Nikon Buckmaster vs Monarch

[megaton]

I am debating between these two scopes. At these price points which would you choose and why?

I can get a 4.5-14x40mm Buckmaster for $205 shipped.

I can get a 4-16x42mm Monarch for $335 shipped.

Is the Monarch worth the extra $130 and if so why?

 

[jmr40]

Not in those power ranges, but I've owned both and the Monarch is a much better scope and would be worth the difference to me. Might not be to you. I think the Buckmaster is a good scope, but the Monarch is clearer, better in low light, and has a little better eye relief. It doesn't show as that much different in the specs, but made a bigger difference in use.

 

[adelbridge]

i used the two side by side and couldnt tell any real optical difference in daylight. I dont think choosing the lesser would cause you to miss the a deer of a lifetime.

 

[viking499]

Either would be good. I have 5 Buckmaster scopes, but no Monarchs.

Where are you finding them that cheap?

 

[nathan]

Monarch is my pick. If you can get the one with 44 mm objective lens, its even clearer.

 

[Walkalong]

Of the two, the Monarch is the better scope and worth the money.

In daylight many scopes of lesser quality look good, but where the good glass shines is when looking into the shadows or at dusk, along with better clarity overall.

Don't get me wrong, the Buckmaster is a good scope, but the Monarch is just better.

 

[Atracksler]

Hate to throw a monkey wrench in, but you may want too check the zeiss conquest. 3-9. I had a monarch, and the zeiss blows it away.

 

[megaton]

Thanks for the input everyone. I went to the store today and actually looked through both of these scopes as well as a couple others and concluded that it was pretty much pointless.

Where are you finding them that cheap?

I won an amazon gift card at work so I am subtracting that from the price.

 

[viking499]

Whew........I just bought another Nikon in my mind.........spent the last hour trying to figure out how to get it in the house undetected........

 

[shootniron]

used the two side by side and couldnt tell any real optical difference in daylight.

My experience also.

Buckmasters will get you past legal shooting light and do just fine for the overwhelming majority of hunting situations. The Monarch will have a slight edge if you are really hunting at long range and personally, if the Buckmasters would not work for me...I would spend the extra and get a Leupold over the Monarch.JMO

 

[lovethosesooners]

I initially bought 2 Buckmasters and think they're really good-then I bought 3 MonArchs and agree, they are worth the extra $....more clear, and maybe it's just me, but I feel a little higher quality in the turrets.

Either using the BDC reticle works with the Spot On program, which is big part of reason I got onto the Nikon's in 1st place...great set up

 

[ZGunner]

I have that monarch with the side focus and love it. Great all around scope.

 

[slowr1der]

I have a couple of Monarchs, but not in that power range. They are pretty nice scopes overall, but honestly the Burris FFII's I have surprisingly have better glass. The Zeiss Conquest blows them away. That's the way I'd go if I was looking to step up from the FFII's.

 

[ole farmerbuck]

I have 2 Monarch 6x24x50 and 7 5x20x44's All of them seem to be very good scopes.

 

[viking499]

What type of gun are going to put your new scope on?

 

[Tim the student]

What are you doing with the rifle?

For me, I don't know if I'd spring for the Monarch if all I did was take it to the range on a nice sunny day and plink with it.

But if I was planning on an elk hunt, I'd want the Monarch.

 

[Walkalong]

I have a couple of Monarchs, but not in that power range. They are pretty nice scopes overall, but honestly the Burris FFII's I have surprisingly have better glass

Not my experience at all. The FFII is a good scope, but more along the lines of the Buckmaster than the Monarch.

Here is something to give a rough idea on where scopes match up to each other.

http://www.opticstalk.com/topic16515.html

 

[Lloyd Smale]

buckmasters are closer to the prostaff then they are to the monarch in optical performance. the monarchs are well worth that additional cost. Probably the best bang for the buck in a 300 dollar scope on the market today.

 

[megaton]

Right now I am putting it on my ar15 for varmint duty but next year it will go on a yet to be purchased deer rifle.

In the short term it will be used to blast jack rabbits and coyotes, punch paper and ring steel. Long term I will be for my hunting rig.

 

[sansone]

The monarch is assembled in the Philippines and uses Japanese lenses. The combo is top-notch.
Not sure about the Buckmaster. The Prostaff is assembled in China but unsure which lenses are used.

personally if I needed a good scope right now, I would pry open my skinny wallet for a monarch

 

[MachIVshooter]

If you can afford it, the Monarch. If you can afford a little more, a Leupold.

I have Nikons, Bushnells, Weavers, Redfields and a host of other optics. IME, nothing beats a Leupold until you start climbing into the $700+ range. I have a Monarch 6.5-20x 44mm UFCH, and I really like it, but my Leupold VX-III 4.5-14x 40mm is a better scope at a similar price point.

 

[LuvMyGuns]

Dicks sporting good has the Monarch BDC for $199

 

[Lloyd Smale]

thats a steal! you wont find more scope for 200 bucks anywhere!

 

[sansone]

agreed, that price is hard to believe

 

[HKGuns]

Interesting to see folks saying the Zeiss Conquest blows higher end Leupold and Nikon away. - Not in my experience. The conquest is the bargain basement of German glass and you get exactly that, bargain basement glass and durability. They're not bad scopes, but in my experience they're not close to the Leupold VX-3 quality of the optics or durability.