New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Monarch 2.5-10x42 vs 4200 2.5-10x40
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Monarch 2.5-10x42 vs 4200 2.5-10x40

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 10:57
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 12:45
bagderRed View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/17/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 159
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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 15:18
Dshusker View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/09/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 103
Both good scopes. The Rainguard on the 4200 gives it the edge from my perspective. The optics are comparable.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 16:24
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212
Thank you both for the good information. They sound like equals and the price is close to.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 16:35
ccoker View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: February/13/2008
Location: Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Points: 2032
I have owned to 4200s, of different sizes and several monarchs
to MY eyes, the monarchs seem a little better


Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 16:40
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 20474
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 16:45
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 16:56
Chris Farris II View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Staff
TEAM SWFA - Staff
Avatar
MODERATOR

Joined: August/13/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3063
They are VERY close to one another.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 17:21
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856
Where is the new Monarch made?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 17:26
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 20474
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 18:14
bagderRed View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/17/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 159

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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/24/2009 at 18:19
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/25/2009 at 19:20
bagderRed View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/17/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 159
Bolio, what do you think of the little 2-8x32?  Does the ocular look out of place being bigger than the objective?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/25/2009 at 21:51
1911man View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: May/17/2009
Location: NW AR
Status: Offline
Points: 165
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/25/2009 at 23:20
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212

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.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/26/2009 at 00:10
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/26/2009 at 00:43
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/26/2009 at 06:10
martin3175 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Points: 3773
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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/26/2009 at 07:58
ti-force View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: August/28/2008
Location: Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 195
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/26/2009 at 08:20
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212
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 Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/26/2009 at 08:32
ti-force View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: August/28/2008
Location: Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 195
 I feel I should add to my previous post.
 
If you plan to shoot at a higher magnification, a bigger objective will benefit you. I think 7 to 8mm of exit pupil is the max your eye can take in, so if you take the objective size and divide it by the magnification you will set the scope to most of the time, you will get the exit pupil.
 
Example: (objective size) 50 / 7 (magnification) = 7.14 exit pupil, so you would need the scope set on 7x magnification to get a 7.14mm exit pupil. If you had a 42mm objective the magnification would need to be set on 6x to get a 7mm exit pupil (42/6=7).
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/26/2009 at 08:35
ti-force View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: August/28/2008
Location: Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 195
 I should probably also point out that I don't dislike my Nikon. The glass is very clear and it's been a good scope.
 
 It's just too big, it weighs a lot because it's so big and the scope sits so high off the gun (56mm objective) that it's hard to get a good cheek weld.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/26/2009 at 12:14
bagderRed View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/17/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 159
Thanks for the info on the 2-8x32 Monarch Bolio.  Yes, the 2.5-8x36 Leupold is very nice and would be my pick in a Leupold for the hunting I do also.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/26/2009 at 13:05
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212
Ti force  Thanks for your help. I think 6 power would be plenty for my low light needs since the target would be black bear or hogs under 200 yards and probably under 100 yards. This means a quality 40 scope should serve me as well as a 50. When I said cheaper lighter 40 I was refering to quality scopes of the same brand since the 50  4200 cost more and weighs more. The reason I bring my age up is because I have poor night vision and perhaps my eyes can only utilize an exit pupil of 5.0 even in the dark. In that case a 40 objective would give me full low light benifits up to 8 power. Just a thought. I understand that glass quality has a big effect on low light performance. On that note how do you and others rate the glass quality of these scopes against each other. bushnell 4200 monarch leupold vx3 and ziess conquest .Thanks. On using 16 power that would be more just for fun. If the light were bad I could turn the power down.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/26/2009 at 15:14
Dshusker View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/09/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 103
IMO the optics are close but I would put Zeiss first, the 4200 a close second, and Leupold third.
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Monarch 2.5-10x42 vs 4200 2.5-10x40"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon Monarch 2.5-10x42 or Busnell 4200 2.5-10x40 tedtf Rifle Scopes 9
Elite 4200 3-9x40 vs.2.5-10x40 DAVE44 Rifle Scopes 1 10/4/2006 7:31:07 AM
Bushnell 4200 Elite 2.5-10x40 (FIREFLY) DAVE44 Optics For Sale 13
Elite 4200 3-9x40 vs 2.5-10x40 tpcollins Varmint Scopes 7
Bushnell Elite 4200 2.5-10x40 NIB antleraddiction Optics For Sale 4
FS BUSHNELL ELITE 4200 2.5-10X40 DAVE44 Optics For Sale 3
Sightron SII VS Monarch VS Elite 4200 horsesandhorns Rifle Scopes 14 10/16/2007 6:47:44 AM
Elite 4200 vs. Monarch mike53 Rifle Scopes 142 11/19/2007 1:57:00 PM
monarch, 4200, sll jackG Rifle Scopes 6 11/11/2007 12:19:44 PM
3-9X40 4200 or monarch miket_81 Rifle Scopes 7 1/11/2007 3:18:19 PM


This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.