Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Nikon Monarch 5 vs Leupold VX3

KYhunter you do know you can get the VX3 in Boone and Crockett reticle. Its worked for me very well.

@PaulBarnard I just stumbled upon this conversation. I have some Monarch 5s that I would part with - several 2-10x42, a couple 3-15x42, one 5-25x50. Mostly like new. I hit the Natchez closeouts pretty hard a few years back.

I don't have enough membership status to PM you, but I expect you could PM me if interested. Cheers - Shane

Was the price of either scope ever mentioned......

I still have a Monarch 5 2.5-10. As far as brightness goes I’ll give you an example. 30 minutes after sundown, leafy overhung South Carolina creek bottom, watching downstream I had no problem keeping the crosshairs on a late moving grey squirrel 75 yards or so away moving around on a gravel bar. Had a VX3 3.5-10 and wasn’t impressed. Personally find a Burris FFII or E1 preferable and would buy one over the Leupold.

In my experience the biggest difference you will notice is that the eye box on the Nikon is not nearly as forgiving compared to Leupold. And yes, the Leupold is sketchy regarding tracking but seems to hold POI once you get her zeroed…..

Nikon introduced the Monarch 5 riflescopes in 2015. The outstanding feature of that riflescope series was the use of ED glass. At that time, only March scopes had ED glass in them. Nikon had always been a pioneer in optics for their cameras, and some of that spilled over to their sports optics. I recommended the Monarch 5 to friends, and they loved their scopes. Nikon was an innovator in the fact they brought in ED glassed riflescopes at a price point under $2000 and more, the Monarch 5 was between $600 and $900 depending on the model. It was way better than any Leupold at the time.