Nikon buckmaster vs. monarch?

1trkyhntr

1trkyhntr

Well-known member
I have a 3x9x40 buckmaster on one of my rifles now and I like it. I have never owned a monarch, so I don't know how they compare in brightness and clarity.
The monarch is about $150.00 more, is it worth it? I hunt until the very last light, so brightness is very important. I know the buckmaster claims 92% light transmission and the monarch 95%, but can you really see the difference?
Thanks
 
I own 2 nikon monarch 4-16 mil dot and a buddy of mine has a buckmaster 4.5-14 mil dot and i was looking through his at the range then looked through mine and there was quit a bit of difference. I was looking at 200 yards at our targets. his scope really wasnt as clear as mine. I love my monarchs. I found mine on the net for 360. so they can be found at a good price.
 
To me the buckmaster looks better at closer ranges, but the Monarch looks better at longer ranges, but IMO I was hard pressed to tell a big difference.

I even compared the Prostaff 3-9X40 and Monarch 3-9x40 side by side day/night and everything in between and didn't not see a big difference, very litte in fact.

The Monarch excelled in tracking and repeatability, but I have not compared (don't own one) the new Prostaff w/ the fingure turrets & 98% light transmission.

PS: There are many discussions about light transmision/eye pupil which you can perform a search by using the PM search engine and learn (better understanding) a little more about it.
 
Ok, please keep the buckmaster/monarch comparisons coming, but now I have a new twist.... I have found a used but like-new monarch 3.3x10x44 AO Ucc for $215.00. Anyone own this scope and how does it compare?
Is it too much scope for 200yd max, what about the AO, is there an advantage/disadvantage to that? The seller says that it is a duplex, is that the same as nikoplex?
I know that I'm asking for a lot of info, this scope will go on my ordered, but not yet received RRA 20" PP.
 
UCC = Ultra Clear Coat

AO= Adjustable Objective

I have a 3-12x42 w/ side focus and I can adjust the parallax to about 15yds which makes a huge difference for up close or magnifications past 10 so to me the AO and/or side focus is advantage. However, it does add weight to the scope.


Best way for me to explain parallax without getting to technical is:

When your sitting behind the wheel of a vehicle and looking at the gas gauge and it reads 3/8 of a tank vs when you move over to the passengers seat the gas gauge looks as if it’s on a ¼ tank, because you're not in perfect alignment.

PS: I use the thin crosshairs and mil dot so I cannot answer the duplex vs nikoplex question with 100% certainty, but I would think so.

FYI- If you hunt in brush, woods, and/or low light, stay a way from the thin crosshairs because you wll strain to see them. However, They're great for precision shooting(targets, because they don't cover up the target (bullseye) as much.



 
Quote:The seller says that it is a duplex, is that the same as nikoplex?


I'm 99% sure Nikon always called their duplex reticle a Nikoplex. I have an older 4-12 UCC AO and that's what's printed on the box.

I call it a duplex, too. Habit.

$215 for that scope in good condition is a bargain, I paid $370 for mine new several years ago. 3.3-10 would be good, IMO. I went 4-12 because I like to use it for sage rats out to 300 yards or so, but I'd rather have the 3.3 for predators. Trade offs.

The AO, when I'm field hunting, I just leave it set to 100 yards and it's the same as a non-AO scope. No disadvantage.
Target shooting, or if you have time to adjust it, big advantage. You'll shoot smaller groups with it if correctly adjusted, no doubt.
 
Last edited:
I have owned 3 Monarchs. No real big complaints on them. Leupold has at least equal glass, better turrets, and better customer service, so I no longer buy Nikons.

IMO, Monarchs have visibly better glass that BM or PS models. The better lens coatings are the main reason why they cost more.

IMO the 3-10x44 is not going to be a huge upgrade over the 3-9x40 BM. Yes the glass is a bit better, IMO, but the AO is really not needed, nor is the extra weight, or cost. It may require higher rings, depending.....

JMO....
 
I forgot to mention,

I hunt in wooded areas, bottoms, pipelines, river banks and some open fields so my highest variable magnification is 12.

In the wooded areas (mainly at night,dusk, & dawn), I keep my scope on 3X for a wider field of view and love the side focus because the parallax can be a bear under 50 yds when you have runners on a scope with a fixed parallax setting of 100 yds and not to mention a little distorted.

Nikon has been very responsive, etc with me so I can’t complain and I’ve been very pleased with their scopes.


I’ve always steered clear of Leupold, because they seemed overpriced to me when comparing them in the store (no experience with them), but with 2MG and many others feeling so strong (positive comments) about them. I’ve just recently started talking with Leupold and they have been very responsive, answered all my questions, have a custom shop, wider variety of models, etc so I’m looking forward to using their line.


PS: I agree w/ 2MG comments about there not being a huge difference in a 3-10x44 vs 3-9x40 to justify a cost increase there, but the SF or AO is priceless to me at times.

Keep looking around, because you can find better deals on clearance (new/demo) models if you have time to shop around on all scopes.

Example: SWFA sold a 3-9x40 Monarch Demo model for $129.00.
 
Last edited:
I was looking at the Monarch and Buckmaster at Cabelas and my eyes didnt like the Buckmaster. It wasnt a horrible scope but the Monarch was quite a bit better as far as clarity. Look around online, i got my monarch (4-16x42 mil dot) with a sunshade for $400 shipped Cabelas wanted $450 just for the scope with the standard nikoplex
 
i like my Buckmaster 4.5-14 mil dot. i dont do alot of low light shooting or shooting past 500 yds. but, this scope i believe was well worth what i paid. ($200) looked through monarchs an through my buckmaster, honestly couldnt really see a difference. just my .02
 
I have two SF higher-powered Buckmasters and generally like their glass and mechanicals, despite a tendency toward "tunnel vision". Purchased a 5-20X Monarch and was disappointed with what I thought would be an upgrade; focusing at higher magnification isn't good at all and frankly, my B-masters look better. I'm not the only one with gripes about the "new" Monarchs (the old AO models seem to have had better glass), as I've seen threads on other forums criticizing them. The biggest defenders of the new style seem to have mostly lower-X ones.
 
I owned that same 3.3x - 10x 44 Nikon scope that you are talking about. It's a great scope, and that is a real good price he quoted you. A tad on the heavy side, but not bad. That would be my only knock on it. I had it on an AR also.
The Nikon Monarchs are some great glass IMO>
 
Back
Top