Hi, I am looking for a scope for one of my hunting rifles. I don't want to spend much money. In my search I found the Nikkon Monarch 4-16x42 and the Bushnell Elite 4200 RI 2,5-10x50. Which one do you think is better to medium-long range hunting? I have never had either of them.
Nikkon Monarch 4-16x42 vs Bushnell Elite 4200 RI 2,5-10x50
- Thread starter imr
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Well I have no experience with bushnell. However I have the monarch. No complaints at the price point. Sure I've seen better glass but it's decent. I'd put it on par with a vortex hst I have in the glass department. Tracks just fine. I have not measured to see if it truly is .25moa clicks but seems pretty close. Have had it on a couple .308s. Always held it's zero. I'd buy another.
snox801
Well-Known Member
In those powers both are great. I have a few monarchs and was very happy with them. The only one leaving me wanting more is my 6-24 anything over 18x and it starts to get notso clear. To be fair I never noticed it until I started using nightforce at the high mag. I just put the bushnell elite 6500 2.5x16 on my full ti and carbon pierce built 6.5 creed. Loving that scope even on 16x. Will be my first season and hoping it performs well in the field.
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
imr,
For me the choice is easy. I had a Nikon that I accidentally breathed on and it fogged for a couple minutes. I also have a Bushnell I took out the following weekend in the same weather and breathed on it. It fogged but cleared immediately. I sold the like new Nikon.
For me the choice is easy. I had a Nikon that I accidentally breathed on and it fogged for a couple minutes. I also have a Bushnell I took out the following weekend in the same weather and breathed on it. It fogged but cleared immediately. I sold the like new Nikon.
snox801
Well-Known Member
I don't think that is the norm for Nikon. I have more nikons than anything else and I have never had any issue like that. They are still the best bang for the buck imo. My only complaint was the high end mag got fuzzy. Up to 18x very good scope.
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
If you have one in quick detachable rings take it off and put it in the fridg for a few minutes. Take it out and breathe on it and see how long it takes to unfog.
If I buy a scope and it is not clear on all magnification settings I return it for a refund. When I read about scopes that get "fuzzy" I wonder why anyone would keep it. I bought a Tasco World Class 4-16X and took it to a friend who checks scopes for various aspects. He stopped at 15X on the 4-16X so I asked him, "Why?" He said all these high magnification scopes blur out on their setting. I turned it to 16X and it was as clear on 16X as it was on 4X. The reticle didn't move throughout the magnification range or when the adjustable objective was rotated. That is a good scope value for dollar spent.
snox801
Well-Known Member
I shouldn't say fuzzy but compared to a nightforce it's not clear. I never even noticed till I started using Swarovski and nightforce. So for the money it's great just noticeable compared to high end. Now I have seen cheaper bsa scope and other fuzz out. Your correct worthless. To different standards.
imr, I have the Monarch 4X16X42 mildot Nikon on a 25 cal rifle. It has functioned correctly for the seven years on the rifle. I had an older high end Nikon Monarch which lost windage adjustment. I called Nikon, received a return label, sent it back. A week later a call from Nikon to ask which of three equal value new scopes I would like. They sent me the new in the box $959 scope FedEx overnight to replace the one I had returned. What I like, no questions, no hassle, no waiting for weeks, integrity, excellence of service and repair or replace. I now have purchased another Monarch which I haven't any negative issues. Bushnell, from the several I've looked through I'm not impressed. Just my personal experiences for what it's worth. Good luck.
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
Your experience is the opposite of mine. The only three scopes with better glass than my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 are a Nightforce 12-42X56, Schmidt&Bender 12 1/2-50X56 and a Swarovski z8i 2.3-18X56. Scopes with glass that are not better than the Bushnell are Swarovski z5 5-25X52, Leupold VX-6 4-24X52, Leupold VX-6 7-42X56, Vortex 'Razor HD 5-20X50, Minox ZA 5HD 5-25x56 SF PLEX, Nikon 5-20X44 and the like.
snox801
Well-Known Member
I have been impressed with the glass on my bushnell but I'm not sure it's any better or worse than my nikons.
As for warranty on Nikon non better. As a fact I ran over a rifle case with my truck one day after someone left it in front of the drivers side front tire. Scope looked fine but was not comfortable using it after that. Sent it back with a note explaining what happened just out of hope and they sent out a brand new one. Even when it was my fault. Couldn't be happier.
As for warranty on Nikon non better. As a fact I ran over a rifle case with my truck one day after someone left it in front of the drivers side front tire. Scope looked fine but was not comfortable using it after that. Sent it back with a note explaining what happened just out of hope and they sent out a brand new one. Even when it was my fault. Couldn't be happier.
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
When comparing glass I used to look at leaves and twigs in the trees about 150 yards away. My Bushnell looked as good as the Nightforce. When i switched to lines on a chart and ran them out to distance I found at 520 yards the Nightforce was still on 12X, the Swarovski was on 16 1/2X, and the Bushnell was on 15 1/2X.
Ignorance was bliss for me. Now it's a different story.
Ignorance was bliss for me. Now it's a different story.
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
My 4200 is barely behind my Swarovski z5 5-25X52 when both are on 16X. I don't want to deceive anyone. I purchased four z5's. None had glass as good as the three 6500's I have and are all gone. I still have the 4200 in case I ever need another scope.
