OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Scopes > Rifle Scopes
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Monarch 2.5-10x42 vs 4200 2.5-10x40
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials.

Monarch 2.5-10x42 vs 4200 2.5-10x40

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote boliodogs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Monarch 2.5-10x42 vs 4200 2.5-10x40
    Posted: June/24/2009 at 10:57
I like the specs on both of these scopes but I have never seen one. I would like to here from people who know both of these scopes well. How do they compare for reliablity and optical quality and recoil resistance. How much do they really weigh and how much eye relief do they really have. I have seen catalog specs as much as 4 ounces off on the weight most often with the scope being heaviier than advertised. I have seen the eye relief be off by up to an inch usually on the short side. Thanks for your help.
Back to Top
bagderRed View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/17/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 159
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bagderRed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 12:45
FWIW I looked at a Nikon Monarch 2.5-10x42 at a local store and was comparing it to a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40.  The Zeiss I have owned and is very good, the Nikon I have not.  But anyways, the Nikon to my eyes looked every bit as good as the Zeiss, granted it was in a store setting not in actual conditions.  It gave me the same "look" I guess that I grew very fond of in the ZEiss, and seemed well made.  Technical tests might test out otherwise.  Durabilty questions have been raised though.  The Elite 4200 has been reported many a time as very durable. 
 
BAdger


Edited by bagderRed - June/24/2009 at 13:14
Back to Top
Dshusker View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/09/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 103
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dshusker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 15:18
Both good scopes. The Rainguard on the 4200 gives it the edge from my perspective. The optics are comparable.
Back to Top
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote boliodogs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 16:24
Thank you both for the good information. They sound like equals and the price is close to.
Back to Top
ccoker View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: February/13/2008
Location: Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Points: 2041
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ccoker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 16:35
I have owned to 4200s, of different sizes and several monarchs
to MY eyes, the monarchs seem a little better


Back to Top
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 20844
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cheaptrick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 16:40
Originally posted by ccoker ccoker wrote:

I have owned to 4200s, of different sizes and several monarchs
to MY eyes, the monarchs seem a little better


 
How's the eye relief on the 4200, in your experience, Coke?
I like the Monarch based on my good experience, but think both are near equal in the optics department.
If at first you don't secede...try..try again.
Back to Top
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote boliodogs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 16:45
I have been doing so much scope research that I forgot I did dheck out a monarch 2.5-10x42 at the store and they let me weigh it and check eye relief. It weighed 15 plus ounces somewhat below catalog weight and the eye relief was good but probably not a full 4 inches. 3.7 would be my quess. I have never seen the 4200.in any model.
Back to Top
Chris Farris II View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar
MODERATOR

Joined: August/13/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3196
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chris Farris II Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 16:56
They are VERY close to one another.
One day your life will flash before your eyes; Make sure it's worth watching.
Back to Top
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Roy Finn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 17:21
Where is the new Monarch made?
Back to Top
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 20844
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cheaptrick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 17:26
Originally posted by Roy Finn Roy Finn wrote:

Where is the new Monarch made?
 
I think their made in the PI, Roy. At least mine was.
If at first you don't secede...try..try again.
Back to Top
bagderRed View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/17/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 159
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bagderRed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 18:14

Roy Finn,

I think I might of read somewhere that the Elite 4200 3-9x40 for some reason doesn't do it as good(optically) as the 2.5-10x40.  If this has been said, what is your opinion? 
 
Don't mean to interrupt the current replies Bolio.  Sorry.
 
BAdger


Edited by bagderRed - June/25/2009 at 19:18
Back to Top
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote boliodogs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 18:19
Thanks for the new information. I recieved two monarch scopes that I ordered before I joined this forum. These monarchs got here two days ago and they were made in P. I. I Think all nikons are made there now. These were an african 1-4x20 and 2-8x32 and every nikon they had at sportsman wherehouse was made in P. I. Nice looking scopes. The eye relief on my 2-8 x32 was about 3.7 and the african a full 4 inches. The 2-8 weighed 13.1 ounces and the african weighed 11.9 ounces on my scale.
Back to Top
bagderRed View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/17/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 159
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bagderRed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/25/2009 at 19:20
Bolio, what do you think of the little 2-8x32?  Does the ocular look out of place being bigger than the objective?
Back to Top
1911man View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: May/17/2009
Location: NW AR
Status: Offline
Points: 165
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 1911man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/25/2009 at 21:51
No question. Go with the Japanese made Bushnell 4200 rather than the Philipino made Nikon.
 
I have both scopes and the Bushnells are simply the best scopes for the money.
Bill Wilson
www.wilsoncombat.com
Back to Top
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote boliodogs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/25/2009 at 23:20

I love it. It looks good to me. The fact that the high power is 4 times greater than the low power instead less than 3 times greater is wonderful and a first time experience for me. To get this feature in a leupold I have to get a vx-7 that is way out of my price range. My favorite all around scope in a leupold I can afford is the vx3 2.5-8x36. In this scope I have a low of 2.6 and a field of37.5 ft. and  a high of 7.8 a very useful  power range for the type of hunting I do. The monarch has a low of 2.0 with a field of 46.2ft. so it is a little better for very close shooting on moving game. At the high end the monarch is 8.0 so it a little better here to although 7.8 is plenty for the longest shot I would take at bige game. I love the vx3 and I will probably buy more of them. But if the monarch is completely reliable then  I would be very happy with the 2-8x32 on all my rifles for all my hunting as it completely covers all my needs in a scope. It is reasonably light weight with very good eye relief and for low light hunting  you can set it on 4.6 power with afull 7,0 exit pupil. I am to much of a collector to settle for one model of scope and I will buy a 2.5-10x40 4200  or a monarch 2.5-10x42 soon. Do you have a favorite between these two. You may have already told me this but I want to get this post finished before I check.

Back to Top
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote boliodogs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/26/2009 at 00:10
1911 man I just read your last post and I will send off for the 4200 2.5-10x40  in the silver finish I like. Do you have both scopes in the 2.5-10x40 and 2.5-10x42. Which is better in low light. Have you had any problems with either the bushnell or the monarch. The owner of both scopes is great information. Thank you and thanks everyone for your help. At age 65 would I get any extra low light advantage with a 2.5-10x50 or would the cheaper lighter handier 40 take care of my needs. I will get the 2.5-10x40 for sure but 1 could put a 2.5-10x50 on another rifle as a special low light hunter if does gain me a low light advantage.
Back to Top
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote boliodogs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/26/2009 at 00:43
1911 man I reread  some of the older posts on my questions on monarchs and you said  you did have problems with monarcks and none. with bushnell. I
have two 3006 rifles that weigh 8lbs. and 9lbs. do you think the monarcks would hold up on  them. The two monarchs I have are nice scopes and I would  like to use them. The monarchs get mixed reviews for reliability while almost everyone seems to trust conquests 4200s and vx3s so I stick with these three brands from now on.
Back to Top
martin3175 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Points: 3773
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote martin3175 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/26/2009 at 06:10
I have both ..Had great luck with 4200"s on everything from two 45/70 's ( 4200 1.5-6) , 300 WBY's ( 2.5 -10 )and a 300 Ultramag (2.5-10)--very good optics ..the rainguard works...and their plenty rugged. I also have several Monarchs ( 2-7's , one 3x9 , and recently  two 2-8's ) . the 2-7's are Japanese made ,and and seem tough as nails..I can't say that for the 2-8's--They just "feel" less substantial. I mounted one on an 7.62x39 AR-15 and the other on a 7mm/08 ..they are optically quite nice ,and so far no issues, but these are mild kicking rifles. I did have one of those awful Nikon customer service nighmares with what was a 3 week old Monarch ( Phillipines made) that failed to track. They tried to charge me $200 to repair it . Took 6 weeks to clear up .... I'd stick with the 4200..


Edited by martin3175 - June/26/2009 at 06:14
Back to Top
ti-force View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: August/28/2008
Location: Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 195
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ti-force Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/26/2009 at 07:58
Originally posted by boliodogs boliodogs wrote:

At age 65 would I get any extra low light advantage with a 2.5-10x50 or would the cheaper lighter handier 40 take care of my needs. I will get the 2.5-10x40 for sure but 1 could put a 2.5-10x50 on another rifle as a special low light hunter if does gain me a low light advantage.
 
 I've done a great deal of research on here and I've read quite a few posts from some of the most knowledgeable members on this site. From what I've gathered, objective size makes little to no difference in low light hunting. The quality of the glass is what makes the biggest difference in low light hunting.
 
 Unfortunately, I learned this after buying a Nikon Monarch Gold 2.5-10x56. I bought it mostly because I was mislead by a local gun shop, who said a 30mm tube and 56mm objective will be the brightest scope you can buy. Now, because of the knowledgeable and generous people on this website, I know better.
Back to Top
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote boliodogs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/26/2009 at 08:20
Martim3175 thank you. I love the silver scopes. The 4times power spread  gives me a close range scope with a 41.5 field of view with a full 10 power for my longest shots and 100 yard sight in groops. A perfect scope for my 300 ultramag. Bushnell says it can handle 10000 shots on a 375 hh. My 2008 catalog does not list a 4200 1.5-6. What is the objective size on the 1.5-6. What is the weight f.o.v. and eye relief like. Can I still buy a new 4200 1.5-6 anywhere. I just noticed the 4200 4-16x40. That is a scope I do not need but would still like to have even just to look at stuff in 16 power.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.111 seconds.