Does anyone have any experience with the 30MM tubed Nikon Monarch Gold scopes made a few years ago. I acquired a 1.75x6 and am considering it for my 9.3x62. It seems like a pretty sturdy scope but I have no experience with them.

What's the field-blending like? A lot of makers now seem to think fat neoprene is more important than finding your target in a hurry, and I suspect Nikon is right up there in that regard.

I don't know what "field blending" is. The scope reminds me a lot of the Zeiss Conquest. I tried it last night at dark and it is very bright. It is also sharp and clear to the outer edges.

Field blending is how well the scope's field of view segues into the outer world (the opposite of "tunnel vision", where you have a thick black ring between these realms). The European makers used to think having only a fine line was important for getting on to wary or dangerous game quickly but, since image-movement called crow on their scope design, they don't care so much now.

The 1.8-5.5 Zeiss Conquest we have is not too bad but the illuminated Duralyts I've seen were shockers.

Sambarman338-Every scope has a black ring at the outer edges. If it bothers you, then concentrate on the important part: the crosshairs! AFter all, I've yet to see an animal or target hit (or missed) because of "field blending".

LJS-In all seriousness, the Nikon Gold is a great scope and one that will serve you well. Its edge-to-edge sharpness and low-light resolution and contrast will rival scopes costing quite a bit more. You won't be disappointed.

LJS
I have used the Nikon Monarc Gold in 1,5-6x42 for years on both 338 Winmag and 35 Whelen with exellent result.
No problems whatsoever and the constant 4" eye relief is an asset on a light but kicking gun.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
Sambarman338-Every scope has a black ring at the outer edges. If it bothers you, then concentrate on the important part: the crosshairs! AFter all, I've yet to see an animal or target hit (or missed) because of "field blending".

Most scopes have the black ring now, Bobby, but it wasn't always so. Maybe you've led a sheltered life - I haven't failed to find a critter in one of our Pecar, Kahles, Zeiss or Leupold scopes but I'd hate to take one with the tunnel-vision of my Nikon Monarch into a dark forest.

I must have done something wrong with my Nikon. I don't have a tunnel to look through. It looks fine to me and has much better eye relief than some of the prestigious European scopes mentioned.

Glad to hear that model is different, LJS, esp. since you're thinking of putting it on a rifle that might be used for dangerous game. I have bought a number of Nikon products over the years and been quite pleased with the lens quality. Also, as you probably know, their SLR cameras were regarded as numero uno for toughness by news photographers.

quote:

Originally posted by LJS:
Does anyone have any experience with the 30MM tubed Nikon Monarch Gold scopes made a few years ago. I acquired a 1.75x6 and am considering it for my 9.3x62. It seems like a pretty sturdy scope but I have no experience with them.

I have used one on my 9.3x62 for several years. It is good stuff, IMO.

quote:

Field blending is how well the scope's field of view segues into the outer world (the opposite of "tunnel vision", where you have a thick black ring between these realms).

I had not heard the name for this quality previously, simply noting that many scopes, especially those offered by the camera companies, showed this "tunnel vision" effect. Leupold has always been among, if not the best, in "field blending". As a long-time Leupold user I'm always struck when looking through most other scopes at their tunnel vision effect. The Zeiss Conquest, often cited as a favored competitor to Leupolds of comparable power and price, is one of the worst offenders in the tunnel vision effect. Other long-time Leupold users I know immediately see this when looking through a Conquest or various of the Nikon products and simply refuse to consider them due to this phenomenon.

I have had a 2.5-10x50 Nikon Monarch Gold for some years now.

It is very bright. It has a great FFP reticle. The side focus works well. It is sturdy.

I don't like the wire reticle. I'd prefer it were etched. The sharpness is a little lacking. it's contrast is lees useful as well, although it seems like a very contrasty scope, using it in very low light is not as easy and quick as my Zeiss Diavaris,

Overall, a very good scope for the money though.

How do you know it has a wire reticle, miles58?

I don't mind crosswires but wonder about some of the European post reticles that just end near the middle but seem not to have anything tethering them to the other side. Unless they are made of stout pins as Rudolf Noske's post was, they pose the question of whether repeated recoil could cause them to bow forward.

I have 3 of these scopes.They are on the heavy side but very bright and rugged.My rifle slipped off a rock I had set it on and fell scope first onto another rock.The upper turret cap was dented and the rifle stock got some scrathes in it..When I checked the scope's zero at the range the point of impact was only off 1/2 inch to the right.

I have 2 of the 2.5-10x50 Golds and absolutely love them. They are not the new POS Monarchs for sure. Movement is reliable and I have never had a shift in POI in 10 years. The only downside is they are a bit on the heavy side and I don't like the locking parallax adjustment.