OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Scopes > Rifle Scopes
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Conquest 3-9x40 vs. Monarch 2.5-10x50mm
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Conquest 3-9x40 vs. Monarch 2.5-10x50mm

 Post Reply Post Reply
Poll Question: Which one would you picks for Eastern Kentucky Elk Hunting?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
15 [93.75%]
1 [6.25%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Message
Palehorse View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/16/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 135
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Palehorse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Conquest 3-9x40 vs. Monarch 2.5-10x50mm
    Posted: October/21/2009 at 12:18
Last minute upgrade before deer season.   Which one and why; thanks in advance.
Back to Top
trigger29 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ?

Joined: September/29/2007
Location: South Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 4353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote trigger29 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/21/2009 at 12:34
I think the Conquest has great glass, the 3-9 configuration is very practical for hunting, and 40 mm gives good mounting height. I like my Monarch, but love my Conquest even more.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Back to Top
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22034
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pyro6999 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/21/2009 at 12:35
Originally posted by trigger29 trigger29 wrote:

I think the Conquest has great glass, the 3-9 configuration is very practical for hunting, and 40 mm gives good mounting height. I like my Monarch, but love my Conquest even more.

i agree with you jason, the monarch is no slouch, but the conquest is for sure better.
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead"

343 we will never forget

God Bless Chris Ledoux
"good ride cowboy"
Back to Top
danjojoUSMC View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: August/20/2009
Location: NE Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 329
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote danjojoUSMC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/21/2009 at 15:36
Is the Conquest really that much better when you can get the Monarch for 60% of the price?
"When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be"



"Every part of life comes into focus just as you are about to pull the trigger."
Back to Top
John Barsness View Drop Down
Optics Optimist
Optics Optimist


Joined: January/27/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John Barsness Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/21/2009 at 18:51
In my experience the Conquest is tougher. If everything else is rated equal, toughness tips it for me. You can't hit something if the scope is out of zero.
Back to Top
trigger29 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ?

Joined: September/29/2007
Location: South Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 4353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote trigger29 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/21/2009 at 18:56
Have beat myself to death with a lightweight .300 wby. Conquest has laughed at me, and keeps on truckin'. My nose isn't so fortunate.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Back to Top
John Barsness View Drop Down
Optics Optimist
Optics Optimist


Joined: January/27/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John Barsness Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/21/2009 at 21:44
That has been my experience as well--except my Conquests have been mounted far enough forward that I don't get whacked! They have GREAT eye relief--if the mounts allow.
Back to Top
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 14560
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mike650 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/21/2009 at 22:02
Another vote for the conquest.
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear
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: October/22/2009 at 04:02
Originally posted by John Barsness John Barsness wrote:

In my experience the Conquest is tougher. If everything else is rated equal, toughness tips it for me. You can't hit something if the scope is out of zero.
 
I also love the Conquest, but have had a 3.5-10x fail and never a Monarch. Or any Nikon for that matter. Wink
 
I do think the Conquest is a better scope than the Monarch over all, but only slightly. 
Back to Top
bugsNbows View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
bowsNbugs

Joined: March/10/2008
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 11196
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bugsNbows Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/22/2009 at 06:27
I'll also vote for the Conquest. I only have one now, but it has displayed zero issues to date. 
If we're not suppose to eat animals...how come they're made of meat?
               Anomymous
Back to Top
jonbravado View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1131
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jonbravado Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/22/2009 at 09:06
both scopes are good for the money - is the conquest 60% better than the monarch? no.


I have beat both without mercy and they both hold up fine.

In 95% of scenarios, the monarch will perform as well as the conquest.  In my opinion of course - whatever that is worth.
Back to Top
FunShot View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: February/18/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 91
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FunShot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/25/2009 at 23:56
At the power you are taking about, for me the monarch and conquest are arguably equal when it comes to image alone. It will all boil down to your personal preference. Overall the conquest is arguably the better scope and if you have the money go for it.
I've done a side by side comparison of a monarch and a conquest, under  10x  power, image quality is very similar. Above 10x and specially 12x + and most evident at 20x, image clarity and resolution is better on the conquest. I have the side focus models and with 20x power on both scopes, i get better resolution and contrast on the conquest on far off objects like more than a kilometer away.
Under 10x, monarch or conquest, you can't go wrong with either. Let me warn you though that before 2009, there are lots of factory smuggled philippine made scopes, either defective, below standard, or reject scopes that have made it out of the factory onto the black market, specially nikon and bushnell legend scopes as well as a few burris scopes so be wary of your purchase of one and make sure you order only from reliable sources. Wink
Back to Top
Randall45 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: June/25/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 284
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Randall45 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2009 at 09:30
Originally posted by John Barsness John Barsness wrote:

In my experience the Conquest is tougher. If everything else is rated equal, toughness tips it for me. You can't hit something if the scope is out of zero.
Yes the Conquest is tougher than the Nikon Monarch in my personal experience.Also the Conquest optics are so much better to my eyes.
Back to Top
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9318
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rancid Coolaid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2009 at 09:35
The glass in the Conquest is appreciably better.
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn.
Equality is something you whine about not being given.
Back to Top
3_tens View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/08/2007
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 3_tens Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2009 at 18:01
To me there is not much advantage in going from the 2-10X42 Monarch to the 2-10X50 other than you have a lighter wallet. For your stated hunt in mind, to me there is no contest. Go with the Conquest. If you are worried about seeing the Reticle in low light get the #4 reticle in the Zeiss. It stands out very well. Also it is not offered by Nikon.
Folks ain't got a sense of humor no more. They don't laugh they just get sore.

Need to follow the rules. Just hard to determine which set of rules to follow
Now the rules have changed again.
Back to Top
trigger29 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ?

Joined: September/29/2007
Location: South Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 4353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote trigger29 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2009 at 19:37
Originally posted by 3_tens 3_tens wrote:

To me there is not much advantage in going from the 2-10X42 Monarch to the 2-10X50 other than you have a lighter wallet. For your stated hunt in mind, to me there is no contest. Go with the Conquest. If you are worried about seeing the Reticle in low light get the #4 reticle in the Zeiss. It stands out very well. Also it is not offered by Nikon.
I must say, I can appreciate how black the reticles in the Conquest appear to be. They really seem to stand out for some reason.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Back to Top
Palehorse View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/16/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 135
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Palehorse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2009 at 22:48
Thanks all, this will do nicely :D

http://swfa.com/Zeiss-3-9x40-Conquest-Rifle-Scope-P5400.aspx


Edited by Palehorse - October/26/2009 at 22:49
Back to Top
cbm View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: January/11/2008
Location: SC
Status: Offline
Points: 580
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cbm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/27/2009 at 05:52
I have a 6x42 monarch and have about 3-4 Conquests ............2 are 44mm ! The Nikon is clear and suprisingly bright in low light for what it cost. I don't think it's quite on par with the Conquest but is more than adequate for deer hunting.
 
The biggest difference I can see with them is the reticles. The standard Nikoplex is very thin and is hard to see in low light IMO !! It also get's "silvery" in bright light..............I think the Conquests win hands down in this area and are worth the extra $$ IMO !!
 
Also I am not a big Zeiss #4 fan............while it is the best low light reticle I have seen , it is very thick and obtrusive IMO ! I think the plex is very good in low light and gives a better sight picture for normal shooting situations !


Edited by cbm - October/27/2009 at 06:00
Back to Top
DAVE44 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/11/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 652
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DAVE44 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/27/2009 at 06:08
The only thing I dont like about the Z plex is while the outer heavy posts are great the middle of the reticle has very thin lines...they could be a little thicker.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  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 0.180 seconds.