikon and after a long side by side comparison, the Nikon won out. I feel I actually bought a scope that was equal to, or better than the Leupold or Zeiss for much less money.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old May 30, 2008, 01:41 PM   #16
LanceOregon
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,774
Quote:
I though you were buying that other brand. Or are you just buying all brands now!
In another thread I told him about a dealer selling Monarchs for only $15 more than the price of the Fullfield II that he was considering.

Just the sidefocus parallax feature alone is well worth more than that difference in price.

.
LanceOregon is offline  
Old May 30, 2008, 02:21 PM   #17
bigautomatic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 610
Well, I don't have much experience with Nikon rifle scopes, but I do own a couple of their handgun scopes. I have a Monarch 2x that has seen time on two .44 mags, and is currently catching a ride on my .460 XVR. Not sure how many rounds through the 44s, but it has taken a serious pounding on the Smith. Over 1k rounds, and still works like the day I bought it.
bigautomatic is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10485 seconds with 8 queries