Nikon Monarch or Bushnell elite

B

bigtommy

Member
I am looking for a scope for my AR and have it doen to the bushnell Elite or the Nikon Monarch. What are everyones thoughts on these two scopes. Power will be in the 3-10 range.
 
What reticle you thinking? I'm a big fan of the Nikon line and just got a new M-223 for my AR. Haven't had it out yet, but looking forward to it.

I went that way because I have a Nikon atop the bolt action. It has served me well.
 
I have 3 monarks they are very clear , i have the
223 on my ar also and a 3 to 12 on a savage very good scopes , i also have had zeiss to compare them to the monarks are
a very good value
 
I've got 3 bushnell elites and love them. I have about 3" eye relief on 5-15-40 bushnell 3200 and the 4200 on my 308 and 22-250 are more that that.
 
I have both and haven't had any problems with either.

However, I have the Elite 4200 and the glass is slightly better than the Monarch.

I always wondered when Bushnell went from Elite 3200 and 4200 to just Elite, which glass they went with (3200 or 4200).

FYI- The 3200 is not as clear/bright around the edges.
 
I have a 4200 and it is a good scope though I prefer Leupold. Never used the Nikon's as they didn';t look bright enough to me in the store but they seem to have an almost cult like following so they must be great scopes.
 
I have one Nikon Monarch and 3 Bushnell 3200 Elites. I really can't tell much of a difference in them. I like the Bushnell parallex adjustment location better than I do on the Nikon, but if push came to shove, I would probably pick the Monarch, because it is supposed to be a little higher quality scope.
 
Nikon would be my vote between the 2 mainly because of the eye relief being a little longer. I like the Bushnell 4200 that I have, but the Nikon glass is just as good in my opinion.

I am a little biased though since I too am a Nikon Cult Member!!!
 
All is good with my Nikons. I have not had a Bushnell elite before so I can't compare. I have had cheaper Bushnells years ago, but upgraded.
 
I've had 3-4 Monarchs and a couple 3200s and 4200s. I would say the 4200 and the Monarch are very comparable. The 3200 is more comparable to a Prostaff than a Buckmaster IMO, glass-wise.

I'm not a fan of the higher powered models of Bushnell or Nikon. That said, the Monarch and 4200 3-9x40s are both very good scopes. I think the 4200 can be had for less($200), so that would be my pick of the 2. The reality is, however, I would rather spend less and get a Weaver Classic, which is every bit as good or better than both, IMO. When I go "higher" than Weaver, VX2 is the next step......
 
Flip a coin. I have a 4200 and a 6500 Elite and my father has a monarch. I personally can't really tell the difference.

I know it hasn't been compared yet, but...both my Elites are superior to my VX2 if that matters.
 
I have a monarch and really like the clarity nice scope. But have never owned a bushnell 3200/4200 scope so I can't compare.
 
I have both Bushnell Elites 3200 and 4200's and Monarchs. The Monarchs are a little clearer to my eyes. Either scope should give you great service.
 
Back
Top