Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Nikon Monarch 5-20x44SF Opinions? |
Post Reply |
Author | ||
wolf6151
Optics GrassHopper Joined: May/19/2011 Location: Pearland, Tx. Status: Offline Points: 10 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: January/06/2012 at 07:41 |
|
Anyone have experience with this scope? Pros, Cons, reviews or opinions? I'm thinking of putting it on a Remington 700 VS that I will soon have re-barreled, most likely to .243 that I will use for paper punching 100-300 yds. but occasionally out to 600-1000 yds. and possibly some deer hunting. Opinions on the scope? Thanks.
|
||
trigger29
Optics Master Extraordinaire X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ? Joined: September/29/2007 Location: South Dakota Status: Offline Points: 4353 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I have one, and its nice enough. I put thre tall Target turrets on it for the long range stuff. I also have a 4-16x. I prefer my Conquest 4.5-14x44 to both of them. In certain lighting situations the Zeiss handled stray light, and "flare" better, and in the NIKONS, the reticle often turns silvery, or gold. This has never once happened with my Conquest. The Zeiss image seems all around better to my eye, even more so in low light, or looking towards a setting sun. Beyond those couple gripes, they have been good scopes for me, and I bought them from SWFA, at a great price. Had I had the money, I'd have bought Conquests instead.
Edited by trigger29 - January/06/2012 at 08:41 |
||
"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." |
||
oldguy
Optics Apprentice Joined: April/10/2009 Status: Offline Points: 86 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The one I owned had a tunnel like effect clear in center but much like looking through a key hole,I returned but it came back the same, while it would have been OK for hunting it was poor for target shooting as it made my eyes very tired after 15-20 rounds. I sold at a loss.
|
||
lewwetzel
Optics Apprentice Joined: June/25/2009 Location: Central OH Status: Offline Points: 143 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Funny you should mention the "tired eyes"; I have exactly the same sensation looking through my 5-20X Monarch. With all due respect to the ones at SWFA who ranked the new Nikon Monarchs as high as some of the others at that high level: while this scope is fine mechanically, the glass - at least in the higher-power models - leaves a lot to be desired. A Sightron Big Sky, or even a Weaver Grand Slam, when compared to the Monarch, will show the Nikon comes up short optically. I'm thinking it's about time Nikon sticks to building cameras, and/or stop farming-out their scope operations.
|
||
oldguy
Optics Apprentice Joined: April/10/2009 Status: Offline Points: 86 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
super clear edge to edge and tired eyes are no longer an issue,while the Monarch was a solid built
scope the glass did not meet my needs.
|
||
slowr1der
Optics Apprentice Joined: March/25/2010 Status: Offline Points: 247 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I'm also not a big fan of the glass on the Monarchs. I have 2, and I like the scopes, but the glass does leave a lot to be desired.
|
||
cheaptrick
MODERATOR Joined: September/27/2004 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 20844 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I like the Monarchs, but not the scope in question. The 4-16x is good to go, but I like the 2.5-10x best in that line.
|
||
If at first you don't secede...try..try again.
|
||
Post Reply | |
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 |