SmallCaliberCentral

As an avid photographer I know just how well Nikon lenses are(were) made. It therefore followed by way of logic that their scopes should be of equal quality. Contrast and resolution being of such high value to me I made a purchase of a Monarch 4-16x42 BDC. I either got a bad scope, or Nikon has really dropped the ball. Virtually all of my other scopes are superior to this Nikon. Even my cheapest Simmons beats this Nikon and they all focus closer to boot! So, should I send it to Nikon, or just sell it and take my losses? Have any of you had similar problems?

I've got the same in 4X16X50 BDC I am disappointed as well

I might have to eat a liitle crow here, after recommending Monarchs to others. I had a new 5-20X out yesterday on a gloomy but not particularly dark afternoon, and, try as I could, I couldn't focus well enough on a 300-yard groundhog to take a shot; in fact, these eyes were feeling strained trying to. I had another SF model previously and it seemed more like my old AO one in light-gathering and detail. Wish I'd had my 6-18 Buckmaster along to compare it with, as clarity and brightness has never been an issue with that lower-priced one, just the "tunnel vision". When I caught a fair amount of right-angle sun things sharpened up a bit, but I'm also a fairly-disappointed Monarch owner at this point.
I might be looking at Minox (Leica) next.

A new Monarch 4-16x50SF bought late last year was my first and probably last Nikon scope. Got the Monarch after reading many reviews by owners that swore they preferred it over their Leupolds. Mine isn’t even remotely close having all the issues mentioned above. Bought another Leupold and so far the Nikon is still back in its box.

This seems to be an extremely common complaint with the Monarch scopes. It is tarnishing Nikon's good name and I sure hope they get it corrected.

As bad as the Monarch seems to be, the Nikon Buckmaster is a very impressive. I have a Buckmaster in the 4.5-14x variety and I would not hesitate for a second to buy another.

My last Monarch 6-24x Side Focus was so bad that I sent it back for inspection and repair. It came back with no change whatever. Both that scope and an older Monarch now sit on a shelf in the safe. What really blew me away was the comparison between two 6-24x Bushnell Elite 4200's and a 6-20x Clearidge XP fired on the same day - crystal clear, sharp focus and plenty of contrast. Nikon cameras may be worth the $8000 my friend just spent on a new D3X, but the scopes are are just not up to par.

Wrangler John wrote:My last Monarch 6-24x Side Focus was so bad that I sent it back for inspection and repair. It came back with no change whatever. Both that scope and an older Monarch now sit on a shelf in the safe.

Son-of-a-gun...so is mine. Up to 16-17x it's OK, but beyond that it's not as good and to bad too, because Nikon knows how to make glass. Mine is a 6-24x50 and IMO, my 6.5-20x44 was sharper on the higher end.

Jim: All my camera equipment says Nikon, and for good reason: they KNOW how to build camera lenses.

BUT....all my scopes are Leupold, and for good reason: they know how to built RIFLESCOPES, at least IMHO.

I went through a few Nikon scopes in my early years.....never been back since.

Rick in Oregon wrote:Jim: All my camera equipment says Nikon, and for good reason: they KNOW how to build camera lenses.

BUT....all my scopes are Leupold, and for good reason: they know how to built RIFLESCOPES, at least IMHO.

I went through a few Nikon scopes in my early years.....never been back since.

Its to bad too because Nikon knows how to make lenses, there are several of their LITHO machines at work. Basically, my 6-24 scope is a 6-18 scope. If I had never looked thru anything else I wouldn't know any better but that bridge has long disappeared from my rear view mirror. For now that scope it sits on the shelf. I do have a 4.5-14x40 Buckmaster (older AO style) on my 17 HMR and it works quite well. It has a wider FOV than the current SF model which I personally didn't care for. To me it was kinda like looking down a 1" pipe. In time they will be replaced.

Jim

Ongoing thread over at swfa's www.opticstalk.com on this very subject. Most defenders of the new Monarchs seem to own only the lower-power ones.

Hmm, I cannot speak for the Monarch line of scopes. Due too budget constraints, I purchased a cheaper 4x12 x mildot Nikon Pro staff for my AR. I only wanted 12 x glass as I seldom need it turned up that high when calling Coyotes. I have had this scope for over a year and am pleased, it holds zero excellent. I have even expermented with dialing one way or other say 4 or 5 cliks and back to my zero and it is perfect every time! I have a 6.5x 20 x50mm Leupold on my 22-250 and bye comparison the Leupold on 12 power isnt much clearer! The Leupold does have a finer cross hair that I prefer. For the 500.00 diference in price I will take another Nikon! I had read rave reveiws about the Monarch scopes? I may try a new Redfeild onmy next build?

Didn't you ever wonder why one can find so many Nikon scopes on close outs, refurbished sales, and look at the various web sites company's you will find Nikon for sale everywhere. This should be a clue as to their quality issues. I had a range finder go south, sent to them for repair, $379 plus shipping to fix, I could by a new one from Cabelas, of all places for less money than the repair. I HAVE NO NIKON PRODUCTS!!!!!!NOR WILL I EVER!!!!!!!

I probably wont go so far as to say never will own another Nikon product, however after my cousin and I both bought new Nikon Monarch scopes, I'm going with Leopold or Nightforce. A Leopold Rifleman scope (Leopolds cheapest) is far superior in lens quality than our 500 dollar Nikons. I wish I'd have bought the 200 dollar Leupy and saved 300 bucks and I wouldnt have to look through the fog. LOL

That's "LEUPOLD" not "LEOPOLD". Sorry to be so picky but people everywhere try to force that name into something it isn't. I guess I get sore over the issue because people do the same thing with my own name. I think Leupold should just change their name to Smith.

you are correct, thanks for catching my error