New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Monarch vs. Fullfield II
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Monarch vs. Fullfield II

 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: February/05/2007 at 22:57
jason miller View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/05/2007
Location: W Laf, IN
Status: Offline
Points: 229
I just got a Stevens 200 in .243, and it will be mainly a coyote gun, with the possibility of some deer hunting in the future.  I'd like to put a nice scope on it, and I'm looking at the Monarch 3-9x40 or the Burris FFII 3-9x40.  I've always thought the Nikon was a good deal, back when they were around $300.  This looks like a good chance to pick one up, but the Burris looks like a good scope too, and is noticeably cheaper than the Nikon.  Both scopes boast 95% light transmission, weather-proofness, and lifetime warranties.  First question:  Is the Monarch worth the extra money?  I know you can find the FFII for $170ish, that's fifty bucks difference...  Second question:  If the Nikon is worth the money, should I get the BDC reticle since it's the same price?  I've looked through one at a local store, and it seemed like another one of those things where it might be better to just keep things simple.  Also, I don't have a rangefinder, and probably won't be buying one.  Finally, does anyone know if the Burris is also made overseas?  If it happens to be domestic, I might be swayed in that direction.  I know they're based in Colorado...  Anyway, thanks in advance for any and all help. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/05/2007 at 23:35
rootmanslim View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional


Joined: June/04/2006
Location: Pinedale, WY
Status: Offline
Points: 557
No contest. I own both and the Monarch is better.The FF is a $199 scope the Monarch WAS a lot more. You get what you pay for.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/06/2007 at 07:58
jonbravado View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

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

with the price of the monarch UCC's, there is no question what is a better buy right now.

 

the optical quality of the monarchs is up there w/ the big boys.

 

good luck and let us know what you decide.

 

J

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/07/2007 at 20:41
jason miller View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/05/2007
Location: W Laf, IN
Status: Offline
Points: 229
Alright, what about the BDC reticle?  One more thing:  How's the Prostaff?  I konw where I can get one for around $125.  Is the Monarch going to be $100 better than the Prostaff on a $260 gun?  I know the Monarch is definitely a good buy right now, but I'm having trouble talking myself into a scope that costs almost as much as the cheap gun it's going to be on...  Thanks again for any help.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/07/2007 at 21:14
Smokey53119 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/02/2005
Status: Offline
Points: 165

Monarch is better than the FullField II

 

FullField II is better than the Pro-Staff

 

Monarch = $50 more than FullField II

 

FullField II = $50 more than Pro-Staff

 

I would skip the Pro-Staff even if it was cheaper

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/08/2007 at 15:14
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795
First, you have to look through the scopes yourself and decide what is adequate for you.  But, personally, I would agree and skip the Prostaff.  The Burris is made in the Phillipines.  Good scope, I own two.  It should be more than adequate for your purposes and only you can decide if the difference between it and the Monarch is worth 50 bucks.  My opinion, I do not think you are going to miss a shot on a coyote because you chose the Burris.  But, if you want better glass and a better scope, spend the extra 50 bucks.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/08/2007 at 15:54
Tip69 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
Tip Stick

Joined: September/27/2005
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 3483

Jason,

 

I bought my son a Savage 11FL....... about the same "grade" as your Stevens... and I got a FFII to put on it.  I wish I could have had the opportunity to wait until this Monarch sale because I would have preferred the Monarch hands down.  The FFII is ok, but I notice some distortion at the edge! 

 

Buy the Monarch NOW and you can always move it to another gun when you upgrade!

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/08/2007 at 17:48
jason miller View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/05/2007
Location: W Laf, IN
Status: Offline
Points: 229

I went to a local sporting goods store yesterday and looked through all three scopes.  I liked both Nikons better than the Burris.  I couldn't tell any difference between the Monarch and the Prostaff.  I didn't look for any distortion at the edges, but since the crosshairs are in the middle I didn't think it mattered what the edges looked like.  The Prostaff looks like it will probably be great for anything I would throw at it.  The only reason I would go for the Monarch right now is if I thought I would ever need a nicer/more rugged scope in the future for a different rifle.  The only chance I see of that happening is if I inherit my Grandpa's .338 some day.(only grandson...) 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/08/2007 at 21:58
Smokey53119 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/02/2005
Status: Offline
Points: 165

Since you appear to indicate that the Pro-Staff fits your needs and is optically OK, you may wish to also consider the Bushnell Legend series.  They are a bit lower cost than the Pro-Staff line, but include fully multi-coated lenses.  Both have lifetime warranties.  I find the Legends brighter and more clear than the Pro-Staff.

 

Another benefit of the Legend's is that they are longer than some other scopes and you will not need to use extension rings or bases on your Stevens 200.  The Fullfield II cannot be mounted on a Stevens 200 without extension rings/bases, or a rail.  I do not know the dimensions on the Pro-Staff so cannot comment on mounting them.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/08/2007 at 22:09
jason miller View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/05/2007
Location: W Laf, IN
Status: Offline
Points: 229
Alright, good deal.  I'll definitely see if I can get a peek through one of those.  I always thought of Bushnell as kind of cheap unless you moved up to the Elite series, so I haven't really looked into them much.  I assume these Legends have equal weatherproofing to the Prostaffs?  Thanks!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/08/2007 at 23:35
smitty View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: January/29/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 103

Right now the Monarch 3-9x40 is $218.  Thats an incredible scope at that price and it's a few notches above the Fullfield II which costs $200.

 

If that's a bit more than you want to spend then theres the Monarch 4x40 for $180 and the 6x42 for $189.  I would take either of these over the Fullfield II 3-9x40.

 

OF the value priced scopes, the Monarch has the best glass and is the brightest in low light.  Next in line is the Bushnell 4200 series but they cost more so the Monarch,to me at least, the the best value.  Even Leupolds VXIII is not as bright as the the Monarch or 4200.

 

Smitty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Monarch vs. Fullfield II"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon Monarch vs Burris Fullfield II royy2 Rifle Scopes 14 9/19/2006 11:21:51 PM
monarch or fullfield II or conquest .243 ruger Rifle Scopes 10 12/15/2006 4:51:26 PM
Burris Fullfield vs. Burris Fullfield II DAVE44 Rifle Scopes 1
Burris Fullfield II vs Leupold VX-II Brett B Rifle Scopes 12
Burris Fullfield II vs. Leupold VX-II bigo_m Varmint Scopes 11 7/7/2006 9:28:07 AM
Fullfield II or Vari X-II fireflite3356 Rifle Scopes 8 2/11/2006 12:26:25 PM
VX2 vs Weaver Classic V vs Burris Fullfield II urbaneruralite Rifle Scopes 6
Burris 2-7x35mm FullField II Rifle with Ballistic 1winnen Tactical Scopes 2
Burris Fullfield II 4.5x14x42 or ? 93Pirate Rifle Scopes 2
Opinions on Burris Fullfield II 2-7x35 LEE IN VA. Rifle Scopes 9


This page was generated in 0.327 seconds.