Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Nikon Monach 2.5x10 vs Leupold 3.5x10

I have a Pentax pioneer 4.5x14 on my 7mm rem mag. I like the ballistic plex but I'm not impressed with the way this scope focuses (My Nikon 8x42 ATB's see the target holes better) and the dusk performance is terrible. Last weekend I could see the form of a buck with my naked eye and could not see it through the scope.

Now I'm looking at upgrading the scope on this gun. I would prefer something with a ballistic type reticle and I'm considering the leupold with bc reticle and the nikon with their version. I have a vari X III and a old style Nikon Monarch but neither is of the newer styles and I'm wondering if the new coatings on these scopes are much different. Also I was recently at a gun shop and held up a swarovski z6 and a zeiss conquest. I should have left the Z6 in the case because the conquest seemed kind of lacking after looking though the Z6. I would love to buy a Swarovski but It is not in the budget. I'm really more interested in a scope in the $400-600 price range. I guess the question boils down to the new Monarch is only $400 is the leupold really that much better at $579? Are there other scopes in this price range that offer better dusk and dawn performance?

There's no way I could get along with Nikon's Cheerios dangling on a string reticle.

m

It is no worse than the super busy Leupold B&C to me. I have both, and will stay away from all those ballistic recticles from this point forward. Good ole plex or mil dot recticle from now on. I would also talk to Doug at Cameralandny, he has some super deals going now on the Vortex line. A vortex will be my next purchase.

I don't find the B&C busy, let alone super busy. Some people must be easily distracted.

m

okay forget about the plex how about the quality of glass on these two models. Or others in this price range

glass is comparable. Leupy may be a tad better in low light.

I am generally to busy looking at the animal I am about to pull the trigger on. Both of these holdover recticles are about useless in low light conditions, in other words neither of the extra stuff shows up well enough to be used when needed. Plus, how many animals have you ever truly shot past 300 yds? I think I have killed 2, and both of them were like 325 and 304 or so. No need for a holdover recticle at those distances, unless it is like a 30-30, ML or slug gun, then that is pushing it for all of those. I am just not a fan of ANY of these new holdover recticles. If I hunted in Alaska or out west, then I might could see some use in them, like having to shoot across a canyon or from hillside to hillside. But around here, no need for em.

Leupy over the monarch.

If you liked the 4.5-14 range, I'd suggest at least looking at a Bushnell Elite 6500 2.5-16. A lot of nice features for a few add'l ounces.

I've got the Monarch 2.5-10x42 with a mil-dot. I like it. I was specifically looking for a scope that top'd at 10 with a mil-dot..not some bdc or xmas-tree, but I've not used either of those so I can't speak to their strong/week points. Mil-dot is what it is.

Buy the Zeiss Conquest and your trouble are over

I really don't have any "trouble" to speak of, but I do like the mil-dot....

We just installed a 2.5X10 Monarch on my sons .223. compared it with a Burris fullfied 3.5X10, and a new Leupie VX 3 3.5X10X40. Big surprise! To our eyes the Burris and the Leupie were equal and the Nikon was lacking in sharpness, clearity, and couldn't even resolve .22 bullet holes at 100 yards. We are very dissapointed in this scope. Furhtemore it has a large eyepiece but the image has a thick black ring around it somewhat negating the large eyepiece. Noticed this on a 4X12 vortex I purchased a while ago. Overall not very impressed with Nikon.

Lefty C

Personal preference will have to decide - I choose the 3.5 - 10 X 40 VX-III and my buddy choose the Nikon...I did like the Conquest I looked through, but not if the price was 50% higher than the Leupold. I'd really think about the max power and objective size before you buy. If it's low light that's the key "need", I'd opt for a bigger objective 50-56mm and limited variable power range - easier to get a budget scope that works that way. You should be able to get something with a 50mm objective from a credible brand in the <$600 range if you keep the power range and ballistic turrets and all that jazz down. I'd sure pay for more objective and less reticle if it came down to that. Some of those range finding reticles are a real costly option.

A comparable Conquest is not 50% higher than a comparable VX 3. They are roughly the same price.

When you ar not sure, witch product is better , why not buy american ? Meaning Leupy, Burris is prety much americn too but not all the way.
It is hard to find the signiture select scopes to look through but i bet they are real nice...tj3006

Have you considered a Leupold 3.5-10 with the CDS turrets?

Both are great scopes, but with Leupolds reputation its a no brainer. You cant beat Leupolds customer service!!!

Yes you can. Are a couple companies out there that offer no fault warranties. You mess it up, they'll still fix it.

You couldn't do better than the 2 1/2-16X 6500. They have a constant 4" of eye relief. Take a note from slm9s to the store. I saw them for $500 recently.

By the way, the 6500 comes with a one year satisfaction guarentee. Don't loose your reciept! If after you have used it for a few months and don't like it, send it in for a full refund. Take the money and purchse something you can't send back.