Signature Select vs. Monarch

[sputter]

I am in the market for a higher magnification, ballistic scope for a .300 short mag. I am replacing a 3x9 Bushnell 3200. I tried two 3200 14x DOA with complete disappointment - they would not hold zere! Junk in my opinion.

Okay, now that is out of my system, I am now looking at the Burris Signature Select in 4-16x ballistic plex with posi-lock. My other choice is the Nikon Monarch BDC. I don't have any option to look at them side by side off a shelf anywhere. The Burris touts many features making them seem like a very good option. I am not a big fan of the circles of the BDC, and don't want to have to crank a tactical every time. This is mainly for hunting. Is the Burris posi-lock necessary for traveling in the back of a pick-up, or just a good option? My pockets don't stretch wide enough for the Zeiss options, and am not a big fan of gold rings. I want better than average quality, magnification and a ballistic reticle.

[Oldtrader3]

They (the Burris and Nikon) are both made in the Philippines and are probably similar in pysical attributes and in quality for the money. The Burris Signature scope has the edge in coatings and glass quality. Unless you upgrade the Nikon to the Monarch Gold. The Burris Signature and the Monarch Gold also cost about the same. They both rank about the same in quality ratings that I have seen on other sites.

I have experience with the Nikons and not the Burris scopes. I personally do not care for the BDC reticle. Too much clutter. However, the pricing for both these scopes is getting close to the price of a Zeiss Conquest which IMHO is a better scope than both of the other choices.

[Agunner]

i also hate the BDC reticle ... pay the dollars and enjoy the Zies

[Oldtrader3]

Not having experience with Burris Posilock, this is hearsay but several peope whose judgement I trust have commented about having problems setting the Posilock without some small amount of crosshair creep that is associated with function of locking the reticle.

[citori]

I would pick the Burris as I also hate the BDC device. I am not a huge fan of the ballistic Plex but it is unobtrusie enough that I can live with it. I have a handful of Fullfield II scopes with the B-Plex reticle and the reticle is not bad. I have a Signature Select with the Posi-Lock and it is as mentioned, there is some crosshair creep when one uses the Lock. I have not used the lock feature in quite a while and the guns seems to keep zero with no problem. This scope sits on a 300 Win mag and has been on a number of other guns including a 458 Win mag briefly. Without using the lock feature, it has lasted through the actions of airport ramp rats, float planes, horses, ATVs, foot, cars, trucks, and even boats too. I think the Posi-Lock is unneeded for the vast majority of users but then I never really understood the use or need for it to begin with. I just picked up a 4-12x Burris Compact but have not decided on what to mount it on yet. It seems to be as clear as the Signature but that is only a surmise as I have not run it through its paces yet. I bought it over another Nikon as it was on clearance and it is blessed with the standard crosshairs. If you can find one of these, it may be worth a look.
I also have the Monarch scope you mention, it seems very comparable to the Burris in every way. If there was any way to get it without the BDC feature, I would pick it over the Burris with the Ballistic Plex. It is a toss up if both have standard crosshairs.
I would also check out the Zeiss website as they seem to be changing their Conquest line and clearancing out the old. th site will give you what models are being clearanced and Cabela's has matched if they carry that particular scope. I've bought a couple Zeiss scopes this way and hope to add in another or two.

[ARduxnbux]

I am in the market for a higher magnification, ballistic scope for a .300 short mag. I am replacing a 3x9 Bushnell 3200. I tried two 3200 14x DOA with complete disappointment - they would not hold zere! Junk in my opinion.

Okay, now that is out of my system, I am now looking at the Burris Signature Select in 4-16x ballistic plex with posi-lock. My other choice is the Nikon Monarch BDC. I don't have any option to look at them side by side off a shelf anywhere. The Burris touts many features making them seem like a very good option. I am not a big fan of the circles of the BDC, and don't want to have to crank a tactical every time. This is mainly for hunting. Is the Burris posi-lock necessary for traveling in the back of a pick-up, or just a good option? My pockets don't stretch wide enough for the Zeiss options, and am not a big fan of gold rings. I want better than average quality, magnification and a ballistic reticle.

For the money you're blowing on scopes, I'd just buy a Zeiss Conquest and be done with all of it. Their Z-600 reticle is a great addition to an already fantastic scope.

The 3-9X40 with a Z-600 reticle is very comparable in price, especially considering what you'll be throwing out on either the Monarch or Signature select scopes you're considering.

[C. Schutte]

For the money you're blowing on scopes, I'd just buy a Zeiss Conquest and be done with all of it. Their Z-600 reticle is a great addition to an already fantastic scope.

The 3-9X40 with a Z-600 reticle is very comparable in price, especially considering what you'll be throwing out on either the Monarch or Signature select scopes you're considering.




Amen brother!

[sputter]

The wealth of "real life" intelligent information, that has been shared here, is impressive! I have not had much exposure to the Conquest, other than one look through off a shelf. The Zeiss website shows all the "features" of their ballistic crosshair, and "simple and easy to use" doesn't come to mind quickly.

I will look into the discontinued option to get Zeiss's level of performance. The impact of the posilock effecting the zero position only makes sense. I'm sure Burris is touting this as "minimal," but none of us are after "minimal."

Does the optical clarity of the Zeiss, at 9 or 10x, compare to the 14-16x of others? As my eyes "mature," I am concerned about the need for more X. I want 500 yard clarity and quality. I am not committed to having a ballistic reticle, but it is nice when punching holes in paper at known ideal distances.

[C. Schutte]

Does the optical clarity of the Zeiss, at 9 or 10x, compare to the 14-16x of others? As my eyes "mature," I am concerned about the need for more X. I want 500 yard clarity and quality. I am not committed to having a ballistic reticle, but it is nice when punching holes in paper at known ideal distances.



The short answer is yes.
The difference between the Zeiss and something of lesser quality is the detail and contrast that you get. Magnification is still the same on a Conquest set at 10x and a el cheapo delux at the same power. So, if you are planning on shooting tight groups at 500 yards then you really need some high magnification so to avoid covering your point of aim. However, with higher quality optics the ability to tell what you are looking at is significantly better. Instead of a blurry target you will set sharp lines. When hunting you'll be able to distinguish game much better. I've found game using my Zeiss binos only to not be able to locate it with my scope (scope was a Nikon Monarch) even though I knew what was there and where it was. Also, as the light fades the better optics really stand apart.

[Oldtrader3]

CMS, this could be a problem with either scope mentioned earlier and comparing them to Zeiss binoculars. I have a pair of 10x42 Zeiss armored Victory binoculars and I am sure that I could see detail (like antlers in the trees) with them that I would not see with my 8x setting on my Nikon Monarch 2-8x32 scope.

[C. Schutte]

CMS, this could be a problem with either scope mentioned earlier and comparing them to Zeiss binoculars. I have a pair of 10x42 Zeiss armored Victory binoculars and I am sure that I could see detail (like antlers in the trees) with them that I would not see with my 8x setting on my Nikon Monarch 2-8x32 scope.




Funny you should mention that. In my example I had just purchased my Zeiss victories (10x40) and was hunting the hill country which in the Fall has plenty of tans and browns mixed with greens. In the last 30 minutes of day light I noticed a buck that had been bedded in a brown dead fall. With my Zeiss binos he stood out like a sore thumb. When I lowered my binos and shouldered my rifle (Monarch scope) I could not locate the buck. I thought the buck had run so I lowered the rifle and raised my binos and sure enough, he was still standing in the same place. Several times this happened. I could find him without any trouble with my binos but could not distinguish him at all with the Nikon scope. At any rate the party ended when my friend who does not believe in optics walked across the field scaring the buck! As soon as the sun gets low my friend starts packing up because it is too dark to see, *%#@@*&!!!!!!

[ARduxnbux]

The Zeiss website shows all the "features" of their ballistic crosshair, and "simple and easy to use" doesn't come to mind quickly.

In many ways, it is actually better as it provides numbered lines for holdovers, as well as reference marks for windage to help compensate for drift on windier days.

Where that Conquest scope will separate itself from the other scopes you mentioned is in the low light clarity and detail. You'll never fully appreciate the difference until you've seen an animal thru one right after nightfall.

[C. Schutte]

Where that Conquest scope will separate itself from the other scopes you mentioned is in the low light clarity and detail. You'll never fully appreciate the difference until you've seen an animal thru one right after nightfall.


This is exactly why when I advocate spending on the Zeiss. If you are going to shell out for the Monarch then you just have to consider the Conquest. I became a believer on the spot when that scenario happened to me. Just last weekend using my binos I was seeing plenty of game (hogs in a swamp) that another hunter could only hear. There is a reason that those of us that know are always preaching this...........chs