Nikon Monarch 3-9X40 vs. Bushnell Sharpshooter Scope

I recently purchased a Nikon Team Primos Scope 3-9X40 for my Remington 700. It replaced my Bushnell Trophy 6-18X40 because it had not enough eye relief.

I thought the Team Primos is originally a Nikon Monarch with the BDC reticle, which consider many to be a great scope w/ up to 95% light transmission.
After reading lots of good comments about the Monarch series I decided to give it a chance.

I do also have a Remington 710 with a Bushnell Sharpshooter 3-9X40 scope, which is a $30 scope, working flawless.

After comparing these 2 scopes under low light condition and at daylight trying to read license plates I was expecting to see at least a difference in optical performance between these 2 scopes. I mean its pretty unfair comparing a $30 scope to a $250 scope.

But I was shocked i could not see ANY difference! The Bushnell has even a bigger FOV!
I checked the lenses if there is something wrong with them but found nothing.

My question:
Is the Bushnell so good or did I get a defective Nikon Primos/ Monarch Scope?

Thanks.
Matt.

link on Nikon's website:
http://www.nikondownload.com/models/...TeamPrimos.doc

The Nikon is a better scope in every way. Color, clarity, contrast, diffraction, dispersion, resolution, barreling, reliability, and is worth every penny. You get what you pay for. They don't use license plates for eye charts, and you pay for more than the picture you get.

I think the low ball price on the Bushnell Sharpshooter is due to the fact that it is not "shockproof". The stats are equal in every way to the Buckmaster line aside from being a "shockproof" scope.
I have mine (Sharpshooter 3-9x40) mounted to a .22 bolt and works flawlessly, but I have a feeling that putting it atop a rifle with greater recoil would cause it to loose zero pretty quickly.
Just my $.02

i own a 30-06 with a sharp shooter own and never had a problem with it killed alot of deer with and was never out of tune