4-16 monarch or 6-18 buckmaster...which to keep?

J

jwalle1

New member
I have a cz 527 varmint in 204 topped right now with a 6-18 buckmaster scope.. It shoots great and will put 5 shots under a dime at 100 yards. I use the gun for fox/coyote hunting and target shooting. The only problem that i have with the buckmaster scope is that the crosshairs are pretty thick. Other than that it has served me well with no issues...

Now i also have a monarch 4-16 that is new in box.

I got a good deal on the monarch so i could probably sell it and make a few bucks, keeping the buckmaster with the higher power..

Or i could replace the higher powered buckmaster with the monarch and sell it...

Which way you guys go??
 
jwalle1,
do you have the nikoplex cross hairs in that buckmaster? I have them in a 3-9x40 and 2 6-18x40 nikons and the cross hairs are pretty thin on them.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: smokybluehunterI like the 4-14x40 because the lower power is useful when they pop up close in.JMO Because I hunt in the mountains and don't carry a shotgun.
+1
The 6-18 is too much power for up close. It's nice for shooting paper though
 
I love both scopes! Too bad you can't keep both. I would go with the 4-16 monarch. What reticle does it have? I have a 4-16 monarch with the mildot reticle, very thin. I love it, perfect scope. I just bought a 4-12x50 buckmasters and am extremely impressed with the clarity and quality of the optics. Tough call.

On a side note, the buckmasters 3-9x40 duplex for 199.00 is the perfect whitetail scope for the big woods of Wisconsin. Incredible optics for the price.

I don't think I helped a [beeep] bit!
 
Last edited:
I have both.Don't like either one for hunting but I like the buckmaster better for target due to the magnification and target turrets.Eye relief is better on the buckmaster in my opinion as well
 
I have owned both and it's a no-brainer: keep the Monarch. Look through that Buckmaster and notice the thick, black ring around the outside edge; someone has named that effect "tunnel vision" and it's a curse of those BMs. If not having 1/8" clicks and/or the extra turret caps and sunshade that (possibly) came with the Buckmaster is a problem, the slight difference in field if view @ highest magnification is more than made up by the more "spacious" view of the upscale Monarch. Will concede that the eye relief is a little less "tricky" on the Buckmaster, though.
 
Last edited:
jwalle1, I have never owned a Monarch but there will be a day I will. Why not mount the Monarch and see how you like it? You could save the BM for another rifle. An unmounted scope is always a reason for a new rifle, at least that's what I tell my wife.
 
I have both. My 6-18x Buckmaster is also on a CZ 527 Varmint. I originally bought the 4-16x42 for the CZ but the bolt handle hit the eye piece on it so i put the buck master on it. I didn't want the rings any taller than they already were. (Factory cz rings) IMO the monarch has much better glass. Both mine have mil-dot reticles.
 
Originally Posted By: FurhunterI'd sell'em both and buy a 4.5x14 Conquest.
If he were going that route I'd just tell him to buy a Swarovski Z3, but he asked about the 2 scopes mentioned.
 

Originally Posted By: deathwind III have owned both and it's a no-brainer: keep the Monarch. Look through that Buckmaster and notice the thick, black ring around the outside edge; someone has named that effect "tunnel vision" and it's a curse of those BMs. If not having 1/8" clicks and/or the extra turret caps and sunshade that (possibly) came with the Buckmaster is a problem, the slight difference in field if view @ highest magnification is more than made up by the more "spacious" view of the upscale Monarch. Will concede that the eye relief is a little less "tricky" on the Buckmaster, though.
Its the other way around for my two,hence the poor review of the monarch.The ''tunneling'' on the monarch has left it sitting in a corner collecting dust.
Should of added the lower mag of the monarch would be better for hunting.
 
Originally Posted By: crazyfox270 Originally Posted By: FurhunterI'd sell'em both and buy a 4.5x14 Conquest.
If he were going that route I'd just tell him to buy a Swarovski Z3, but he asked about the 2 scopes mentioned.

And I commented on the 2 scopes he mentioned. I was just offering a different angle from all the other opinions.

Besides..
He would have to sell 4 scopes like those Nikons to get into a Z3
 
16x is all you need to comfortably shoot targets at 100 yards, or do load development.

I've looked through the 18x Buckmasters and always liked them, just never pulled the trigger on one because I did buy a 4.5-14x40mm Buckmaster SF once and the adjustment setting info all wore off the SF knob, plus I always had a more difficult time getting a good complete sight picture quickly when shouldering that one. I never had that problem with any other scope really.

I have a 5.5-16.5-44mm Nikon Monarch that I LOVE! So much good daylight, great for preds at night time too.

So if the Monarch you have is a 42mm, that would be what I would want - mounted as low as she will go.
 
Keep the Monarch, better glass. For your CZ, have your bolt handle modified by James Calhoon for $48, and maybe buy his Hunker mounts for $89 to get your scope lower.
 
If that's your choice I'd go with the 4x16 if your calling preds. If your just taking targets of opertunity and paper either will work. I call and even a 3x9 is too restrictive for me. One thing I recomend is read the coments and weigh everything you read but go with what YOU want. Scope choice is a very personal thing I find that a 1.5x6 scope is nearly perfect for all my hunting need and I have four,my hunting partner has a 4x16 and we hunt the same country and he thinks its great
 
Back
Top