Print Page | Close Window

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

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Scopes
Forum Name: Rifle Scopes
Forum Description: Centerfire long gun scopes
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=19925
Printed Date: March/19/2024 at 01:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Conquest 3-9x40 vs. Monarch 2.5-10x50mm
Posted By: Palehorse
Subject: Conquest 3-9x40 vs. Monarch 2.5-10x50mm
Date Posted: October/21/2009 at 12:18
Last minute upgrade before deer season.   Which one and why; thanks in advance.



Replies:
Posted By: trigger29
Date 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."


Posted By: pyro6999
Date 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"


Posted By: danjojoUSMC
Date 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."


Posted By: John Barsness
Date 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.


Posted By: trigger29
Date 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."


Posted By: John Barsness
Date 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.


Posted By: mike650
Date 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


Posted By: cheaptrick
Date 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. 


Posted By: bugsNbows
Date 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


Posted By: jonbravado
Date 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.


Posted By: FunShot
Date 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


Posted By: Randall45
Date 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.


Posted By: Rancid Coolaid
Date 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.


Posted By: 3_tens
Date 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.


Posted By: trigger29
Date 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."


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


Posted By: cbm
Date 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 !


Posted By: DAVE44
Date 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.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net