Nikon Monarch vs Leupold VX-II

[hunterpat]

I am planning on getting one of the new Savage 220F slug guns and I want to put a good scope on it (also want a full length scope, not a short shatgun/muzzleloader scope). I was wondering if anyone has compared the Nikon Monarch to the Leupold VX-II? I currently have a 2.5-10x42 Monarch on a ceterfire rifle and am satisfied, but I have never owned a Leupold (hunting budget hasn't allowed it). How does the low light performance compare between the two? Is the eye relief similar? I checked on ebay and it looks like I can buy either one for $275-$315, so cost appears to be similar. Thanks for the help.

[purple heart]

I have a few of each and don't think you could go wrong with either
one. I don't know about the newer Leupolds.

[kenjs1]

General consensus is that in low light the Monarch will have a slight edge but in eye relief the Leupold wins.

[Just a Hunter]

$239 will get you a Nikon Slughunter with there bdc 200 reticle.

its hard to beat a scope designed for the recoil of a slug gun with a scale set to adjust for the typical sabot trajectory

http://basspro.scene7.com/is/image/BassPro/1389669-reticle?layer=comp&wid=500&hei=500&fmt=jpeg&qlt=100,0&op_sharpen=0&resMode=trilin&op_usm=1.0,1.0,0.0,0&iccEmbed=0

[Hi Ball]

Those type recticules are fine, as long as you practice with them and shoot distances down range etc. Now otherwise I would go with just a plan medium thickness recticule as I can judge the distance with a range finder or get pretty close looking at objects on the way to the target.