Nikon are just about to launch their new Monarch range of riflescopes. The current series are getting on a bit, but in quality optics, this seems to be a positive in favour of the old ones, certainly the B&L 4200 series and old 4000 series seemed to indicate that newer is not necessarily better. Having not seen a new Monarch, I can not comment.

There are two definite areas that Nikon have addressed with the new Monarch, these being side focus PX and better mounting length.
The one I am testing fits well on a Remmy 700 SA, but will not give the correct eye relief on the Weatherby. The front section of the tube is definitely too short given the relatively short eye relief. In most cases this is okay, but could cause mounting issues.

Anyway, comparison test here is against the 6-24 x 50 4200, Zeiss Conquest 6.5 – 20 x 50. The scope tested is the 6.5 – 20 x 44 Illuminated Mildot version.

Pricewise, the Nikon comes in at about $550, so nearly the same as the 4200 and $300 ish less than the Zeiss.

When removed from the box, the Nikon feels very solid and quite heavy (dimensions and weight will be added later). The build quality is better than both the Zeiss and the Bushnell. There is just the right amount of tension on the front PX ring to ensure it will not move, without user intervention. Very slick and precise.
The turrets (1/8” per click) have a very positive adjustment that feels absolutely precise.
Testing on a wall at 50 yards the clicks really to equate to 1/8” and return to zero with no error at all. This was done on a clamp on a bench not a rifle.

PX will come down to 25 yards at full mag and easily down to 8 on 10 mag.

The reticule is true Mildot at 12 mag and though Mildot is not my favourite (so why have the last 6 scopes I have bought all been mildot??), but that is because the Midltot reticules make lamp work very hard. The Nikon being illuminated negates this. The illumination is seamless, there is no flaring at all and the reticule does not develop any fuzziness when illuminated.

Optically this shows it’s pedigree in heaps. The Zeiss gives an absolutely solid and distortion free edge to edge sight picture. The Bushnell does this pretty well too, but the Zeiss beats the 4200 on clarity and contrast all the way up to top mag. The Bushnell starts to loose quality in sight picture above 20 mag. The Nikon sits far closer to the Zeiss than the Bushnell in quality of sight picture. The Nikon is surprisingly similar to the Zeiss and clarity is definitely on a par. It looses to the Zeiss only at above 18 mag and with contrast. The Zeiss manages to generate a 3 dimensional picture where both the Bushnell and Nikon seem to generate very good 2 dimensional pictures. This Nikon is better than the last Monarch I had and ££ beats both the Zeiss and Bushnell. If the Zeiss was $100 more, then I would say it was a better bet, but worth £300 more, not really.
The Zeiss just seems to catch everything required. The Nikon gives everything but that very last bit of performance. The Bushnell is a great scope for the money too, but in this arena takes third place. The Bushnell does offer 30mm tube that is required by me for the high cheek piece on one of my guns.

To be honest, the Zeiss is going to go. This is because I have a requirement for the 1/8th adjustment and the fact that I have enough scopes for twice the number of rifles I have.