I am glad to hear that you are giving the Clearidge scopes a look. We are a dealer for Clearidge optics, let us know if you would like a price quote.
Thanks,
Brad
Custom Reloading Tools LLC
RowdyYates wrote:Funny you should ask. I just finished packing up my 5-20X Monarch to ship to Nikon repair. It will no longer track correctly. Thought I could live with the less-than-stellar glass because the controls seemed to work well. I switched it from a .204 to a .22-250 and p.o.i. wouldn't follow the clicks (guess it couldn't handle the massive recoil! ) And, yes, I tried another scope and it did fine. I just don't think the newer side-focus Monarchs are the equal of the older AO models. Personally, I'm done with Nikon. I wish you luck.
I'll stick with Sightron Big Sky, Vortex Viper, and Weaver Grand Slam in that general price range; although am currently considering trying the Clearidge sold by Optics Planet, I believe.
When it came in I too was disappointed with my 4-16x50SF Monarch, purchased after reading many glowing reviews. It still lives here but is lookin a bit awkward on a 10/22. Another vote for the Vortex Viper, but so far the Leupold are still the overall best of any I have tried in the mid to ‘uppity’ $ range.
My Nikon Monarchs were purchased based on the reputation of the cameras. Both are in the 6 - 24X range one older and one a newer side focus model. The older of the two is optically better than the newer. Clarity is not as good as Bushnell Elites, Clearidge XP, Burris, Leupold or even some Weaver offerings. As mentioned, optical clarity and contrast drops off as it approaches maximum magnification. I also had to send the side focus model back to have tracking checked. Fortunately I seldom use anything above 14x when hunting varmint, with the higher magnifications used when developing loads. The Clearidge scope is about the best value unless you can pick up another brand on clearance.
I had a Monarch 6-24X50 on a .223. For the money I paid, I think it is JUNK compared to an equally priced Ziess that I known. I sold the scope and took a $200 loss.
"If courage is a word that knows not fear, then I have never met a couragous man; a brave man is one that puts his fears aside, and does his job" Unknown
Wow! I didn't realize the nikons were taking such a beating lately. All of mine are older models and the glass is very good and I have yet to experience a problem with any of the 4 I have. I have a Leopold I bought that is a 4-12 VXII. This was when they moved the VXIII to the VXII and everbody always praised the VXIII's so I bought one. BIG MISTAKE! All I had ever heard was how wonderful Leo was and this thing doesn't hold a candle to my Nikons. Not even close. This scope was absolutely the biggest disappointment in a scope. Really like the Vortex Viper I just bought last yr but I would like to look at the Clearridge and the Hawke. Look like a good quality optic.
It seems the older line of Monarch's was optically superior to the new (SF) line. I still have the old (AO) Buckmaster on my 17 HMR and it too is optically superior to new (SF) models, IMO.
Too bad to, because the Nikon (SF) models are pretty darn good looking scopes (externally), IMO.
I was in a store a couple of weeks ago and they had some Monarch scopes that had been on the shelf for quite a while. Thick dust on them. I looked through a 6-24 NP followed by Vortex, Leupold, Zeiss, Bushnell, and Weaver. The only difference I could see between the Monarch and the Zeiss is that the Monarch seemed to have a tiny advantage in contrast. The difference was so small that it might have just been me. The Monarch was noticeably better than the others, so I bought it. I have heard unpleasant things about the newer Monarchs, but this one is impressive. I also have a Buckmark 6-18 and the optics are very good (about equal to Leupold or one of the better Bushnells IMO). I did check out a Trijicon the other day and was very impressed with the optics, although I didn't care for the reticle.
I went to the store to buy a Ziess Conquest. I came home with the Monarch. I was that impressed.
BillC...If possible...get a 6.5-20x50 Zeiss Conquest and your 6-24-50 Nikon Monarch and take them to the range. Crank them both up to max power. The Nikon's image will begin to degrade around 18x, where as the Zeiss won't (unless it's bad scope). I had the very scope you now own except mine had a FCD (Dot) reticle. 17x and below they were as clear as anything else. But if I have a 24x scope I would like the option to use 24x w/o that much degradation. I've found in a store they all look pretty good but outdoors, its a different story.
Predator1 wrote: This was when they moved the VXIII to the VXII and everbody always praised the VXIII's so I bought one. BIG MISTAKE!
I don't believe the VXII are the VXIII glass. The VXII glass is the old VARI-X-III glass which is pushing 25-30 years old. And yes, the Nikon Monarch glass is superior in the dim light. I can't compare the VXIII to the Monarch but I have compared the VX3 to Nikon Monarch glass and the Leupold is far superior to my eyes.
As I've stated before, my Nikon 6.5-20x44 Monarch was much better across the entire zoom range than my 6-24x50. I've heard it's cause by light refraction inside the scope. I've wondered if the SF could be the culprit because there is an extra lens added in whereas the older model was AO.
Jim White wrote:BillC...If possible...get a 6.5-20x50 Zeiss Conquest and your 6-24-50 Nikon Monarch and take them to the range. Crank them both up to max power. The Nikon's image will begin to degrade around 18x, where as the Zeiss won't (unless it's bad scope). I had the very scope you now own except mine had a FCD (Dot) reticle. 17x and below they were as clear as anything else. But if I have a 24x scope I would like the option to use 24x w/o that much degradation. I've found in a store they all look pretty good but outdoors, its a different story.
Jim
If it ever stops raining, I'll take it to the range and wring it out and let you know the results.
BillC...I hear ya' about the rain. Where the Nikon really showed it flaws (with my scope) was on warm summer days. For a big game scope I don't think the Monarch would be a bad choice because the degradation on deer, antelope, elk etc...is a non factor because of the shear size but for small critters "when" the high magnification was needed I was disappointed.
Just a question for a forum admin. person......... Does "Forum Rules" rule #2 apply here...?
(2. "No commercial advertising! Links to personal sites or not-for-profit web pages are allowed. Links to commercial sites are allowed as long as the information is useful to the forum and the person posting the message is not employed by that company. Basically, we don’t want the forum to become a commercial advertising board.)" Not sure what the extra "gobbly gook" is about in the quote...
It seems that more and more folks that ask for opinions on products are being "guided' in a certain direction when questions are asked. It happens frequently on several web sites and all of them have similar rules to the one shown here. The "my product is far superior to their product" line is annoying to me when someone is simply asking for experience with a certain item.
If Nikon was a sponsor here, I'd venture a guess that they wouldn't be using board space to run down a competitor's product to sell their own.
And to keep this in perspective, I'm not a fan of Nikon scopes....
Or does this rule not apply to sponsors..? Just curious.....
"My last Nikon scope was a Monarch scope 5-20x44, while the settings were very good, glass was poor IMO,had a tunnel affect,my eyes were tired after 10 rounds or so,..." Quote by Oldguy.
I put a Monarch 3-12 on my Anschutz .223. I also felt the glass was poor. Had the same tunnel effect. I also sold the scope at a loss. I had an older Monarch 3X-9 I thought was excellent. I currently have a Buckmaster on a .30-06 that is very clear, and performs superbly. IMO it is much more clear than the Monarch. I also have Zeiss glass and Swarovski. Very sharp! The Buckmaster just ain't too far behind at all! The Monarch, a disappointment. Not sorry I sold it. There are plenty of other good optics out there.
) And, yes, I tried another scope and it did fine. I just don't think the newer side-focus Monarchs are the equal of the older AO models. Personally, I'm done with Nikon. I wish you luck.
