Nikon Monarch 4-16x42 BDC vs. Vortex Viper 4-12x40 BDC

I'm going to be putting a new scope on my hunting rifle, and I've somewhat narrowed it down to these 2. I was in the local outdoors store today, hoping to compare the 2. Unfortunately, they only had a Viper HS to compare. I liked the feel of the Monarch, there didnt seem to be any "slop" in the turrets, the glass seemed pretty darn good too, especially on the lower range of its magnification. However, I hated the look of the BDC reticle. Its thick! and the open circles just seem odd to me. Is the intent to use the junction of the top and bottom of each circle or the "whole" cirlce?
Now, I know it was the HS, but the Viper that I looked at was awesome. The crispness and clarity was a very noticeable difference to the Monarch. Now, my question is this. How much of an upgrade is the HS to the standard Viper? Is the glass significantly better? Also, is the Dead Hold BDC reticle in the HS the same that would be in the regular Viper? It was much finer than the Nikon, and I really liked that.