Very impressed

[W.Seay]

I just bought the new Nikon Monarch 2.5 x 10 x 42 and im very impressed! It clearer and brighter than my leupold VX3!I found a great deal on it, got it for $300 otd, they sell for about $600-650 retail!

 

[BIGORANGE]

:cool:

 

[ShaneHallum]

cool

 

[.444 Marlin]

ebay?

 

[W.Seay]

From a store off the internet, but they only had 4 left, at that price they wont last more than a week!

 

[TheLBLman]

I just bought the new Nikon Monarch 2.5 x 10 x 42 and im very impressed! It clearer and brighter than my leupold VX3!I found a great deal on it, got it for $300 otd, they sell for about $600-650 retail!

I like the Nikon Monarchs myself. I've had that same scope, but didn't like the little ballistic circles (minor preference thing). Swapped my 2.5-10 x 42 Monarch for a Burris Signature 3-12 x 44.

But going to have to disagree with you about the Monarch being better than a VX3.
It's good, but not THAT good. :grin:

 

[W.Seay]

My monarch doesnt have the ballisticplex reticle, i hate those things and will never own another scope with them.I have been wanting to try out the burris signature series!

 

[Big Gun]

I've got 2 Monarchs and have been very pleased with them.

 

[TheLBLman]

I've got 2 Monarchs and have been very pleased with them.

Same here, Big Gun.
Both of mine are 1.5-4.5 x 20mm --- very good close-range scopes, and despite their small size, very good in low light.
I just didn't like Nikon's version of a ballistic reticle (other people love it), which was on the 2.5 - 10 x 42mm I had for a short period.

I'd rate the Monarchs as being overall somewhere between a VX-II and a VX-III, and much prefer the Monarch over a VX-II.