Yep...point blank range in a .243 runs out to about 300 yards...mas o menos. Leupold all the way. I was able to set several scopes up at a friend's gun shop and look out into a parking lot at dusk without moving the battery of scopes. All the scopes...about six...were very close to the same brightness. When I looked through the Leupold...same power setting as the others...I thought someone had turned the lights on in the parking lot. I checked again with the same result. I bought the Leupold.At under 200 yards you don't need the BDC, although I do like the feature. Just not Nikons version of it. Zeiss sell scopes ranging from $350-$1000 plus. So does Leupold.
The Monarch's are Nikons best scope. They have good clear glass for the money. Maybe better than Leupold and just below Zeiss in the same price range. But they have some features that are deal killers for me. I have one rifle with a Monarch, it is very good in some ways, but it comes in 3rd place for me. I don't like the Nikon reticle at all. Their scopes while clear, have a dark ring around the edges that obstructs a lot of the view compared to the others. They also have much shorter eye relief and are heavier.
The older Zeiss Conquest in a 3-9X40 was a VERY good scope. When I bought mine they were $550. Later reduced to $400 and when closed out could be found $250-$300 for a few months. At $400 and under they were probably the best scope for the money. The new Terra scope which has taken it's place is still an unknown. It is supposed to be a direct replacement, but from my limited experience and reports I've read I'd take a Leupold over the Terra. Old Conquest vs Leupold would be very close, with a slight edge to Zeiss in my opinion.
Leupold has upgraded their scopes within the last 2-3 years and my vote for the best scope for the dollar right now is the VX-2 selling at $299. It is a better scope than a VX-3 from 3 years ago, and pretty darn close to the $400 Zeiss Conquest's. Probably a bit better than the Zeiss Terra, but I'm not 100% sure about that yet. The Terra is just too new to say for sure.
I have a Conquest, a Monarch, and had a VX-II (not the newest VX-2). The Conquest honestly blows the Monarch away in every aspect. Glass wise it blew the VX-II out of the water as well. The only place the VX-II had a slight advantage was that it offered more generous eye relief. Overall though, the Leupold didn't really come close either. That said, the new Zeiss Terra's aren't getting as good of reviews as the Conquest so I tend to think I'd try to find a deal on a nice used Conquest. I think you'd be much better off than with either of the other two.
Now that all said, I can't personally comment on the Terra as I've only gotten to look at one at the store and I've never owned one. I've really only read reviews about.
You're comparing Nikon's top scope to Leupold's lowest level scope. It should be better. That difference will shrink dramatically if compared to a VX-2, and completely disappear with a VX-3 and up in the Leupold lineup. When Leupold revamped the VX-III recently to the VX-3, the Zeiss Conquest was their target.I own the Nikon monarch with BDC its good better than the 3-9x40 leupold rifleman I own.
The zeiss would be my choice again I own 2 and have purchased 1 for my dad he loves it as well.
Shoot staright