Nikon scope: Buckmaster vs. Monarch

[RPSmith]

Looking for a good long range scope and I like Nikon - I feel they are underrated.

To that end, I'm looking at the Buckmaster and the Monarch but I am not finding much literature to help me distinguish between the two. I know that you get what you pay for, but a lot of people swear by the Buckmaster (more than the Monarch - though this maybe because not as many buy the Monarch).

Is there something critical I need to know? Experiences between the two would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, RP

[sholling]

I wish I could help in your Chevy vs Cadillac survey but when I'm shopping Nikons I buy Monarch. It's going to come down to fine detail and light transmission. In addition you have a 3x erector vs a 4x in the monarch (3-9 vs 2.5-10 etc).


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

[RPSmith]

I understand your 'Chevy vs. Cadillac' comment. Why wouldn't I buy a better model?!

It's just that I don't know what I'm buying exactly when it comes to the Monarch over the Buckmaster. Many, many comments out there about how the Nikons are as good as the Leupolds but for a cheaper price. The Monarchs are approaching the Leupolds in price so is everyone talking about the Buckmaster?

You can see where a guy could get confused.

[sholling]

I linked a ranking for you.