I've pretty much decided on going with a Nikon Monarch scope, but I'm having a lot of trouble deciding which one. I've pretty much narrowed it down to the 4-16x42mm with the Mildot reticle or the 4-16x50mm Nikoplex Reticle.

I would much prefer the Mildot reticle, but I had planned to go with a 50mm objective (Mildot reticle is not available in the 50mm objective....not sure why). Is the 50mm objective a significant enough upgrade for me to go with a standard reticle rather than the Mildot? Cost isn't a big issue as there is only around $30 difference between the two.

To be quite honest, I've always used 50mm scopes and don't have any experience with any of the ones with smaller objectives. Also, from a magnification perspective, is it worth the few extra ounces to have a 16x scope versus going with something that is, say, 2.5-10x? Again, I've typically used scopes with 10x max, so I don't really know how much more beneficial the additonal 6x would be.

either should be fine. i would opt for the 42mm personally. i have a 50mm on my main rifle but still prefer a 40-45 obj size.

go with the 42... 50's just like to bump in to things.. Plus 42 will mount closer to the barrel.

The only thing you get with the 50mm is a wider field of view. If your wanting the Mildot my guess is its going to be somewhat a paper shooter so field of view isn't as crucial. Light transmission will be the same in both scopes. I'd guess you'd be plenty content with the 42mm mil dot.

I like having a 16x on my deer rifle as I haven't invested in good binos so the scope serves 2 purposes and in an AR county being able to clearly count points check width is important. A Mildot would give you even more assurance you're staying legal.

This is for my deer rifle (.300 Wby Mag). I just got an email back from Nikon. Per their sales department, the primary difference is that the 50mm will provide additional light gathering in low light conditions when using the scope at higher powers, which is pretty much what I thought. My question at this point is how much of a difference in low light conditions would the 50mm make?

You get more light transmission with the 50... How can the be the same?
The 50 is larger thus alowing for more light to be gathered.

Light transmission is the coatings and quality of the glass.

Just like 30mm tubes the only differance is more adjustment.

Basically your eye can only take in so much light once you get to that point any thing else is more or less lost

It doesn't make sense but manufacturers like Nikon say the Monarch transfers 95% of the light. That is for the entire line 32mm-50mm.

A 50mm will not have a wider FOV, in fact in most brands the 50mm in fact has a NARROWER FOV.

The 50mm will be slightly brighter in very low light, BUT the 42mm will let you see well before and after legal hours especially with a quality scope like the Monarch.

The 50mm will be heavier, must be mounted higher (most people shoot better with the scope mounted as low as possible, it is not natural to have to raise the head to get a sight picture) and the 50mm is more expensive.

The 42mm will handle any legal shooting hours for big game, so for that I see no reason for a 50mm. But everyone has their preferences.

You sir are completely correct. Nikon and Leupold both advertise the same field of view between the 40 and 50 and 42 and 50mm scopes. But they also advertise the same light transmission. But I guess maybe the large objective will increase your ability to get all 95% of the light transferred.

as long as eye relief, coatings, exit pupil, prism, prism coating and glass quality are the same, and magnifcation the same also.

the 95% percent or that percentage for any company is caculated differently by different companies...

Example Nikon's 95 percent is no the same as Zeiss 95 percent

Its very misleading.

also 50 vs 42 is also very misleading because again you eye can only gather so much light. so once you reach that point it doesn't matter how much light the scope transfers you will never be able o tell the differance.

You wouldnt tell the difference. Reticle is more important to me.

You are onto the key...exit pupil. The average human eye dialates to a maximum of 7mm in darkness. You determine the exit pupil of a scope by dividing the magnification into the onbjective lense size. Considering that these are both Nikon scopes, you can assume they have the same glass and the same coatings.

4x16x42
42mm divided by 16 = 2.625mm exit pupil. That will transmit much less light than the eye can process at max magnification.

4x16x50
50mm divided by 16 = 3.125mm exit pupil. That will transmit more light but still much less than the eye can process at max magnification.

Persoanlly, I don't a lot of benefit of the 50mm. If you were shooting for an exit pupil of 5, the only advantage of the 50mm is that you can attain that at 10x as opposed to 8x for the 42mm.

Having said all that, I shoot a Leupold 4.5x14.56LR VX-L on my 270 so in the end, go with what you want.