Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold or Nikon

OK, I think I have the scope for the new M700 280 Remington down to one of two choices: either the Nikon Monarch 3-9x40 ($299) or the Leupold VX-II 3-9x40 ($271.21).

I have not compared these scopes side by side. My only point of reference is the two scopes I have now:

Currently, I have a VX-1 2-7x33 mounted on my 6mm Rem and a Leupold Vari-X II 3-9x40 mounted on my 7x57.

Honestly, will the Nikon Monarch or the VX-II be that much of an improvement over what I have now? Or am I in for a let-down?

Thanks.

Maybe I should just sell the 280 Remington and buy an iron sighted lever action <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Hang on .... I wanna throw some pop-corn in the microwave <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Your price on the Nikon sucks. You should be able to get it for around $250.

On a hard kicker, Leupold. On a light kicker, Nikon. Leupold has better eye relief.

I have a couple bags full of Nikon cameras and lens....and love them and their quality and durability......but in scopes.....I have a dozen Leupolds......my gun dealer is upset with Leupold now because of the special cheap line for the Mart's but still reccomends the VX lines over Nikon in scopes.........and Leupold's service/warranty has few equals or peers.....see Nikon warranty post on board???????? I'll stick with Leupold VXII or better for my use...for now?......hth...good luck and good shooting!!

Compare them side-by-side and pick the one that looks best to your eyes.

I don't think you could go wrong with either. I have both and would actually purchase the cheaper of the two at this point.

Ford or Chevy?

I have several Nikon Monarch UCC 3x9x40 scopes, and a Nikon laser rangefinder. I love them all. Light transmission is excellent.

Warranty? Never needed to use it.

This is, of course, not to say anything bad about Leupold.

My suggestion is to find a dealer that will allow you to look through each, and you decide which looks clearer and transmits light better.

Leupold, cuz it's made in America, and it has more ER. J

You gotta love 'made in the USA'. There are very few complaints, ever, about Leupold.

It should say assembled in the USA.

I am leaning towards a Zeiss...

Nikon Monarchs on 4 rifles now, including 2 of the 3x9 variety. I find them to be excellent quality. I might go back to Leupold though due to the incredible resale value on them. The Nikon 6x would be a very nice scope as well. You should be able to buy 2 of these scopes for one Zeiss. Good luck with your decision.

What part of the Leupold is not made in the USA?

There glass is not made here.

That hardly constitutes just "assembled" in the US don't you think? In fact, some of the glass Leupold uses is made in the US by a small firm in, I believe, PA. Granted, most is off-shore, but there are few glass manufacturers in the world.

I rescently purchased two scopes, and I was making the same choice you are now, monarch, or VX-II. These where the best prices I could find on the models.

VX-II 4-12x40AO, Wide Duplex, Matte
Leu56985 $380 24hourcampfire.com

VX-II 3-9x40, Wide Duplex, Matte
Leu56855 $270 24hourcampfire.com

Monarch UCC Scope 4-12x40 AO
#6545 $345 theopticzone.com

Monarch 3-9x40, Nikoplex,
#6528 $273 theopticzone.com

These are the stats that matter, at least to me.
Leupold VX-II
Light Transmission 92%
Eye Relief: 4.7(4x) 3.7(12x)
4.7(3x) 3.7(9x)

Nikon Monarch
Light Transmission: 95%
Eye Relief: 3.6(4x) -3(12x)
3.6(3x)-3.5(9x)


In the end, I bought the Leupolds, because, well, I guess I like the little extra eye relief it offered, and to me, a less critical eye box, means when I have only seconds to make a shot and I swing my rifle up, I am more likely to be in a position where I am able to make the shot without shifting my head for proper allignment. The VX-II also offers a slightly larger FOV at higher magnifications, which may be more attractive to certain hunters.

In the end, both are great scopes, Currently, I believe that nikon is making the glass in both of them. So at that point you have to decide:

Nikon monarch:
Less money
slightly better performance at twilight
single piece tube

Leupold VX-II
better resale value (only if you might sell it someday)
slightly larger Field of View at high magnification
Less critical eye box and greater eye relief

In the end, I think they are about the same, neither one will leave you feeling disappointed.

I would however, recommend a pair of burris signature rings. They are the ones with the nylon inserts, best rings I have ever used.

dogcatcher223,was on the money with the points he made. In my experience, the Monarch has better glass than the VIII, and is head and shoulders above the VII. Way to many great things have been said about the Monarch's to be untrue. Heck, even the Buckmaster Nikon has better glass than the VII, IMO. Check here with Doug on pricing on the Monarch. He really knows his stuff and is a great guy to boot. If you are thinking Zeiss Conquest, well, it really doesn't get much better than that. I'm sure you probably know this, but, the real test on optics goes on outside the showroom. Get the Conquest price from Doug ( cameralandny ) for a 3-9x40. Zeiss is comming out with some new lower range variables as well.

If all the parts are not made here and they have parts coming in from other companies outside the USA in order to complete their product, then what do you call it? The most important part of the scope (the glass) is made outside the USA to me that constitutes assembled.

So should we call the glass maker the manufacturer? The glass is certainly critical to the construction of a scope, but Leupold is much more than an assembler.