Nikon Monarch UCC ?
ReconRyan
I was looking at a 3-9x40.
Is this a good scope. How does it compare to similar models from other
brands ? What is differnt between ucc and other monarchs ?
$280 good price ?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
Win a Fulton Armory "Classic" AR-15 with Black Hills Ammo
while supporting our RKBA. Details at http://www.myguns.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
chasw
line. $240 is not a good price. The current Monarch line starts with a
2-10X40mm model, which is available at ultout.com for $294. I recently
bought one of the "New Monarchs", a 2-10X50mm and while its a solid scope
with a lot of good qualities, I'd say the final polish on the lenses leaves
much to be desired.
I suggest instead you get the Weaver Grand Slam 3-10X40mm @ $253 or the
Grand Slam 3.5-10X50mm @ $306, both from ultout.com. I have two Grand
Slams and their overall quality, esp resolution, is superior to the more
expensive Nikons. To get really good glass, you have to go with the
Bushnell Elite 4200 line or, for a whole lot more money, a Kahles. Most of
all, double check the dimensions of the scope you plan to buy, to ensure it
fits your mounts and rifle while providing the right eye relief. Good
luck - CW
________________________________________
"ReconRyan" <lyin...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fqigon$krq$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
penultimate
> ...
1, I would suspect you can find a better price on the Nikon. I
consider the Monarch UCC line to be a quality rifle scope and
currently own two. "UCC" I believe refers to the lens coating
technology. A few years ago, the Monarch scope line may have included
specific "UCC" and "non-UCC" but I believe now all Monarch's are are
"UCC". In Nikon's line, price equates to optics quality with the
Monarch line being definitely better than their lower end model lines
(e.g., "Prostaff" I think is the name of one of the lines).
2, I have found Monarch UCC optics crisp and bright (notably better
than Grand Slam's IMO), but, relative to a comparable Leupold,
unforgiving in the eye-relief, requiring an exact head position on the
stock. I currently own 1 Grand Slam and five Leupolds. The Grand
Slam is an OK scope, probably sturdy enough relative to the cheapo's,
but optically mediocre.
mo
3. If the scope is for big game hunting, I would without doubt buy a
Leupold. Leupold's are simply unequaled in field durability, decent
optics, and the flexible eye relief required for quick shots. Search
on "Leupold" for incredible stories about warrantee service. If you
are considering the Nikon for around $300 you can afford a Leupold.
You will have to find a pretty good deal to get a VX-III at this price
point, but that would be my first choice. If it were me, I would ask
Leupold about technology in the special "Century Model" being produced
as a "100th Anniversary" model. If this is VX-III glass and coatings,
it is a heck of a deal.
4. If you are on a tight budget, I believe the best buy in a very
respectable scope in 3x9x40 is the Burris Fullfield II at around
$160. I consider this a better hunting scope that the Nikon and Grand
Slam for a lot less. And I would definitely own this scope rather
than a low-end Leupold (e.g., Rifleman) because I believe in quality
and features it offers a smidge more for enough less to notice. I
have owned 2 Burris scopes, this latter model being one of them
purchased to go on a "gift rifle." I liked the latter scope so much I
almost did not give it away. In terms of the "flexible eye relief"
issue that I consider important in a hunting scope, it is very much
like a Leupold.
Over the years I have owned a lot of scopes and a lot of rifles and
swapped the scopes around a lot. Strangely enough, a Leupold has
ended up on every rifle that I actually take hunting. You see lots of
different scopes at the range. Those you see in the back woods are
dominated by Leupolds, especially on rifles that show signs of serious
use. To me that says a lot, as does the resale value of used
Leupolds.
Eye relief on the standard 3x9x40 Leupold is long enough and flexible
enough that it can be mounted on about any current generation bolt
action using standard mounts. But there are a lot of scopes for which
this is untrue. chasm's advice to critically check scope dimensions
before you buy is consequently very important to avoiding
unhappiness.
Robert Scott
"chasw" <cha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fqjfol$191$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# I'd say the final polish on the lenses leaves
# much to be desired.
That's the first time I've ever heard that complaint about any piece of
optical equipment. You're saying the lenses are rough?
Good shooting,
desmobob
film...@gmail.com
says...
# monarch ucc
#
# I was looking at a 3-9x40.
# Is this a good scope. How does it compare to similar models from other
# brands ? What is differnt between ucc and other monarchs ?
# $280 good price ?
I paid $199 for my Nikon Buckmasters 3-9 X 40 and couldn't be happier.
Excellent optics and holds zero perfectly. I can only assume the
Monarch would be as good since it is a higher end scope.
chasw
is primarily driven by how finely the lenses are polished. For example, the
main mirror in the Hubble telescope was polished for several years with ever
finer media. Roughness is measured in microns of surface deviation.
On mass produced binoculars, spotting scopes and rifle scopes, the maker is
in a hurry to move product out the door. How long it stays on the polishing
machine, with attendant labor, drives the cost up. Its fair to say the
lenses on Kahles scopes are more finely polished than those on Nikon's "New
Monarch" made in the Philippines. At least that's my perception, having
just bought one of each.
That's part of the reason why the Kahles cost twice a much as the Monarch.
To my untrained eye, the less expensive Grand Slams in my inventory (made in
Japan) definitely have more resolving power (at equivalent magnification)
than the New Monarch. - CW
__________________________
"Robert Scott" <desm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fqlbe0$ov6$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
#
# "chasw" <cha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
# news:fqjfol$191$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
#
# # I'd say the final polish on the lenses leaves
# # much to be desired.
#
#
# That's the first time I've ever heard that complaint about any piece of
# optical equipment. You're saying the lenses are rough?
#
# Good shooting,
# desmobob
#
umpqua123
> ...
I've got a couple of Burris Fullfield II Ballistic Plex 3x9x40's that
I'm very happy with ($160 each) and the "Forever Warranty" that comes
with them. Can't say I've had any experience trying to use the
warranty as the scopes have been trouble free since I got them 5 years
ago.
RBM
M700 and the stupid "quick focus ring" eats up about 3/8" of the eye relief
and stick a butler creek flip open and you've lost a whole 1/2"!!!! Then, in
the low rings, the bolt would barely clear the eye-ball end of the
scope....so i had to sand a notch in the butler creek so the bolt would
clear it.
Lastly, it was like looking through a soda straw with it's narrower field of
view.
I sold it. Now that 30-06 has a Vari-xIII 2.5-8x.
Bah I say, get the leupold vari-xIII in 2.5-8x/or vari-x II 2-7, or Vari-XI
2-7 or the rifleman 2-7x
brett
"penultimate" <drw...@cimtel.net> wrote in message
news:fqlbdo$ov2$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
Robert Scott
# Bob: Optical quality is a function of several factors, but resolving
# power
# is primarily driven by how finely the lenses are polished. For example,
# the
# main mirror in the Hubble telescope was polished for several years with
# ever
# finer media. Roughness is measured in microns of surface deviation.
#
# On mass produced binoculars, spotting scopes and rifle scopes, the maker
# is
# in a hurry to move product out the door. How long it stays on the
# polishing
# machine, with attendant labor, drives the cost up. Its fair to say the
# lenses on Kahles scopes are more finely polished than those on Nikon's
# "New
# Monarch" made in the Philippines. At least that's my perception, having
# just bought one of each.
#
# That's part of the reason why the Kahles cost twice a much as the Monarch.
# To my untrained eye, the less expensive Grand Slams in my inventory (made
# in
# Japan) definitely have more resolving power (at equivalent magnification)
# than the New Monarch. - CW
# __________________________
#
# "Robert Scott" <desm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
# news:fqlbe0$ov6$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# ## # news:fqjfol$191$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# #
# # # I'd say the final polish on the lenses leaves
# # # much to be desired.
# #
# #
# # That's the first time I've ever heard that complaint about any piece of
I've been messing around with optics my whole life, but only now realize
that surprisingly, I've never heard much mention of manufacturing processes
as related to optical quality. It seems when talking about optical quality,
people tend to focus more on lens design, lens materials, and coatings.
I'm a photography enthusiast and a Nikon nut. I have four of their 35mm pro
grade film bodies (F2S, F3HP, F4S x 2) a digital SLR (D70) and a king's
ransom worth of lenses. I love them.
So, I'll throw in my .02 on Nikon scopes.... I have a 3.5-10 x 50 and a 2-7
x 32, bought in the early nineties at a premium price (I think there was
just one model line then). I don't consider them worth what I paid.
They're OK, but neither is particularly sharp, and both suffer from
unreliable windage/elevation adjustments. The comparable models of Leupold
VXII seem better to me. Lately, I've been buying Sightron SIIs that I think
are superior, for less money.
As an eastern whitetail hunter, I don't spend much time looking through my
scope. I prefer to spend the money on top notch binoculars rather than
rifle scopes.
Good shooting,
desmobob
penultimate
> ...
Kahles scopes provide excellent optics. However, they are not more
expensive than a Phillipppine made scope because of "better polished"
lenses. A better justification for most of the expense difference is
that skilled labor in Austria is at least 15 times more expensive than
in the Phillippines. A fair estimate for the skill category that
actually makes scopes on the factory floor (including employee paid
taxes) is $2,00 hr in the Phillippines, $20.00 hr in the US, and > $30
hr in Austria.
We could argue till the cows come home about the quality of labor you
get in the Phillippines versus Austria. In this argument, most that
actually know what they are talking about would agree that that you
can get very good results in the Phillippines, but that presently
doing so requires excellent American or European or Japanese
management on the factory floor. Whether a Leupold VX-III or (more
expensive) Kahles is better is at least a subtle difference and more
likely a matter of opinion. But if we compare the premier American
maker with a top quality European product, the substantial price
difference is mostly asking you to pay for Austria's expensive social
welfare program.
Chasm mentions "resolution" and "quality optics", referencing the
former to how smoothly the lenses are polished. While I think design,
materials, processes, coatings, and quality assurance count for more,
the fact of the matter is that when it comes to buying, except for
price and reputation, most people are clueless in judging the good
from the less good. Certainly, you can not tell the difference from
either specifications or from what you see inside the confines of a
store. And while I would agree that you want good resolution and
"quality optics", I actually think that quickness (to a first shot)
and reliable durability are at least as important as a"best view."
Given the Leupold has been in business now for a century and making
rifle scopes for better than 60 years (and that my 50 year old 4X
Mountaineer is still not outclassed by the newest comparable product),
they are probably doing something right.
ReconRyan
manufacturers for sure.
I see many of the scopes mentioned here also have a BDC option. Any
experience with BDC ?
I like the idea because I dont normally carry a rangfinder through the
woods, usually just binocs. I normally shoot with 30-06 mainly 180
grain - I know each load and weight is different, is the BDC close
enough to be useful in this configuration ?
Thanks again !
penultimate
> ...
As guide to required holdover at any particular known range, for
hunters I consider BDC to be in the category of not particularly
useful gadget that certainly does no harm. For your 30-06 with 180
grains sighted at 200 yards, your point blank range extends to about
300 yards and it is no big deal to simply remember bullet drop and
hold over by eye out to a responsible hunting range limit of around
400 yards. The important thing to remember is that at essentially any
range beyond 300 yards, you really need a fairly precise range
estimate. What I am saying is that it is really more important to
know that the range is 350 yards than have the scope show you how much
to hold over if the range is indeed 350. If you have defendible
reason to shoot at longer ranges, and know the range from a finder
reading, and have actually verified BDC correctness by shooting at
very long known ranges, then I am less inclined to consider a BDC in
the gadget category. I just don't think this combination of
conditions much applies to deer and elk hunters.
The good news is that so long as you establish a calibration reference
at a particular scope power, the tick marks on any BDC type reticle
can be used as a handy range estimating aid relative to a normative
estimate of body height. Go google on range estimation using a rifle
scope. The even better news is that an ordinary duplex reticle works
pretty good as a range estimating tool too. This just never dawns on
most people.
I always am concerned that the reticle remains easily visible in low
light (and don't much like the idea of a scope with a battery). I
bring this up because for this reason I am a plain old duplex reticle
fan and I have seen one BDC scope where the extra cross ticks were so
thin as to be lost under low light conditions. So, while I don't see
a lot of reason to seek out a BDC scope as a hunter, this is about the
only reason why I would turn a scope down that had a BDC type
reticle.
For a hunter that thinks he needs an aid to holdover, I do think a BDC
is a lot better idea than futzing with target/tactical turrets.
Indeed, my first thought when I see a hunter in the woods carting a
huge tactical scope is that all these trees must be a new experience
for him.
drewps...@gmail.com
recognizable quality brand for $200. Not only does it wow with the name but
also when they look through it! The glass is amazing! 95% light transmission
might not seem like much more than 92% but it matters in glass. Mine also
have the BDC witch I feel is a must if you are planning on shooting anything
at distance. I use mine for hunting. I can use the app and tell it what round,
what fps my hand-loads are, elevation and even put in wind and print out a
sheet to tape on my gun that corresponds to the BDC.