204Ruger

I only have one Nikon scope left, a 4.5-14x40 AO Buckmaster on my 17 HMR. I think about unloading it but why...it works great for it's application.

Yes, I agree the cameras are superb, but my Nikon scopes are just substandard, with the older one from the 1990's being better than the current crop.

More evidence of substandard Monarch quality:
http://www.opticstalk.com/nikon-monarch ... 29854.html

RowdyYates wrote:More evidence of substandard Monarch quality:
http://www.opticstalk.com/nikon-monarch ... 29854.html

Oops... clicking on this link might not let return back to this forum from there. Sorry 'bout that.

Buy once, get a IOR

Interesting stuff! It seems that no matter how good a product is you will have a few who will say it's crap. I am used to that. But in this thread it is a MAJORITY who feel the Monarch is crap, you have my attention.

This is very timely, as I am getting ready to buy a new scope & I was looking at getting a Nikon 4x16 Monarch with side focus & Mil-Dot. For some reason the Midway comments were good.

You guys have my attention, it's a shame. I have a special price for Nikon's, I will have to study other options.

When you able to compare them with others out in the field the differnces stand out and it's not just Nikon's either. There are others too.

Jim- You are correct. I have sold other scopes because they did not perform as well as I had hoped they would. Not that they were "bad scopes". Heck, the Nikon we keep harping about isn't bad, it just doesn't provide the dollar value I expected from a company built around its lens quality. I suspect I could mount my Monarch on a 375 H&H and take it out to the Sahara desert then put it through a grueling hunt in the Alaskan winter and it would still hold a decent zero- but looking through it would still be a blurry, low contrast target. And that is what drives me nuts.
For the same criteria deleneated above I sold a Bushnell 3200, and a Sightron S11. both undeniably tough, well built scopes. But the optics just were not up to my expectations for resolution and contrast. It just seems to me that with todays technology these issues should be non sequitors for scope manufacturors.

I may have to look at a new Weaver Tact. or maybe a Burris Signature/Black Diamond. I really did not want to spend over $500.00 for this rifle, but I may have to.

jrwoitalla wrote:Heck, the Nikon we keep harping about isn't bad, it just doesn't provide the dollar value I expected from a company built around its lens quality.

I hated to get rid of my Monarch but it just wasn't up to the task on the 1/4 of it's power range. Up to 18x it was good, but beyond that it just didn't perform. I have the older Buckmaster on my 17 HMR and it fits the bill nicely.

For a big game rifle I would still consider a Monarch because the high end power probably be used. As far as light transmission they weren't that bad.

Jim

Jim White wrote:

jrwoitalla wrote:Heck, the Nikon we keep harping about isn't bad, it just doesn't provide the dollar value I expected from a company built around its lens quality.

I hated to get rid of my Monarch but it just wasn't up to the task on the 1/4 of it's power range. Up to 18x it was good, but beyond that it just didn't perform. I have the older Buckmaster on my 17 HMR and it fits the bill nicely.

For a big game rifle I would still consider a Monarch because the high end power probably be used. As far as light transmission they weren't that bad.

Jim

I have noticed that others along with you say the Nikon fell flat at higher power, in your case 18 & up. I am looking at the 4x16 Mildot, maybe the 3x12. So I am wondering if it's a problem with these 2?

I've never looked at a 3-12 but I did look at a 4-16 and a 5-20 and the ones I looked thru did exhibit the hazy/foggy look. I would probably consider a 3-12 and only a 4-16 on a non varmint/target rifle only because it's doubtful it would ever see max power in the field.

I would refrain from buying any Nikon refurbed scope because of their 90 day warranty.

For an inexpensive scope, I finally listened to a couple of people that shoot more than I do, I finally caved when I saw these on sale. Kicker is a $20 rebate as well. So, for $100, I bought one.

My ONLY complaint - does not have turrets. Does have finger adjustable turrets, but I like turrets that I can see and adjust by just looking up.

Plenty of power - 6.5-20. Fully multi coated lenses - you might be surprised at which scope lense are not. If those three words are not listed in the scope description, keep shopping for a scope.

I will be planning a full work out with this scope...but it won't happen for at least 3 weeks....sorry.

The first test I do with any scope that I buy - the darkness test. End of my street is 345 yards...and few street lights - and not the bright ones either. If I can focus and READ the numbers on the house at the end of the block, then the scope passes the first test. This one did.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?p ... ber=746570

FWIW, in my quest to upgrade my optics from the middling Nikons, I ran across a Sightron SII Big Sky 4-16X42. Wanted side-focus and a little more mag., but it came with 1/8" click semi-target turrets, a sunshade, and it was only $400 new - they're almost 1/2 again that much everywhere else. Am impressed with the brightness and clarity so far, although I need to get it on a rifle, probably my .221 FB or coyote-ready .204, to truly test it. Might be a brand/model for those looking for a good scope in sub-Leupold $ range to check out...

RowdyYates wrote:FWIW, in my quest to upgrade my optics from the middling Nikons, I ran across a Sightron SII Big Sky 4-16X42. Wanted side-focus and a little more mag., but it came with 1/8" click semi-target turrets, a sunshade, and it was only $400 new - they're almost 1/2 again that much everywhere else. Am impressed with the brightness and clarity so far, although I need to get it on a rifle, probably my .221 FB or coyote-ready .204, to truly test it. Might be a brand/model for those looking for a good scope in sub-Leupold $ range to check out...

I sold an S11 because I was not happy with its resolution/contrast. That was about eight years ago. Things might be different now...they may have improved. Good luck. Let us know. For $200 my Nitrex 6-20x50OA beats to hill the Nikon Monarch, Bushnell 3200, and the Sighton S11 that I've had. In fact, if I wanted to significantly step up(I'm thinking) I'd have to go Leupold VX111, Burris Black Diamond, or Zeiss.