Nikon Monarch 2.5-10x42 vs. Leupold VX-II 3-9x40?
Hi everybody,
I'm looking at buying a deer hunting scope in about a month and can't decide what scope I want to buy. I've narrowed it down to the Nikon Monarch 2.5-10x42 with the BDC reticle and Leupold VX-II 3-9x40 with the long range duplex. Both of these scopes are in my price range and both seem to be good scopes. I've done a lot of research on the two but I'm no expert when it comes to all the aspects of scopes. I'm wondering if there's anything superior to either scope that would be a selling point for me. I'll be hunting a wide range of terrain from the thick Appalachian Mountains to the fields of the southeast to hopefully anywhere out west! I'm considering mounting the scope on a 7MM WSM or rem mag or just a .270 win. Would I have problems mounting these scopes on a long action rifle? I kind of like the wider magnification range and the larger lens of the Nikon but I hear such good things about the Leupolds and the VX-II is a little cheaper than the Monarch. Does anybody know anything about the quality of the lenses and their design or anything about the durability of the scopes. I will be hunting with the rifle and expect it to be able to withstand. If you have a different scope you like to suggest in the $350 range let me know. Any info will be helpful and highly appreciated!
I'm looking at buying a deer hunting scope in about a month and can't decide what scope I want to buy. I've narrowed it down to the Nikon Monarch 2.5-10x42 with the BDC reticle and Leupold VX-II 3-9x40 with the long range duplex. Both of these scopes are in my price range and both seem to be good scopes. I've done a lot of research on the two but I'm no expert when it comes to all the aspects of scopes. I'm wondering if there's anything superior to either scope that would be a selling point for me. I'll be hunting a wide range of terrain from the thick Appalachian Mountains to the fields of the southeast to hopefully anywhere out west! I'm considering mounting the scope on a 7MM WSM or rem mag or just a .270 win. Would I have problems mounting these scopes on a long action rifle? I kind of like the wider magnification range and the larger lens of the Nikon but I hear such good things about the Leupolds and the VX-II is a little cheaper than the Monarch. Does anybody know anything about the quality of the lenses and their design or anything about the durability of the scopes. I will be hunting with the rifle and expect it to be able to withstand. If you have a different scope you like to suggest in the $350 range let me know. Any info will be helpful and highly appreciated!
0
-
You can't go wrong with either.
Whichever one you like best is the better choice.
Nikon has great glass. If you prefer the greater magnification on the Nikon, go for it. If you can't tell a difference, then it doesn't make a difference.
Personally, I usually think having a lower minimum magnification is more important than a higher maximum one. (IE you're more likely to take a shot at under 100 yards than at over 300).0 -
Do some research on the warranties of both companies. Luepold's is a no question asked, no paperwork needed, on most problems. No you can't smash it flat with a hammer. But, I sent back a scope that I got off a rifle that blew up and they fixed it 100% for the cost of shipping. Nikon's warranty is another mater. It used to be all paperwork required and then only a limited warranty applied. This may have changed so you should look into it for yourself. Hunting can be tough on optics and a good warranty can save you some good money if that rifle is banged up or dropped out of a tree or something like that. Between the two I'd buy the Leupold or save some more and get a Burris Signature in similar power range. Good luck with whichever you go with...... 0 -
I second Beantown, except I would pass on both for Burris Signature Select. I also prefer lower magnification in hunting scopes. You can hit a long way out, further than I will shoot, with a 4x scope. 3x-9x are pretty much the hot flavor theses days, but you really don't need 9x or 10x.
Burris has a one word warrenty. Forever.0 -
My warranty experts agree Nikon+ leupold- I use love and respect nikon's products and if you break an eye peice on your binoculars they replace it and return it this weak. Couple coworkers and one family member have had problems with there (PROPERLY MOUNTED) later model leupold scopes and having sent them in multiple times the problem persists, they won't hold zero. One went burris two went nikon and no problems since. I think Leupolds mid range quality control is slipping. Just my humble experience, BOTH have good reputations in general....I would not hesitate to buy nikon based on warranty concerns. 0 -
I live out here in gods country, 65 miles from the Leupold factory,my aunt worked for them for years, I have an arm load of thier scopes that where bought at employees discount. I can get sameday turnaround on most repairs by just driving to the factory, 3 day if I mail it in. No questions, no hassel, just sorry you had a problem with our product, happy hunting. That said, last year I had a new 3X9 Leupold VX3 bought from Gabelas and a 3x9 Nikon I'd bought for a customer for $150 less, side by side, the Nikon had better light gathering and clearer optics than the Leupold. The light gathering realy impressed me. The big BUT is warenty, and turnaround time, if you've only one elk rifle, and an 10 day season, it could be important.
For what it's worth.
W.D.0 -
I am taking the side of He Dog. It is hard to beat Burris value and warranty. I own several Leupolds Burris, and Nikon's, and now a Couple NightForce's. Burris, $ for $ has better glass than Leupold, and a better warranty than Nikon.
Best0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments