I want either a 4.5-14 VX3 or a 3-12 or 4-16 monarch

Honest opinions is the leupold worth 200 more?

I like the idea of the side focus on the nikon but love the reliability and reputation of the leupold.

This is for my 257 wby

On a 257 Wby I'd go Nikon. The Leupold is a tougher scope in my experience, if you were shooting a .338 or .300 Mag, I'd go Leupold.

Both good scopes, go with what you like.

Both are great scopes, I own both. The leupold eye piece will be smaller if bolt clearance will be a issue.My Nikon seems a little more clear to my eye,but both are excellent

No, the Leupold is not worth $200 more. The eye relief and eye box is certainly better on the Leupy than the Monarch, but no where close to $200 better.

Buy the Monarch, and don't look back.

If you keep your eye out, there's a few VX-3's hitting the used market with some very nice savings over retail or Cabelas also had them on sale.

The leupold is probaly not worth the extra $200 in performance but nikon customer service is so [bleep] that I will gladly pay the extra money for the leupold.

Dink

Never had a problem with Nikon customer service. In fact, they've been better than good the two times I used them.

I have driven nikons for the last 10 years. Always been great scopes. To my eyes they are brighter and clearer than the Leupolds. YMMV

My VX3 B&C SF fell apart internally from the beating it takes on my ATV. The Nikon I replaced it with is still going strong. Ken

I really like the Nikon Monarch. To my eye its clearer than the Leupold, the eye relief is plenty, and thus far they seem plenty tough.

My exact experience and feelings on the issue.

I haven't had to use Nikon service in the last 2 or 3 years. When I did, it was the equal of Leupold. Has it changed, or was I lucky?

Never needed Nikon's service work so can't comment on that. Have had several Monarchs and several VXs. Both are great. You get great performance for less money with Nikon. You get a smaller, more compact package with Leupold. Both will get the job done just depends on what you need it for.

I'd take the Leupold simply to get the super tough Diamond Coat Coatings. That alone is worth it.
It has more eye box than the Nikon ? The VXIII Leupold 4.5-14X40's that I've played with certainly didn't have much of that. Which means the Nikon would be unacceptable to me. E

100% agree with Eremicus(fellow Leupold fan). Really take the time to look through the scopes you are comparing. Move your head around at different magifications. When shooting off the bench you can take the extra time to postion your head so the eye refief and box may not seem so critcal. But when you shoulder the rifle in a hunting situation do not want to have to move your head around to find the field of view.

I own both and love both. I have had no issues with Monarch's eyebox up to 4X12. Anything higher, I can't comment. I will say that I think Leupold wins on edge-to-edge clarity. I do think that Monarchs are as rugged, if not moreso, than any Leupold I own. I have one 2X7 that has been on everything including .375 and up to the worst kicking 12 ga. slug gun ever and its never failed. As for eyebox, the worst eyebox I've ever seen was a late '90s vintage B&L 3200 4X12.

Anyway, I've pretty much gravitated to Conquests. These are an awful lot of scope for the money.

I have 2 Leupold 4.5-14's and both work well. I also had a Nikon Monarch on a .375 H&H, and it was a good scope as well, for half the price. I wouldn't hesitate to get another one.