Looks like there is a Monarch 3 coming out that hopefully will push the older ones a little lower. That said, would you guys go with a Revolution or a Monarch? Power range would be 2x8/7 or 3x9/10 and not too concerned with weight. Any opinions?

revolution will be in the 50-75 less money range, and imo opinion is as nice or nicer than a monarch. I have owned a pile of each and would definitely buy the revolution...and it is made in the states

get the redfield

I'm hoping for a non-biased comparison between the two without the "Made in America" issue creeping in. If you think the Redfield is 100% American made I think you are kidding yourself. "100% Assembled in America" I would believe. Besides, this "benefit" of the brand has no sway with me on whether or not a product is of proper quality.

I have owned 2 Nikon Monarchs, one of the older "Team Primos" 3-9x40 models and the newer made in the Phillipines 2.5-10x42 models. Of those two the Team Primos model to my eyes had the better glass.

The Redfield Revolution 3-9x40 I put on my sons rifle is just as good optically as the older Monarch and to my eye better than the 2.5-10 Monarch I owned, and it is in a slimmer (eyepiece) configuration that just looks better to me when mounted on a rifle. It's not as good as my VX-3 or Conquest, but I wouldn't expect it to be either.

If you like to twist the turrets, the Nikon had usable turrets that, on my two examples, were very repeatable and would return to zero. The Redfield is not set up for that type of use.

Whether the Redfield is 100% made in America, I don't know,but if you were to ever have a problem with it, it's backed by Leupolds warranty.

Of the two you named, I would go with the Redfield with the Accu-Range reticle, and that's what I've done personally as I've sold or traded my Nikon's. Nikon will have to come up with something better optically and better looking to me for the money they charge for the Monarch line to get any more of my money.

Bob.

Thanks for the report Bob. Very helpful. I may have to give this Revolution a serious look. Only negative I've found on the Revolution is a reviewer stated the 2x7 has sparse real estate for mounting. I may have to go with the 3x9 instead as this would be going on a LA Winchester. How was the glare on the Redfield compared to the Monarch or even Conquest? Eyebox comparison by any chance? Thx

i didnt have a monarch but had a nikon prostaff and glare was awful. i know the monarch is a bit better scope but that pretty much turned me off of nikon. i havent heard about any glare issues with the redfields

Fifth,

I have a VX-1 2-7 and it is a shorter tube than the 3-9.

I don't have any direct comparisons between the 3 scopes for glare. I'm not an expert at optics other than to know what I see when I look through the product. I have seen glare in almost every scope I have owned depending on my relation to a rising or setting sun and try to set up in shade or either in a position so as to minimize the effects of that when I'm hunting. But I can't remember anything objectionable in any of the 3 mentioned scopes while hunting.

And don't get me wrong, if I could only have a Nikon Monarch for the rest of my days, it wouldn't stop me from hunting or shooting. But the glass in my examples were more like looking through wavy glass compared to my leupolds, the conquest, a Bushnell Elite and my Vortex Viper that I've compared them to.

The Redfield to me is very easy to get behind, as are most of the Leupold scopes that I have used. They are forgiving as to eye placement and position.

The Conquest I have, which is the 3-9x40, has good and constant eye relief, but it is touchy as to eye placement and it makes you have a consistant cheek weld. Plus I really like the Zeiss #20 reticle better than the standard duplex reticle in the Leo/Redfield's. I also liked the Nikon BDC reticle because the center reticle was thin, but the side bars are thick enough to see in lower light, whether you use or like the bdc circles or not.(The bdc circles however did match my 7-08 out to 400 yards, which is as far as I verified them.)

Bob.

i second that on the zeiss 3-9x40. i sold mine quick. eye placement was way too critical. always going black. im wondering if the zeiss hd5 eyebox is like that

Ive got both the Revolution and a Monarch in 3x9...the monarch is about to hit the Classifieds....

The Monarch has sharper, clearer glass. It is also heavier, has less eye relief and a large black circle around the edge of the image when you look through it.

The Redfield would be my choice. It isn't quite as sharp, but more than acceptable. The very narrow band of black around the edges, better eye relief and ligher weight are more important to me. A little cheaper to boot.

if you want a 2-7.... look at vortex diamond back. really wide FOW at 2x. otherwise look through the other 2 scopes up side by side and go with the one you like better.

Fifth: Indeed that Redfield is made in America, by Americans who earn a living and benefits while working for an American owned company!
Some parts or maybe all the parts of these new Redfields may be made in foreign countries but make NO mistake Americans are depending on the sales of the Redfields for jobs and benefits!
I own several Nikon Monarch scopes but I bought exactly none of them new!
I think the Redfield lineup of scopes are good and perhaps VERY good scopes and are an excellent value for the money spent.
Buy American whenever possible - and that is something I simply won't overlook.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I believe the Monarch is much superior to the Redfield. I have owned both and no longer own a Redfield.

i have two of the older Monarchs and 2 revolutions...optics?..

nikon hand down for me

can't say about the newer Monarchs

No knowledge about the Redfield, but I share the same opinion about the older vs newer Nikons. I have owned and still own 1 of the newer SF models and to me my older Monarch UCC scopes have superior optics. The older UCC's are my favorite "Bang for the Buck" used scopes.

I have owned a few monarchs and 2 pro staffs, and the monarchs were way clearer and brighter. One prostaff was so bad I just couldn't deal with it and sent it down the road. I havent used the redfield, but I've always been fond of the Manarch and don't feel the Pro-staff is of any comparison.

A very informative thread.
Unless things have changed in the past two years Leupold makes the Redfield in the same factory as the Leupold products, including glass.

I am an upper end Leupold kind of gent, never skimping on optics. However, I did purchase this Redfield from OpticsPlanet three years ago. It sits atop my NEF 45/70, legal for muzzle loader hunting in Mississippi.

I have collected three deer in low light one of which was at the dark side of dusk. I did not feel like I was at all hampered under these conditions.

I have not used any Nikon rifle scopes so I cannot comment good or ill, I can say that the Redfield has met my rather lofty expectations for entry level optics. I would buy another.

i just ordered some redfield binos. hope the binos r as good as the scopes

I just got a Monarch 3 in the mail today, looks to be very nice glass, time will tell.

Had both and both are decent for their price range. They are not in the same ball park optically speaking. The monarch has noticeably better optics. The redfield is good enough though so either one will work on a hunting rig.

I sure wish there was a #4 reticle on the 3x9 Monarch. The Accurange reticle looks interesting but I would need to see it first to decide. Hmm.

Redfield Revolution all the way, bulldog tough, clear glass and a lifetime warranty second to none.

I have four of them, 2-7's a 3-9 and a 4-12.

Gunner

I'm gonna have to own a monarch someday. I have a red field rev 2-7 and believe it is brighter and clearer than my Leu vari x III. The turrets though don't have a crisp click on the red field...that would be my only detraction...still a great scope for the $$$$$ but shouldn't be in the class of a monarch or Nikon is in trouble.

Monarch or even buckmaster for that matter, no comparison at all.

That thing on the end of the ocular that you twist is for focusing the scope.Anyone who looks through a Redfield and thinks it is better than a Monarch must have not focused it in ..I have two early 3X9 Monarchs .One on a Remington 338 Win mag.and the other on a Winchester 300 win mag.Both have been to Alaska,BC and several horseback Elk hunts.I have never had any problems with the Nikons even after my horse stumbled and fell on the scabbard.Just sayin,Huntz

I'm with you on that! I wasn't going to bring this up, but I suggested the revolution (due to the rave reviews) to one of my friends about a year ago and it went tits up on him. He returned it and the store talked him into buying a prostaff . Now if you ask him, "the redfield is a POS". Just a sample of 1, but he'll never buy another one.

do not ever buy a prostaff

That's right. They are not in the same class optically speaking.

Agreed. I'd rate a Redfield about on par with a Bushnell Banner or a Tasco World Class.

Monarch has better glass, but I think Nikon is ashamed of us shooters. Go to Nikon.com, they don't even list riflescopes on the Sports Optics page!

The Revolution has very good glass, is very light weight, good eye relief and low light transmission, and they are not ashamed to be associated with shooting.

Redfield Revolution is on par with a VX-1 if I am not mistaken.

k22

I'm willing to bet that has more to do with regulatory issues on a global website in certain countries rather than anything else. Riflescopes are right on the front page of their "Americas" website.

I've pretty much decided on the Monarch. I've been looking for a deal on the 3x9 Team Primos version. Anyone have one they want to sell?.....

Fifth-You made the best choice.

K22-Actually they made a web-site just for us so we don't have to sort through all the other "stuff": www.nikonhunting.com/

Perhaps, but going to Zeiss.com, in any country, they have Hunting Optics listed on the front page. Maybe I'm just overly sensitive?