Anyone use any of the Nikon scopes, the titanium in particular? Or even the Monarch series? Are they any good?

I have a 5.5x16x45, it's an OK scope but I wouldn't buy another Nikon.  The Weaver Grand Slam series is better glass in the same price range, IMO.  I've been very impressed with a Weaver GS 6.5x20x40 - these are the buy of the year.

I've got a Nikon Buckmark on my G3. I'm pleased with it. IMO, Nikon has the best optics for their price range. Clarity is unmatched with other brands.

I went and compared a Leupold Vari-X II 3-9x50mm, and a Nikon Buckmaster 3-9x50mm the other day, since I'll be looking to get a GOOD scope soon. The Nikon was a whole lot sharper and brighter than the leupold, with a better depth of field. I know only one scope is no reason to pass judgement, but I really wasn't impressed with the Leupold. I think I'm going to go with a Nikon Monarch 3.5-10x50mm with the illuminated recticle, myself. Has anyone tested the tracking/adjustments on Nikon scopes?

I have two Nikon "Monarchs"....

4-12X40 and 6.5-20X44

I also have Leupolds & Weavers (T36).

The brightness and clarity of the Nikons are unmatched!  Adjustments are right on.

I recently did an in store testing of about a dozen quality scopes.(Nikon, Leupold, Weaver, Tasco SS, Zeiss, Bushnell Elite's, etc.) Clarity, quality, balance, eye relief, focus adjustment, etc. were all factored in.

With absolutely no doubt at all, the Nikon Monarch UCC series blew away all other scopes in the price range and even higher priced ones(including a Leupold Vari-X III).

Go for the Nikon, you will save money and get a scope that is every bit as good as a mid-priced Leupold.

For what it's worth, I recently bought a Monarch 6.5-20 and slapped it on my AR.  It dialed in quickly and the adjustments seemed to be very consistent.  It's a nice bright scope and with the adjustable parallax (which my Leupolds don't have) I was able to put bullet on top of bullet at 75 yards.  The eye relief is a bit shorter than I'd prefer but it isn't even close to being a problem.

I have a Monarch (3-9) and a Buckmaster (4.5-14) and am very pleased.  As someone already said, their optics seem to be #1 in their price range.

Thanks for the feedback guys.

I recently added a Leupold Vari-X III LR to my AR-10TLW. It is a great scope but a little pricey. I'm wanting to get a scope for the AR-15 equivelent. Sounds like they are very good.

Well, I WAS going to add a picture for you, but, it seems some of the pix got 'lost' here.
I'll try to bring one up soon so you can see the NIKON 6.5-20x44 Monarch with the Nikoplex reticle that I bought specifically for my Bushmaster V-MATCH 24.
As was mentioned, the eye relief is a little less than I would have liked to have, but, I knew that going in, so, it's no problem.
The scope was meant to be on this rifle for shooting .223 and taking my time doing it.
It's clear as crystal and has great definition.
Plus, it looks good!
Get one.
(best one I could get to come up...for now)

I have a Nikon Buckmark 3X9 that is going to ship for service tommorow. The adjustments do not track properly. As for construction and finish they are ok,as for clarity, my Simmons Aetecs are better.
I will not buy another Buckmark. The SWFA guy here says they are a promotional scope that leave something to be desired.
Now I have heard nothing but good about the Monarch series, but have not looked through one.

FWIW.  Lee

Go with the Nikon MONARCH series. You will not regret it. They have the best light transmission of any scope out there other than the Leupold LPS. I have had 4X, 3X9, and 6.5X20 models on my firearms. Heck, my slug gun even has a Nikon Monarch sitting on top of it!

So much contradiction, I wish I knew who to believe.  I have a tikka in .223 and I want to top it off with either a leupold VARI-X III 6.5-20x40 or a nikon monarch in 6.5-20x44
the leupold is 530
the monarch is 400 or 560 for an illuminated reticle.
First question, is the leupold worth 130 more for a smaller objective.  Second question is the illuminated reticle worth 160 dollars for someone who will mainly be putting holes in paper and ground squirrel?

thanks,
alphabeta121

Quoted: So much contradiction, I wish I knew who to believe.  I have a tikka in .223 and I want to top it off with either a leupold VARI-X III 6.5-20x40 or a nikon monarch in 6.5-20x44 the leupold is 530 the monarch is 400 or 560 for an illuminated reticle. First question, is the leupold worth 130 more for a smaller objective.  Second question is the illuminated reticle worth 160 dollars for someone who will mainly be putting holes in paper and ground squirrel? thanks, alphabeta121

Those two scopes are excellent choices.
The objective lens diameter probably won't make a lot of difference.
The illuminated reticle is a waste of money for your intended purpose, and may be a source of irritation at a later date when your battery craps out, plus, it's a potential 'Murphy'...either in a Leupold or NIKON or any other scope.

The Leupold has the 'Golden Ring' snob appeal at the range, and, it may have a bit more eye relief as well as being able to focus to a closer distance, like 30 feet/yds. or something.
Check those things
out.

I got the NIKON for my .223 because it was clear and good looking and had enough eye relief for ME.  NIKON is good glass.

Good luck!

Quoted: So much contradiction, I wish I knew who to believe.  I have a tikka in .223 and I want to top it off with either a leupold VARI-X III 6.5-20x40 or a nikon monarch in 6.5-20x44 the leupold is 530 the monarch is 400 or 560 for an illuminated reticle. First question, is the leupold worth 130 more for a smaller objective.  Second question is the illuminated reticle worth 160 dollars for someone who will mainly be putting holes in paper and ground squirrel? thanks, alphabeta121

Is the Leupold worth the extra $130? I used to think so until I compared them side by side. Go with the Nikon(unless of course you are impressed by names)

Is the illuminated scope worth the extra $160? One word, NO. Are you shootiing at dawn, dusk, etc.? If not, why spend extra on something else that can malfunction?

I have three Monarch 4x.  One on a Rem 700 30-06, one on a 10/22 and one on an AR flattop upper.  They all work great.

Thanks for all of your responses.

It's not the snob appeal its more 'keeping up with the jones'  I don't want people to give me a hassle over my scope, e.g. "why'd you put a shit scope on such a nice gun"
However, I know most people at my range have said really nice things about the nikons and leupolds, I just wanted to hear more info online.

BTW what about scope rings?  Should I go for tikka optilock or standard?  and who makes good standard rings?

thanks,
alphabeta121

Rings for what?  Burris Zee rings (steel) are a good general purpose ring to fit Weaver bases, and aren't too expensive.  Leupold rings tend to work only with Leupold bases (which I prefer for bolt guns).  Just avoid the cheap Tasco $9.99 Wal-mart specials.

For "tactical" use, ARMS and Badger Ordnance are two makers who have good stuff.

I don't know how much I can give to this thread but I'll give it a shot.

I don't have a nikon scope but I do have their Monarch bino's. ALL I can say is , WOW.
Even though they say 10x40, they trap light like a 50mm objective.
Images are so crisp.

For the money the optics can't be matched.

I've had such a great expirence with my bino's that I will be buying their scopes when I'm ready.

Hope this helps.

Edited to say: $550 buys you this.

Features

Titanium eye peice and objective milled from a solid peice of Titanium
One-piece, O-ring sealed and nitrogen filled aircraft grade aluminum tubes are waterproof, shockproof and fogproof
Positive click, precise steel-to-brass 1/4 MOA windage and elevation adjustments free of reticle creep or backlash
Precision ground and polished lenses with Ultra ClearCoat® provide 95% light transmission and virtual 100% anti-reflection capability - the theoretical maximum
Nikoplex reticle available in all scope models for quick target acquisition in any lighting conditions
Nikon Lifetime Limited Warranty on all scopes - your guarantee of complete satisfaction

Nuff Said.