Just purchased a Monarch Gold.

Have to say w/o actually using it in the field it seems like a pretty good scope, quite clear.

I've heard some say it will hang w/ the German scopes. I'm not saying it will but obviously many think it's a pretty good scope.

Any of you have them or used them?

Thanks

Reloader

I like the Gold.
I just got a 6.5-20 Monarch.

Hang with the Euro's??
That's a stretch, IMO.

Basically, the Gold is a Monarch with a 30mm tube, right?

Yes and no. The Gold's main advantages over the standard Monarch is the optional German #4 reticle and the fixed four inches of eye relief. The long eye relief is coupled with what I feel is the industry benchmark for flexible, easy to work with eye placement. The stanard Monarch and most of the Euros don't come close in this regard.

Overall, it's a very good scope. I currently have a 2.5-10x50 and a 1.5-6x42 both with the German reticle. I will buy more. BTW, the 1.5-6 fits perfectly on a short action Kimber.

Gabe

Thanks Papa!
Rock on!!

I love Nikons.

The 2.5-10 Gold has a side focus?? Is this on your as well? Do you like a SF on a big game hunting scope??

Yes, the standard Monarch can be a little finicky with eye placement at times, at higher power settings.

The Gold I looked through was very nice, but not up to the S&B's and VM/V's optically speaking.
(The Gold is not nearly as expensive as the big Euro's either.)

The main area it doesn't hold a candle to the Euro's is the price (except the lesser priced Zeiss Conquest)....



Ken....

quote:

The main area it doesn't hold a candle to the Euro's is the price (except the lesser priced Zeiss Conquest)....

You can say that again!

Cheaptrick,

The MG I have has a locking SFPA which is sort of nice. I do like the SF PA more than the AO on a hunting rifle. I like the lcoking feature as well. My Conquest SF knob will turn alittle after intense use. Not much but, on the MG it's nice to know its locked in.

Reloader

I should've noted that I do use a Buckmaster on my '06 and it is a pleasure to view through... Especially for a couple hundred dollars...

I would be interested in hearing how these Monarchs are holding up for you... My hunting partner had two of the older Monarchs break on his 300 win mag... I'm about to purchas a 338-378 Weatherby and was curious if either of you have used the Gold's on something with some kick to it...

I might want to give the Gold some consideration because either the Buckmaster or older Monarchs I've looked through certainly show good quality optics...

Ken....

quote:

Originally posted by papaschmud:
BTW, the 1.5-6 fits perfectly on a short action Kimber.

Gabe

How well would they fit on a long action?

quote:

I would be interested in hearing how these Monarchs are holding up for you...

You are actually the first poster I've ever seen and the first person I've ever heard that knows someone who has had them break. I'm not saying it doesn't happen because it happens to the best of them but, by my statement about never hearing of them failing should prove that they must be reliable.

I've had them on several magnums and never has one failed. That doesn't mean they are bullet proof but, they just haven't let me down.

Reloader

Please don't take my post as a knock on the Monarchs, either the Gold or the standard.
You would be hard pressed to find a bigger Nikon fan than me.
My latest optic addition, as I stated earlier, is a 6.5-20 Monarch with a lit mil dot.

The Gold I looked through had fine optics and looked extremely well built.

I'll be sure to give the Gold another look.
Especially the lower power models.

Thanks Reloader!!

Excellent info here on the Monarch Gold... I know I certainly like my Buckmaster and wanted to put a higher end scope on my Weatherby... Didn't like the price of the Euro's (cept the 3 - 9 x 40 Zeiss) and the Nightforces and U.S. Optics of the world are simply out of the question dollar wise....

I was going to go with either Zeiss or Leupold but I think I'll also include the Gold in the mix... Just one more decision to make ...

Ken....

Ken,

There have been some pretty good deals going on Ebay on the Gold.

Good Luck

Reloader

When it comes to a long action, the 2.5-10 fits A+. The 1.5-6 needs an extension front base and usually one size higher rings than normal to clear the 42mm objective when you pull the scope back to get the ring spacing and the correct eye relief. It's definately not a BAD install, just not as nice as on the Kimber short.

The monarch gold 1.5-6x42 german #4 reticle has 1/4 moa clicks correctly numbered and passes the grid test. My swaro did not. Swaro is just noticeably better in moonlight. I think you can not do better than the MG for an all around scope and the price/quality can't be beat.

Hello,
I have three Nikon's on Ruger 375HH, 458Lott, and 416Rigby, all of some considerable recoil, and have nearly couple hundred rounds through each of them and the 1.5x4x20 Nikons have not given anything but fine service. Clear as any Leupold I have and no problem with the eye relief on these particular rifles. Just my experience with Nikon but so far no problems.

Driver,

Now those are some thumpers.... I'm starting to lean towards the MGs at this point for sure... If you can't beat up a scope with a 416 I doubt the 338-378 would be able to hurt one either....

Ken....