Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Nikon Monarch Gold 1.5-6x42

Product Name: Monarch Gold 1.5-6x42, German #4, Matte
Product ID: Nik6615
Price: $469.00

Anyone driving one of these?

I used one for about 2 years on my main hunting rifle. It had the Nikoplex rather than the #4.

Great scope. Very bright, great eye relief, exact adjustments, great FOV,.... It was/is a great scope. Very solid built. The downside to the solid build was the weight.

For reference, I did a comparison between it an a FXIII 6x42 with it set a 6x. It seemed the FXIII was slightly brighter (maybe), but really I'm grasping at straws on that. If there was a difference it was very very small.

If you don't mind the weight, I think it is a great scope.

JCM

I sure like that concept, going from 1.5 to 6x.
Our woods get awfully dark up here, and the lower power would be nice at dawn and dusk. I have three 6x42's that are about as good as it gets the rest of the day.


Don

At dawn/dusk I don't think you'll see a much brighter image than at 6x since you're talking about a 42mm objective. Unless your eyes are extraordinary they probably won't be able to use more than a 7mm exit pupil. As long as the exit pupil is as big as your eyes can handle, more magnification will make things seem brighter because they appear closer. This is the root of the so-called twilight factor (which is not derived from physical/optical considerations) that is an empirical attempt to formulate this phenomenon.

JScott,

I had one on loan for a while for testing. I thought it was a good hunting scope (I was comparing 1.5-6X40 scopes for Africa hunting). I also thought it was larger and heavier than it needed to be, so it went back when they asked for it. I only shot it on a .308, so I can't comment on recoil and reliability.

jim

"As long as the exit pupil is as big as your eyes can handle, more magnification will make things seem brighter because they appear closer. This is the root of the so-called twilight factor (which is not derived from physical/optical considerations) that is an empirical attempt to formulate this phenomenon".



I have been trying to explain that to folks and just gave up. Someone here has pounded that and other BS terms to the point that folks actually believe it. Glad that someone besides myself knows better than to rely on mathematical figures to GUESS how different optical devices will perform based on "twilight factor" and "relative brightness", the other BS term. Kinda like buying a car based on what Car and Driver said without a test drive.

Where did you find this price?

I haven't tried one yet but have a couple rifles that I'm thinking would do great with one of these on it. Especially with a German #4 reticle........................DJ

DJ,

PM sent.

I am thinking this scope would be perfect for my .375Ruger!!

J_Scott

J_Scott, I think you are right. It should fit just right in med 30mm rings (which is as low as Ruger makes em). I might stick one one my 458 Lott and see how long it takes to break it....... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />........DJ

I use Nikons #4 in a 2.5-10x56 for night coyotes.
Love the reticle and the scope.

It looks like the optic zone price to me.

http://theopticzone.com/searchresult.aspx?CategoryID=57

John's a good guy. I've bought a few scopes from them - never had a problem with them, their customer service, or the scopes.

I used a leupold 1.75x6 one year and I like it. however, i notice one thing on the low power. on 1.75x, I shot a deer at 25 yards and I almost shot through a 4" tree. I just did not see it. the low x seemed to have a one or two dimensional aspect to it and I found I like a minimum of 3x or so for my rifles. this is not too scientific, just an observation.

I would like to look at a Monarch Gold 1.5-6x42.
When they first came out, they were included in a review of others, including Leupold and German glass, and that review put the Monarch ahead of all of them, and especially for the money.

Unless you plan to hunt at night, it's too big. Even dark twilight can be handled with only a 5mm exit pupil.
They have an excellent rep. My only objection to them is their small eye box. E

E,

I think we've been here before. Have you tried a Nikon Gold?

Let me start by saying that I heartily agree with you on the importance of long eye relief and a generous eyebox. I require both and for that reason I'm primarily a Leupold user. But the Nikon Gold is a whole 'nuther animal compared to the regular Monarch version. It has long eye relief and it has a very good eyebox. It's optical clarity is excellent. I know because I own and use one.

There are tradeoffs to the Gold, namely weight and size. A 1.5-6x42 Gold is nearly six ounces heavier than a VX-III 2.5-x36. The Gold's eyepiece is about a tenth of an inch greater in diameter, which may lead to interference with a bolt handle if you try to mount it as low as possible. I know that's a beef some have had with the Zeiss Conquest.

I understand there are all sorts of compromises in making a scope choice. But please don't say that because a scope has "fixed" eye relief then it must have a small eyebox, 'cause it just isn't so.

mathman


Edited to add: I see E didn't say in his post why the Gold has a small eyebox, so I'll have to admit I kinda went on autopilot and answered his standard assertion even though it wasn't there. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Mathman, the figures from Nikon say their MG 1.5-6X42's eye relief varies from 4.0-4.1 inches. The Leupold 2.5-8X36 VXIII has an eye relief that goes all the way from 4.7-3.7 inches. That's what is known as a large eye box vs. a small one. Sure, if you very carefully set the scope in exactly the right position, you can "get by" with a fixed eye relief/small eye box scope. I've got a fully multicoated B&L Balfor 4X with a small eye box. I carried and used it for many years. Killed lots of stuff in hurry with it. But when I went to a Leupold 4X, with a much larger eye box, the difference didn't really register until I tried using it in a hurry. No hunting for the image. It was just there. Even though that doesn't take long, it still causes some delay and strain. When you are in a hurry, you want it on and the shot off now. The more I used the 4X Leupold, the more I noticed the difference.
I suspect you haven't seen this work for you. I suggest you try it.
I even tried a scout scope setup for a while. Jeff Cooper was absolutely right. You throw the rifle up, with both eyes open, and the reticle is just there over the target. Talk about a big eye box and it's benefits. But I found the conventional scope, if you pick one with a large eye box just as fast with both eyes open and much better for seeing a partially concealed target or one in poor light. That's because the scope scope concept must use 2X class scopes. Large eye box scopes are very fast right up to 6X. Which makes a big difference in seeing one's target better. E

I have one on my 338WM. It's not the lightest thing in the world, but that doesn't matter on that rifle. Plenty of eye relief, bright and rugged so far.

I think E must have a neck like a giraffe since he has problems with the eyebox on scopes that most of us have used with no problems for a some time. That is of course if he's actually made the comparison and is not just speculating.

I'm sorry E, you and I are just never going to agree on what makes for, allows, or prevents a large eye box. The way I'm reading your posts on this subject, you seem to be convinced that the change in eye relief as magnification varies is what makes for a large eyebox. It's not. It means for the Leupy that at 8x the eye relief is 3.7", and at 2.5x the eye relief is 4.7". It doesn't mean that at 6x (which is where I leave my variable scopes most of the time, including three Leupold 2.5-8x36s so I know that scope well) the eyebox extends from 4.7" to 3.7" on the Leupy but only from 4.0" to 4.1" on the Nikon.

Just to make darn sure of what I'm about to say I quit typing and conducted an experiment. I repeatedly shouldered my rifles with the two types of scopes in question with the scopes set on various magnifications. I deliberately moved my head fore and aft and laterally from my optimum position. The Nikon Gold had the superior eyebox. From direct comparison I assure you that even though the eye relief of the Gold doesn't change much as magnification varies, it's eyebox is generous.



You have hunted more game in more places over a much longer period of time than me, and if we were in the same camp you would get nothing but respect from me when it comes to the pursuit of game. I've been around long enough to know that ears open, mouth shut is a good state for the less experienced guy to be in if he's out to learn something. But when it comes to the merit of long eye relief and a generous eyebox I need no education or convincing. I have tried it and I do like it. I won't own a scope without said qualities. Like I said, I'm primarily a Leupold user for this very reason. My main shootin' iron wears the king, the Leupold 6x42. If I had to pare down my collection that rifle and scope would be the last to leave me. But rest assured, the Gold is game in this respect as well.

mathman

Bovine Excrement!!!!!!! Some people can actually use a 7mm or more exit pupil. I actually had my pupils measured during the examinations for Lasix surgury. They did it in a semi-lit room which is at least in some way similar to twilight. I'm 45 years old and my pupil measured 7.3mm without dialation. Obviously different people will have different sizes, some will be smaller some will be larger. But don't assume that everyone over 40 can't use more than a 5mm exit pupil, I PROVED that it just aint so.....................DJ