Comparison test: VXIII,Monarch UCC,ELITE 4200

[CORVAIR]

I found this article over on the Savage Shooters website and thought others might see some interesting comparisons and who the overall winner was. Also all the hype about 90 plus % light gathering ability might be put to rest as well.

http://www.savageshooters.com/Pages/Var ... _Page.html

Chuck, you might like this since you found a new scope you like.

 

[RAF]

So it looks like there isn't much too chose. Seems like some of the instruments used to do testing is a lot more sufficticated than the human eye. Pick one because it's your favorite or what your wallet allows. Is that about right?

 

[big6x6]

Yeah that's a VERY interesting test! Looks like the Nikon Monarch was their favorite. Things he DIDN'T include which are VERY important are then amount of w/e adjustment. The Leupold LRT 72 inches w/e, Nikon Monarch 38 inches w/e adjustment, and Bushnell 4200 26 inches.

Funny thing...I have all three of those scopes! :lol:

 

[CORVAIR]

Being that the author is a competition shooter, apparently the windage and elevation adjustment must have been a mute point.

Wouldn't hamper my selection, especially since most of us would never use that much adjustment. Are your skills that good? Mine aren't. Besides elevation can be compensated for with the proper rail scope base for long distance work.Windage, well if you had to compensate for that much windage, probably should not take the shot.
With most of our range work at 200 yards or less we never develop skills to even use that much windage compensation.

All three of these scopes are good ones, like you said, you own all three.

 

[big6x6]

Being that the author is a competition shooter, apparently the windage and elevation adjustment must have been a mute point.

Maybe for his use, but certainly not for most that would own such a scope. The vast majority of shooters would use those scopes for informal target and varmint hunting, period. In fact the author said as much: "The reason we chose these specifications is because they are the most common and sought after features for target and varmint rifles, which is also how the vast majority of our readers use their rifles."

Wouldn't hamper my selection, especially since most of us would never use that much adjustment. Are your skills that good? Mine aren't. Besides elevation can be compensated for with the proper rail scope base for long distance work.Windage, well if you had to compensate for that much windage, probably should not take the shot.
With most of our range work at 200 yards or less we never develop skills to even use that much windage compensation.

Has nothing to do with it. I guess you have never had a scope without enough w/e adjustment to get the scope/rifle zeroed. I have, several times! The FIRST order of business a shooter has when mounting a scope is to zero the scope at SOME distance. I've personally never mounted a scope where I didn't have to use at least SOME if not a LOT of w/e adjustment just to get the bullets hitting the target, much less zeroed. The scope with the least amount of w/e adjustment here has 26 inches. Now that's from CENTER with translates to 13 inches UP and 13 inches DOWN from center. Same for right and left. So if a scoped rifle is shooting 8-10 inches from the bull at 100yds(that's not much!) and you correct that, you only have a small amount of adjustment left. It's easy and happens more than you think to use all the w/e of a scope just to get it on paper. Then when you consider that said scopes could be mounted on rifles of such varying trajectories as the .220 Swift, .308 Win, .22 Hornet; using practically INFINITE different rings/bases; on rifles that RARELY have their scope mounting holes squared/centered...it's easy to see why the amount of w/e adjustment is NEVER a moot point!

 

[CORVAIR]

"I guess you have never had a scope without enough w/e adjustment to get the scope/rifle zeroed. I have, several times!"

Nope, never in 35 years of scoped rifle, shotgun or muzzleloader shooting.

"The FIRST order of business a shooter has when mounting a scope is to zero the scope at SOME distance. I've personally never mounted a scope where I didn't have to use at least SOME if not a LOT of w/e adjustment just to get the bullets hitting the target, much less zeroed. The scope with the least amount of w/e adjustment here has 26 inches. Now that's from CENTER with translates to 13 inches UP and 13 inches DOWN from center. Same for right and left. So if a scoped rifle is shooting 8-10 inches from the bull at 100yds(that's not much!) and you correct that, you only have a small amount of adjustment left. It's easy and happens more than you think to use all the w/e of a scope just to get it on paper. Then when you consider that said scopes could be mounted on rifles of such varying trajectories as the .220 Swift, .308 Win, .22 Hornet; using practically INFINITE different rings/bases; on rifles that RARELY have their scope mounting holes squared/centered...it's easy to see why the amount of w/e adjustment is NEVER a moot point!"

I do not disagree with your statements and would follow the same rules you apply above, just never had to do it. I had a Remington 270 that was not drilled square to the bore, but compensated with ring shims rather than eliminating scope windage.If you are not cost concious, then maybe spending that extra few hundred on the Leupy vs. ring shims or compensated scope mounting rails is the moot point.

Perhaps the author had properly drilled mounting holes on the test rifles and only had to use marginal windage and elevation? I don't know, but I do think the entire article definately points out the quality of all three scopes. I would not hesitate to own the Nikon, I already own the other two.I am not defending the author or my methods. I know what works for me and you apparently as well.

Thanks for the excellant points and feedback!

 

[416LJT]

scope comparison

One thing that caught my attention was when talking about the parallax adjustment on the Leupold the author said "The glass and overall quality was top notch, but the troublesome side-focus left me wanting to pull my hair out. Needless to say I?d recommend going with the adjustable objective version of this model rather than the side-focus. "

The part that interests me is that this was supposed to be an article based on actual comparisons of scopes. Where did he actually compare the Leupold with the side focus against a Leupold with an adjustable objective focus. Also how can he recommend the one over the other without testing it. See the last sentence in the quotation above.
Just a point of interest that was apparent to me. The rest of the article was good.

 

[big6x6]

One thing that caught my attention was when talking about the parallax adjustment on the Leupold the author said "The glass and overall quality was top notch, but the troublesome side-focus left me wanting to pull my hair out. Needless to say I?d recommend going with the adjustable objective version of this model rather than the side-focus. "

I'll tell you this is COMMON with AO scopes. Most of mine have this problem although some are worse than others. My Burris 6-24X44 Signature seems to be one of the worst and my Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20X50 seems to be one of the best ones. Of course the shooters eyes play a huge role as well...

 

[416LJT]

Re: scope comparison

The part that interests me is that this was supposed to be an article based on actual comparisons of scopes. Where did he actually compare the Leupold with the side focus against a Leupold with an adjustable objective focus. Also how can he recommend the one over the other without testing it. See the last sentence in the quotation above.
Just a point of interest that was apparent to me. The rest of the article was good.

I just thought it ironic that the author sort of railed a little bit about how NOBODY had done a direct comparison before , and how in this article that was about to change. Then he went and did what he was railing about.

 

[CORVAIR]

Re: scope comparison

The part that interests me is that this was supposed to be an article based on actual comparisons of scopes. Where did he actually compare the Leupold with the side focus against a Leupold with an adjustable objective focus. Also how can he recommend the one over the other without testing it.

I just thought it ironic that the author sort of railed a little bit about how NOBODY had done a direct comparison before , and how in this article that was about to change. Then he went and did what he was railing about.

I believe he was refferancing his past experience with the Leupold adjustable objective scopes. I suppose he could have included a dozen other scopes in this comparison test, but then it would have been a pretty lengthy article wouldn't it.
If you want to ask him questions on his article, go over to the Savage Shooters site and ask him.He is a highly respected bench shooter and does know what he is talking about, I recieved a thorough description from him on the lack of detail on w/e adjustments.I was quite satisfied with his immediate and quick response.

 

[416LJT]

Oh , I'm not questioning the mans intelligence or his sincerity , this was just something that I noticed and thought I would point it out . Sometimes I am "nitpicky " about things. If he had made a point to inform the reader that he already had knowledge or personal experience with that scope he recommended , there wouldn't have been any question for me. The article was still very worthwhile and informative.