Which one wins?  I am specifically interested in the Monarch 2.5-10x and 3-12x and the VX-3 3.5-10x and 4.5-14x and VX-II 6-18x.  So, which one would you choose.  I like that the Monarchs have better adjustable turrets and more moa adjustment.  But, I like Leupold reputation.  I have never bought or used a Nikon Monarch in the short one year that I have been shooting.  Can I trust the Monarch? or should I stay with Leupold?

Lupy makes nice products, but they are living off of their rep. and they are pricey for what you get.

If you are looking at the Monarch line and VX-3, the VX-II is not enough in the running.

Consider Bushnell's 4200 line and the Vortex Viper line.

If you are looking for something a bit more tactical, give a look at the 3-9x42 SS scope from SWFA (also a ARFcom site sponser).

I just added a Nikon Monark 4-14x with BDC to my .243 Win. and I love it. A very well designed scope for the $$$ spent!

After the changes I made, I agree with everything mentioned here.

I have a Nikon Monarch X, and a Bushnell 6500. Either of them are better than good. I have also shot the Leupolds a few times. The Leupold has a great reputation, but I can't find a flaw with the Nikon or the 6500. Both have covered resettable turrets, 30mm tubes, great glass, and plenty of adjustment. My Nikon also has an illuminated reticle. I got a great (dealer sample) deal on mine, otherwise they are all three in the same price range. I would simply pick the one that I was getting the best price.

ETA: I also had the Ziess Conquest. It had the best glass of all, but it lacked some features of the others mentioned. For a hunting rifle that won't be making a bunch of adjstments, The Ziess makes a good choice.

The VX3 line has upgraded glass. Better optical quality than before. That puts them back into the game. They are now competitive with scopes of their price range, and in many cases better.

Leupold held out a long time on their name, but they are not deaf to all the condemnation and bashing they get across the entire WWW of forums. I suspect they upgraded the optics in response to the claims that lines like the Monarch are better than the VX-III. That was true. The VX-III wasn't horrible like some make it out to be. It was up there as better than average and clear and bright. But for the money, it simply wasn't. Other scopes were obviously superior at the same price point or equal to the Leupold for much less money.

Zeiss Conquest is really the best optics for the money. Side by side with Leupold, price is about the same - but the difference is a total joke. Zeiss blows them away. The VX3 has closed the gap and is respectable. They're real good and hard to tell now with the Zeiss. I still give the edge to Zeiss. But it's nothing to write home about.

Only question is, will time heal Leupold's wounds and will people recognize that the VX3 quality has caught up with market demands and expectations? Or will the bashing of Leupold continue?


I've owned and own Leupold VX3, Nikon Monarach (new and old models), and Zeiss Conquest. I speak from actual observation.

No, I speak from the VX-3, not the VX-III.  The VX-3 is a better scope, all the way around, as compared with the VX-III, but I do not think it as highly of it as you do.

Leupy does not listen, really.  Their Laser Rangefinders sucked ass, so they relaunched them.  They still suck.

Their Golden Ring Spotting Scopes are ok, though Nikon's Fieldscope line is better, but they are left behind when compared with others.

What I dislike from Leupold is they move forward, incrementally, begrudgingly, and we are expected to fawn over them and get "the vapors" because they did something they should have years ago?

Again, if the OP goes with a VX-3, then he will get a solid scope, just one that I do not think is as deserving of praise as others.

As always, YMMV.

I have also owned and still own the 3 scopes mentioned. In order, I find them like this:
1) Zeiss, 2) Nikon, 3) Leupold.




YMMV. Mine didn't.
Bill