Monarch or Prostaff

[JRWhit]

Looking at the differences between these two scopes in a 4-16x42mm. I'm not sure if the Prostaff gets the edge in low light visibility or if it just the way they advertise. The Monarch has the reticle on the first focal lens and retains the same sized in relation to the target from 4 power to 16 power. Difference in price is about $100 with the difference going to the Monarch. Will be mounted on a 7mm wby mag and primarily set up for 300yds +.
What are preferences between these two? Should I be looking at a higher magnification?
I wood like to stay within the 42mm objective size.
Thanks in advance.

 

[wally]

In general the Monarch are a step up. If you plan to use the reticle for range estimation, and/or bullet drop compensation after range estimation, the First Focal Plane is a real advantage.

IMHO magnifications greater than 10X are only useful for shooting off a bench (or prone) which seems likely what you plan to do if primarily for 300+ yard shooting. I think if you go higher than 16X magnification you need another step or two up in scope quality. Basically at 10X a 500 yard target likes like the same target at 50 yards and 1X size wise, but to get both the magnification higher than 16X and the resolution to really take advantage of it, you generally need a higher end scope.

If you buy a Nikon scope, get their "Spot On" application for your cell phone as its a nice ballistic calculator that matches up with the various reticles of the Nikon Scopes.

 

[eastbank]

i have a prostaff 2x7 on a walking .222 rifle and find it ok on crows, groundhogs and turkeys to about 250 yrds and it does its job very well, but i want a better scope of a hard kicking big game scope. eastbank.

 

[Moparnut]

When I was looking to buy a new rifle scope I looked hard at the prostaff 5 and the Monarch 3. I could not tell a difference in the store. The only difference I could see was the price. Remember, this was in the store, not in the field. I bought the Prostaff 5 and have not regretted the purchase.

 

[Axis II]

I run several prostaffs and my boss ran a monarch on his 7mm rem mag and I could tell a clarity difference but not more money worth. mine was a 3-9 and his the one you mentioned. for a rifle like that I would pay the extra just in case.

 

[stolivar]

I run several prostaffs and my boss ran a monarch on his 7mm rem mag and I could tell a clarity difference but not more money worth. mine was a 3-9 and his the one you mentioned. for a rifle like that I would pay the extra just in case.

You shoot one at daybreak or sunset you will want the Monarch.

steve

 

[JRWhit]

Do believe I'm leaning Monarch. Thanks for replies.

 

[mike1340]

I was at the range today, very cloudy in Pa.
I have a Monarch 6-24×50 on top of my Savage model 12 LRP and had no problems seeing the hits on the target out at 400 yards with out a spitting scope

 

[mike1340]

I should have proof read before I posted
"Spotting scope"

 

[Walkalong]

You shoot one at daybreak or sunset you will want the Monarch.

Agreed. If you are picky about glass or need it in low light, get the Monarch.

 

[greyling22]

do what you want, and if you want nikon, by all means get them, but I'd take this weaver grand slam over either. https://www.natchezss.com/weaver-re...pe-1-tube-4-16x44mm-dual-x-reticle-matte.html It would be less than $300 delivered, and optically equivalent to the monarch.

 

[JRWhit]

do what you want, and if you want nikon, by all means get them, but I'd take this weaver grand slam over either. https://www.natchezss.com/weaver-re...pe-1-tube-4-16x44mm-dual-x-reticle-matte.html It would be less than $300 delivered, and optically equivalent to the monarch.

Looks promising, I'll check into it. Thanks for the link.

 

[lobo9er]

if you can afford it you'll never regret spending more on a scope.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

the old prostaffs were not the best in low light. the newer models are MUCH better. Ive got one of the newest 3x9s and my eyes cant tell the difference between it and my 2.5x10 monarchs