How do you guys who've owned and used both the Leupold and Nikon Monarch scopes feel about these two lines? Which Leupold line do you think the Monarchs match up to?

I've got one Nikon, it's an old 2X7UCC Monarch. I have several Leupolds from VariX II to VXIII. I would rate the Monarch better than the VariX II and VX I and equal to the old VariX III and newer VX II. Mine has been tougher than nails and taken plenty of hard use without a problem.

I've got an older Monarch 2x7 (pre euro focus) and a VX II 3x9. I like them the same overall. The Leupold has the advantage of more reticle choices. IMHO Nikon screwed the pooch when they dropped the Monarch 3x9. A fine scope at a good rice.

I'd call it a push other than Leupolds are a bit more streamlined IMO and the Leupold guarentee is the best in the modern world..

I've got an older Monarch UCC 3x9x42 and an older VX II 3x9x40, both good scopes and pretty equal in my opinion.

The new Monarch Gold vs. The new Leupold VX3 is also pretty close. The VX3 is brighter to my eyes so I give Leupold the edge on these models. Both are good scopes though.

The new Monarch X's have glass etched reticles and a more robust adjustment system than the reg. Monarch or Monarch Gold. I've got one ordered to put on a new 7mm WSM but can't give an opinion until after I shoot it awhile.

I own 2 monarch 2.5-10x50 scopes and they are just as good as a vx3, and in my opinon better, I think they are one of the better $400 doller scopes available.

I own the Monarch 2 x 7, and Leupold VXI, VXII, and VXIII, and I'd put the Monarch as bright as the VXIII. The Nikon has less eye relief, however.

The Nikon 2X7 Monarchs rate equivalent to the Leupold VX II scopes, however, the Leupolds win in the warranty department.

The 2.5X8 VXIIIs are in another class all together...

I own 2 comparable scopes of each brand.
A Leupold Vari-X III 6,5-20x40 AO and a Nikon Monarch 6,5-20x44 AO. While definitely not in the same league as my Swarovski 6,5-24x50 AO, both are very good and quite close in performance. I would tend to find the Nikon's image a mite better, though.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=16&Number=3034689

I have a Nikon Monarch 3-9 that's clearer and brighter to my eyes than my VariX-III 2.5-8.

I recently acquired a 4-16 x42 Nikon Monarch and it is, at least to my eye, noticeably clearer than the Leupy 3.5-10.

I have had several of the Nikon Buckmasters 4.5-14 and they are noticeably clearer than the VX I and VX II.

Monarch has clearer, brighter glass. And constant 4" eye relief on the 4X16. Solid clicks on the windage and elevation adjustments, also.

I'll agree with the clarity, but my 2.5-8 Leupy is more useful dawn and dusk than the 2-8x32 Monarch I have. As long as you don't need that little bit of extra eye relief I'm sure you'll do fine.

Stick with Leupy IMO.

I have several Monarchs and Leupies. The Monarchs IMO have better glass than the Varis up to the VX3, but all of the leupie and Nikon products I own are great IMO. I'm speaking in terms of clarity on paper targets, durability, and brightness in the field.

Everyone has their own favorites. With the rifle scopes of Nikon and Leupie that I use, I rate them(good to better):

Nikon Prostaff
Nikon Pre-Monarch
Leupie VariX2
Nikon BMs
Leupie VX2
Leupie VariX3
Leupie VX3
Nikon Monarch
Nikon Monarch Gold

Have a Good One,

loder

sold 2 golds and a 4x16 tac last year because leupy has better glass imo especially the long range models and MK4s, Nikon has nothing to compete with these IMO. Nikon just doesn't do it for me, they are ok for the money but belong in a different relm(lower) than leupy imo. Their bins are another story. Also better service from Leupold I think.

I am by no means an optics expert (boy, that's an understatement). However, I do own both Leupold and Monarch scopes. The Leupold is a FX3 6 x 42 with the HD reticle. The Nikon is one of the new 2.5 x 10 Monarchs with a constant 4" of eye relief. I did not buy the Monarch (I really like and use fixed power scopes) but, when I sent in a old Monarch 4x scope to be repaired, I was sent the newer scope at no cost, since apparently the old 4x was not being made by Nikon anymore. When I got it, I also went out and bought a lottery ticket but I was not so lucky.

Anyway, one night I took both of these scopes to do my own very unscientific test. There was a full moon out and the woods behind my home was about 50 yds away. There were some trees, which provided shade, in between me and the woods. I looked into the woods, as well as into the areas shaded by the trees. I realize that someone else may have gotten different results, since this type of test is so subjective. However, to me the Nikon provided a brighter site picture. With this being said, I can tell you that I do like the Leupold and can attest to its toughness (don't ask me how I know). Based on my informal testing, this past season I used the Nikon for hunting, though I will not hesitate to use the Leupold should the Nikon go belly up.

Of course all of the above-stated observations are based only a sample of 1 type of each scope, which is not very representative. Thus, I really cannot comment on what Leupold scopes are comparable to the Nikon line.

I hope this helps.

I bought my first Leupold scope over 20 years ago and still have it. Last year, Leupold announced new accessory lens protectors and offered to thread the old scopes to accommodate the new accessories at a nominal cost. I purchased the new lens protectors and Leupold modified my old scope to fit them.

Leupold is still providing service and support for products that are over 20 years old. This is a commitment that we rarely see in America anymore.

+1 on leupold

I want to try that 2 x 8 Monarch for my next scope.