Omega or Monarch?

[Redeye171]

I need to decide which one of these scopes to put on my Triumph.

Team Primos monarch 3-9X40(bdc)

Omega 3-9X40 with nikoplex


I can get each for about the same price. The monarch has BDC and I can get the Omega without. I am leaning toward the omega but I would hate to pass up a good deal on the monarch if it would better suit me.

I would like to mount the scope without having to remove the iron sights.

Warne bases and QD rings are my first choice for mounts but what heights would best suit my need for keeping the sights on the gun. I would like to remove the scope for cleaning and also to be able to hunt in states that don't allow optics during mz seasons.


Advise please. Thanks in advance.

tom

 

[Doohan]

I really think you are splitting hairs here! I would go with the shortest scope, likely the Omega. Either one will do you well....


I would buy the Omega with the BDC myself... Good scope, very fine reticle but if you are hunting in the thick stuff then why would you want a 250yd reticle?

 

[bsn]

I have a few of the Nikon scopes with the BDC and to be honest I never use the BDC feature.

 

[big6x6]

The Monarch has better optics and that's the one I'd get.

 

[2fas2c]

Can't rightly say which I'd choose. Girlfriend gave me a Pro-Hunter 209X50 w/a .338 Federal C/F barrel, Luepold VXII 3-9X40 and a Nikon Omega w/BDC for Christmas. I could have done worse... 8)

 

[jbargers]

I dont know what the eye relief is on the monarch, but it is very long on the omega. I would probably go with the omega just for that reason. I have a habit of getting a little too close on my ML's

 

[Redeye171]

Thanks for the help everyone. Doohan, you are right. I hunt in
thick brush country so the Omega nikoplex should do me well.

Thanks again,

Tom