Nikon Monarch vs Buckmasters

D

Dennyr

Active member
I have several Monarch scopes but was wondering if they were worth the exra money compaired with a Buckmasters. Looking at 4.5-14 so the difference in price is quite a bit.
Thank you Denny
 
Quote:
no comparison in my opinion.....Monarch is a much better scope and worth the extra money



I have the Buckmaster (5 of them). Tell me what I am missing? Mine seem to be a quality piece of glass. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif
 
Monarch is better and worth the extra money.

Hidalgo,
The buckmasters are great glass for the money and will do the job, However if you are doing some really serious dawn and dusk hunting where you need that extra light transmission or needing to get out a far distance and need that extra bit of clarity you may look into the Monarch. Otherwise you will be just fine with the buckmasters.

Good Luck Buddy,
Rus
 
I agree with Radd4. I have a Monarch 5.5-16.5x44 & it did cost a little more but it is worth it for the light transmission & clarity.
 
I have no expierence with the Monarchs, I have 2 buckmasters 6-18 with the target dot reticle. I think they are the best buy out there in there price range. I guess it just depends on how far you are shooting with them. I have shot groundhogs at 500 yards and the clarity is pretty good at that range. I just prefer the parallax adjustment on the side rather up front. Thats why I use the buckmasters. I just picked up one today at cabelas for 300.00 Who says you cant talk them down. Originaly 350.00
 
I have two of each. Two Monarch 6.5-20x44 and two 4.5-14x40 Buckmasters. I have to agree that the Monarch is a much better built, clearer, brighter scope. The two Buckmasters are on 17 caliber rifles, an HMR and a Fireball. While the Monarchs are on a 223 REM and a 204 Ruger.

GrouseSetter
 
Quote:
I have no expierence with the Monarchs,



Well, they're pretty nice. Last year at the gun range the spotter couldn't see my shots with his spotting scope. I told him where they were with my Nikon 4-12 Monarch. That was .223 at 100 yards, which is a pretty decent test for clarity. Side focus would be a nice feature to have, I'll admit.
Hey, if Buckmasters work for you, go for it. All the Nikon's I've seen have been a good deal for the money. Their binoculars, too.
I used to maintain a bunch of Nikon binocular microscopes in a wafer fab. They were about $11,000 each 10 years ago, and the eyepieces were $850 each. The clarity was unbelieveable, crisp corner to corner and bright. Nikon isn't new to the optics game, their rifle scopes and binoculars are their "cheap" consumer stuff. I'd bet if they ever decide to get into the high-dollar scope business, everybody else is going to be in big trouble trying to compete.
 
The side focus on the Buckmasters is a nice touch. The new Monarchs have side focus. I got to take a look at them at the NRA Conventions in St. Louis. They were sweet, with some new power ranges.

GrouseSetter
 
Quote:
Quote:
no comparison in my opinion.....Monarch is a much better scope and worth the extra money



I have the Buckmaster (5 of them). Tell me what I am missing? Mine seem to be a quality piece of glass. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif



I had 2 3x9x40 and 1 3x9x50 Buckmasters myself then I looked through a $139 Pentax gameseeker and sold all 3. The Monarch has much better clarity and seems to have a lot more detailed view even at 40 yards
 
Quote:
......even at 40 yards



40 yards? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif Could you mean 4 hundred yards? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif
 
Back
Top