Rifle Scopes Nikon Buckmaster vs Monarch

[Broc]

I'm thinking of picking up a new Nikon scope and am having trouble deciding between the buckmaster 4.5-44x40mm and the monarch 4-16x42mm. Is the monarch worth the extra $120 dollars? I've done searches here on the hide and both scopes have great reviews. Anyone own both or done a side by side comparison?

I appreciate any opinions!

Thanks!

 

[dontstrokeme]

Re: Nikon Buckmaster vs Monarch

I have a 4.5-14 and it is great for the money....thinking about selling my SS 20x and buying a 6-18 for my 300WM....the 4.5-14 with the Mildot ranges at 12 power FYI.....Buckmasters are easily better then the Lupy VX2's...dollar for dollar you get a hell of a lot more from Nikon.

 

[wco24u]

Re: Nikon Buckmaster vs Monarch

I have a Nikon Monarch 4-16x50 with side focus, pro turret kit, and sunshade, I love it. The glass is crisp and clear in just about any light. It perfoms well at the range or in the feild when shot will be more than 100 yards. Also, have a Leupold VX-II, works great on my hunting rifle, it performs well in the field when a shot will be under a 100 yards. So it depends on the situation you are using the scope in. It really is worth it to me to spend a few dollars more for a quality optics. I learned the hard way, bought a $300.00 scope and hated the performance. Could have used it to buy the Nikon to start with, and saved some money. Just my thoughts...

 

[dksd39]

Re: Nikon Buckmaster vs Monarch

I have both scopes and can say they are both great but the Monarch is worth the extra cash if you have it. Side by side there is a noticable difference but I could not justify the extra cash for my 22's which wear the buckmasters. The monarch went on my 6.5 brm hunting rifle.

 

[craigp40]

Re: Nikon Buckmaster vs Monarch

I'll second what dksd said. I have both and although the Buckmaster is a great value with good glass, the Monarch is clearly a better optic all around. Just like dksd, my Buckmaster sits on a 22 that I use for hunting and plinking. The Monarchs that I own sit on my center fire hunting rifles. They are just a lot more clear and fatigue the eyes much less after extended viewing sessions. If you can, I would recommend spending the extra coin on the Monarch. Keep in mind though that these scopes have a limited amount of elevation, so if this is for a long range rig you may want to determine if it has enough elevation for the intended purpose.

 

[ewoaf]

Re: Nikon Buckmaster vs Monarch

go w/ the mon. I have a BM 6-18 and its great but doesnt have the mildot. i looked into the mon-x and think that'd be worth the money but decided just to go ahead and save for something more. I dont know about the elev. range for the regular mons but the X has about 60-80 i think. I have a base w/ my BM (range of 50)and its enough to get to 1k but would like a little more.

 

[Broc]

Re: Nikon Buckmaster vs Monarch

Thanks for info. That is exactly what I was looking for. Monarch it is!

 

[ker2222]

Re: Nikon Buckmaster vs Monarch

have both and find the glass pretty similair. Big difference is in field of view...much better on monarch. At the range it doesn't matter...but in the field it does for me.

 

[Seekers]

Re: Nikon Buckmaster vs Monarch

I am in the market for a Nikon Monarch myself and decided to go with a +20 MOA base. EGW 1 piece from SWFA for $39.95 to get that extra reach. Their are of course lots of choices in bases to get that +MOA in 10, 15, 20, or more.