New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - I NEED YOUR OPINION
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

I NEED YOUR OPINION

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/28/2007 at 16:36
bsjohns2 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/27/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5
 I have been doing some research on the internet and most people think that the Bushnell 4200 Elite scopes have far better resolution than the Nikon Monarch scopes. What's your opinion?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/28/2007 at 17:06
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 20474

IMO, the 4200's are a little better optically wise, but not by a large margin.

FAR BETTER???...I don't think so.

 

 



Edited by cheaptrick
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/28/2007 at 17:28
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8046
WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm sending those two Monarchs I bought back to SWFA
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/28/2007 at 17:52
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 20474

Originally posted by tahqua tahqua wrote:

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm sending those two Monarchs I bought back to SWFA

 

I meant MARGINALLY better.

The 4200's a very nice scope optically.

 

I still think the Monarch's the better scope overall.

I like the eye relief and looks of the Monarch better than the 4200. 

The 4200 is too long.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/28/2007 at 18:11
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8046

 I'm bummed. Maybe the Dark Lord is correct. I think I'll try an IOR after I break that 2-7 on thumper.

Seriously, though, I think Nikon engineers took a hard look at Leupolds before bringing the Monarch to the designers. The outside dimensions are compact and the scopes just "look right". There is nothing wrong with Leupold in this regard. The optics are better than my VariX-III's.

As for Bushnell, I like my B&L's and I believe their the same which is very good, too. I do think that the Bushnell's are larger and have less eye relief than the comparable Monarchs.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2007 at 08:02
jonbravado View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1131

i have 4200's and monarchs - to be honest, i can't tell a whole lot of difference when comparing in the lowlight.

 

both scopes offer wonderful, bright images.  close your eyes and pick one, you can't go wrong.

 

for the money, the monarch is unbeatable right now (on sale at www.swfa.com )

 

good luck.

 

J

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2007 at 08:15
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
Originally posted by cheaptrick cheaptrick wrote:

Originally posted by tahqua tahqua wrote:

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm sending those two Monarchs I bought back to SWFA

 

I meant MARGINALLY better.

The 4200's a very nice scope optically.

 

I still think the Monarch's the better scope overall.

I like the eye relief and looks of the Monarch better than the 4200. 

The 4200 is too long.

 

Eye relief, looks? What, is the Nikon a nicer shade of black????

 



Edited by Roy Finn
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2007 at 09:36
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313

Roy, BEAUTIFUL rig!  Cooper M57M Custom Classic?  The Talley rings add a nice touch as well!

 

What is she chambered in?

 

I'm jealous!

 

Anyway, not to get OT, I personally can't tell a whole lot of difference between the Monarch and the 4200 optically.  My only complaint about the 4200s are that they are generally longer than competing scopes.  Sometimes that's an issue, sometimes not.



Edited by RifleDude
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2007 at 09:51
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
Yes, a Custom Classic in 22lr. I posted a pic of that and the swivel stud install by Griffin & Howe over on the "show off your guns" thread in the firearms section. A friend of mine owned Griffin & Howe about 10 yrs. ago and they did a super job. Thanks for the nice words, RD.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2007 at 12:23
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555

Originally posted by bsjohns2 bsjohns2 wrote:

 I have been doing some research on the internet and most people think that the Bushnell 4200 Elite scopes have far better resolution than the Nikon Monarch scopes. What's your opinion?

 

The optics are a little better but not by much. To me the 4200 ranks in the middle of Monarch and Conquest optically.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2007 at 12:49
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 13877
I like the Monarch better and I think the glass is so close as to be insignificant. What I dont understand is why someone would think that best glass is the only factor to be considered. To me the reliability of the adjustments and it's ability to hold it's zero and the amount of travel (maximum MOA) of internal adjustment and the exit pupil size are very important factors. I would rather have a scope that had exceptional reliability and good exit eye pupil than one with exceptional glass. Look at the Russian scopes - they were crap glass but they kill reliably.  You are not taking a picture so it doens't need to say Hasselblad.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2007 at 13:31
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856

Originally posted by Urimaginaryfrnd Urimaginaryfrnd wrote:

I like the Monarch better and I think the glass is so close as to be insignificant. What I dont understand is why someone would think that best glass is the only factor to be considered. To me the reliability of the adjustments and it's ability to hold it's zero and the amount of travel (maximum MOA) of internal adjustment and the exit pupil size are very important factors. I would rather have a scope that had exceptional reliability and good exit eye pupil than one with exceptional glass. Look at the Russian scopes - they were crap glass but they kill reliably.  You are not taking a picture so it doens't need to say Hasselblad.

 

For all the reasons you have cited, (glass, reliability, adjustments and durability), are the very reasons I believe the 4200 is tops in it's price class. Not just because it has a pretty picture. Of course, the Nikon sale makes choosing between the two more difficult if price is your primary consideration. Optically speaking, alot of folks have a hard time deciding between the 4200 and a Conquest if they can get by the Zeiss name and be objective.



Edited by Roy Finn
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2007 at 14:11
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555

Originally posted by Urimaginaryfrnd Urimaginaryfrnd wrote:

I like the Monarch better and I think the glass is so close as to be insignificant. What I dont understand is why someone would think that best glass is the only factor to be considered. To me the reliability of the adjustments and it's ability to hold it's zero and the amount of travel (maximum MOA) of internal adjustment and the exit pupil size are very important factors. I would rather have a scope that had exceptional reliability and good exit eye pupil than one with exceptional glass. Look at the Russian scopes - they were crap glass but they kill reliably.  You are not taking a picture so it doens't need to say Hasselblad.

 

Construction wise I prefer the 4200 over both the Monarch and Conquest. I would put the construction of the 4200

on a par with Burris Signature Select for scpes in this price range.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2007 at 14:23
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 20474

Elite Predator!!!

I give your beloved 4200 some good press and you crack on me?!?!?

 

And yes, the Monarch's particular black matte color matches my barrel on my Remington better.  

Thanks for reminding me..........

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2007 at 14:39
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
The last buck I dropped didn't seem to mind that my rig wasn't color correct.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2007 at 15:00
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313

Originally posted by Urimaginaryfrnd Urimaginaryfrnd wrote:

I like the Monarch better and I think the glass is so close as to be insignificant. What I dont understand is why someone would think that best glass is the only factor to be considered. To me the reliability of the adjustments and it's ability to hold it's zero and the amount of travel (maximum MOA) of internal adjustment and the exit pupil size are very important factors. I would rather have a scope that had exceptional reliability and good exit eye pupil than one with exceptional glass. Look at the Russian scopes - they were crap glass but they kill reliably.  You are not taking a picture so it doens't need to say Hasselblad.

 

Excellent point, Urimaginaryfrnd.  I would add to that the physical dimensions of the scope as well.  For example, say you're scoping a rifle with a quarter rib on the barrel.  Even if a scope is optical perfection personified, beyond a certain length, it may not both clear the quarter rib and at the same time put the ocular in position for optimal eye relief.  The same applies for scopes with huge objectives on rifles with quarter ribs or heavy barrel contours and the effects those have on ring height and head position during shooting.  I believe if you have good binoculars, you can get by with less than perfect optics if the scope has other good attributes.  If the scope isn't totally reliable, doesn't fit the rifle well, etc., great optics are useless, as the scope is an aiming device, not a substitute for binos.  I believe optical performance is certainly important, especially for low light, but it is only one of several factors to consider when selecting the right scope for the job.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2007 at 15:10
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 20474

Excellent posts, RD and Ufriend.

 

We, myself included, get wrapped up around the axle worrying about "optical performance" on these hunting scopes. 

Where I hunt, an Eotech mounted on a 12 guage would be (is) ideal.

 

Deer in my part of NC are in darndest thickets I have ever seen! The big boys anyway.

90% of all hunters (that I know) here have never shot a deer at over 100 yards either.

 

Powerline shooters around here may need the extra resolution, focus and optical clarity that the top shelf scopes offer though. 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2007 at 16:54
thinkingman View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: January/13/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 93

Timely post.

I was in a Sportsmans Warehouse over the weekend and did some simultesting with the Bush 4200, Nikon Monarch, Zeiss conquest, Burris Sig, and Leupy VXII.

I wanted the Elite 4200 to WOW me.....

I kept going back and forth looking and looking.

The Leupy was the lightest and the worst optics....out.

The Bushy was nice and good feel to the AO.

The Zeiss with sf was difficult to focus.

The Burris was good.

The Nikon was excellent.

Clear and bigger eyebox (all scopes were 4-14X)

I kept going back to the Nikon.

I didn't expect it to win, but it did.

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2007 at 17:43
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
Could you tell me what an "eyebox" is?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2007 at 20:09
ceylonc View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: September/13/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 514
Originally posted by thinkingman thinkingman wrote:

Timely post.

I was in a Sportsmans Warehouse over the weekend and did some simultesting with the Bush 4200, Nikon Monarch, Zeiss conquest, Burris Sig, and Leupy VXII.

I wanted the Elite 4200 to WOW me.....

I kept going back and forth looking and looking.

The Leupy was the lightest and the worst optics....out.

The Bushy was nice and good feel to the AO.

The Zeiss with sf was difficult to focus.

The Burris was good.

The Nikon was excellent.

Clear and bigger eyebox (all scopes were 4-14X)

I kept going back to the Nikon.

I didn't expect it to win, but it did.

 

 

Thanks for sharing your experience.  Nikon makes an outstanding scope!  I'm sure you'll find it's perfect for your usage.

 

There's one thing about rifle optics that makes this debate all the more interesting: ALL OF US "SEE" DIFFERENTLY.  What appears the best to me may not stand out to, say, SVD666 or RifleDude's eyes.  We're fortunate to have so many choices

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/30/2007 at 15:55
thinkingman View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: January/13/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 93

Scopes sure do seem to appear differently to each individual.

 

Eyebox is a term I've see used to describe the area behind the ocular where the field of view is clearest and most complete.....eye position?

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/02/2007 at 14:49
jonbravado View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1131

well my latest purchase, a nikon UCC 4x40, is my new favorite -

 

a perfectly wonderful scope for my 30/30.

 

i may have to give Nikon more attention, afterall.

 

they are rediculously good for the money.

 

J

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/02/2007 at 14:52
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 20474
Originally posted by jonbravado jonbravado wrote:

well my latest purchase, a nikon UCC 4x40, is my new favorite -

 

a perfectly wonderful scope for my 30/30.

 

i may have to give Nikon more attention, afterall.

 

they are rediculously good for the money.

 

J

 

 

 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "I NEED YOUR OPINION"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
xpert opinion needed jkll Rifle Scopes 2 2/17/2007 5:35:07 PM
Leupold 6x42 opinion needed jkll Rifle Scopes 3 3/17/2007 8:55:11 PM
opinions needed tjboy Target 4 1/16/2007 2:47:01 PM
opinions needed on kahles 10x42 bigdave2006 Binoculars 11 11/22/2006 8:53:03 AM
Recommendation / opinion needed ALAN Tactical Scopes 2 1/14/2005 2:20:22 PM
Need opinion biggun Rifle Scopes 7 11/17/2005 5:27:25 PM
Need Opinion On Pentex Pioneer mbowerma Rifle Scopes 23 8/30/2006 6:49:46 PM
need a new scope, need input jjrgr21 Rifle Scopes 23
Need advice and new scope wolverine3759 Rifle Scopes 16
Info needed on old Wollensak 4x scope Squirrel Pizza Target 0


This page was generated in 0.422 seconds.