Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Monarch 2.5-10x42 vs 4200 2.5-10x40 |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | |
boliodogs
Optics Apprentice Joined: June/20/2009 Status: Offline Points: 212 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
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.
|
|
bagderRed
Optics Apprentice Joined: May/17/2004 Status: Offline Points: 159 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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 |
|
Dshusker
Optics Apprentice Joined: November/09/2008 Status: Offline Points: 103 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Both good scopes. The Rainguard on the 4200 gives it the edge from my perspective. The optics are comparable.
|
|
boliodogs
Optics Apprentice Joined: June/20/2009 Status: Offline Points: 212 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thank you both for the good information. They sound like equals and the price is close to.
|
|
ccoker
Optics Master Joined: February/13/2008 Location: Austin, TX Status: Offline Points: 2041 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have owned to 4200s, of different sizes and several monarchs
to MY eyes, the monarchs seem a little better |
|
cheaptrick
MODERATOR Joined: September/27/2004 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 20844 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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.
|
|
boliodogs
Optics Apprentice Joined: June/20/2009 Status: Offline Points: 212 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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.
|
|
Chris Farris II
TEAM SWFA - Admin MODERATOR Joined: August/13/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3196 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
They are VERY close to one another.
|
|
One day your life will flash before your eyes; Make sure it's worth watching.
|
|
Roy Finn
MODERATOR Steiner Junkie Joined: April/05/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4856 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Where is the new Monarch made?
|
|
cheaptrick
MODERATOR Joined: September/27/2004 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 20844 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I think their made in the PI, Roy. At least mine was.
|
|
If at first you don't secede...try..try again.
|
|
bagderRed
Optics Apprentice Joined: May/17/2004 Status: Offline Points: 159 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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 |
|
boliodogs
Optics Apprentice Joined: June/20/2009 Status: Offline Points: 212 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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.
|
|
bagderRed
Optics Apprentice Joined: May/17/2004 Status: Offline Points: 159 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Bolio, what do you think of the little 2-8x32? Does the ocular look out of place being bigger than the objective?
|
|
1911man
Optics Apprentice Joined: May/17/2009 Location: NW AR Status: Offline Points: 165 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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 |
|
boliodogs
Optics Apprentice Joined: June/20/2009 Status: Offline Points: 212 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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. |
|
boliodogs
Optics Apprentice Joined: June/20/2009 Status: Offline Points: 212 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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.
|
|
boliodogs
Optics Apprentice Joined: June/20/2009 Status: Offline Points: 212 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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.
|
|
martin3175
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: January/19/2005 Location: Maryland Status: Offline Points: 3773 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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 |
|
ti-force
Optics Apprentice Joined: August/28/2008 Location: Georgia Status: Offline Points: 195 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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.
|
|
boliodogs
Optics Apprentice Joined: June/20/2009 Status: Offline Points: 212 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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.
|
|
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |