Print Page | Close Window

Illuminated Nikoplex or not

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Scopes
Forum Name: Rifle Scopes
Forum Description: Centerfire long gun scopes
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=5383
Printed Date: July/20/2018 at 09:22
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Illuminated Nikoplex or not
Posted By: AuburnEngineer
Subject: Illuminated Nikoplex or not
Date Posted: January/09/2007 at 19:57

Is it worth $120 to go from a Monarch UCC with no illuminated Nikoplex to one with illuminated Nikoplex?

 

 




Replies:
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: January/11/2007 at 12:15
Not to me it isn't.  Spend the extra money on ammo or a good set of mounts.  Unless you really need the IR and it is a usefull one, I have not seen the one on the Monarch, save the cash.

-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: pyro6999
Date Posted: January/11/2007 at 12:46
i agree

-------------
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead"

343 we will never forget

God Bless Chris Ledoux
"good ride cowboy"


Posted By: cheaptrick
Date Posted: January/11/2007 at 14:06

I went with the Nikon 6.5-20 w/ a lit Mil Dot reticle.

 

 



-------------
If at first you don't secede...try..try again.


Posted By: catusbill
Date Posted: January/11/2007 at 15:54


Posted By: AuburnEngineer
Date Posted: January/11/2007 at 15:59
I've decided against going with the illuminated crosshairs...and I may jump up to the monarch Gold.


Posted By: pyro6999
Date Posted: January/11/2007 at 16:00
ooooh ahhh monarch gold  very nice!!

-------------
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead"

343 we will never forget

God Bless Chris Ledoux
"good ride cowboy"


Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: January/11/2007 at 16:17

Originally posted by AuburnEngineer AuburnEngineer wrote:

I've decided against going with the illuminated crosshairs...and I may jump up to the monarch Gold.

 

I would not go with the Nikon gold for the price. Check out this recent thread.

 

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=5399&PN=1 - http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=5399&PN=1



Posted By: AuburnEngineer
Date Posted: January/12/2007 at 10:18

What is the light % difference between the 50 mm gold and the 50 mm UCC?  I would be going from $330 to $500. 

 

What about the light difference between the 56mm gold and the 50mm gold?  Anyone know where I can find the light % info on Nikons? 



Posted By: AuburnEngineer
Date Posted: January/12/2007 at 10:34

Nevermind...found the info.

 

Nikonusa says that the Monarch UCC 50mm, Monarch Gold 50mm, and the Monarch Gold 56mm all have 95% light transmission.  If that is the case, then why would I want to go from a UCC to a gold?  Will the 30mm tube make that much of a difference?  I guess I don't understand what the 95% light transmission means.  95% of what?

 

If I decide on the Gold, I'm going to go ahead and get the 56mm for only 50 bucks more.  So I'm basically looking at a $200 difference.  Not forgetting that Cabelas has the 56mm gold listed for $800! 



Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: January/12/2007 at 11:28
The 30mm tube makes no difference at all in light transmission.  As far as the 95% is concerned, that is suppose to be and I mean suppose to me the percentage of light that exists the scope as compared to what entered the objective.  As light passes through each lense in the scope, some is diffracted, reflected, absorbed etc. and the quality of the glass is therefore very important.  Look through the bottom of a coke bottle and see how much light is lost as well as the clarity.  Personally, I cannot see going from the Monarchs to the Gold.  I would go to a different brand of scope before doing that.  Kahles, Meopta, IOR or Zeiss, to name a few.

-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: AuburnEngineer
Date Posted: January/12/2007 at 11:34
That helps.  So from what I've read, I don't see that many, if any, would recommend going from the UCC to the gold and staying in the same size objective.  The only reason I'd go to the gold is to get the 56mm.  The only reason I'm looking at the Nikons is b/c of the $ they are going for right now on SWFA.  I don't think I can get anything any better for the $$$.


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: January/12/2007 at 11:54
Yeah, but I do not think the Golds are really on sale, nor are the Buckmasters.  Heck, the cost of a 3x9 Buckmaster is only slightly less than that of the Monarch.

-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: January/12/2007 at 11:58
Yes the Golds are on sale here at SWFA,not a big advantage over the 1" scopes though.


Posted By: AuburnEngineer
Date Posted: January/12/2007 at 12:57
But going from a 50mm Objective to a 56mm gives you a 25.44% increase in your exit pupil.  I just wonder if there is that big of a difference whey you look through the two at dusk. 


Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: January/12/2007 at 13:37
The glass quality is not good enough to make this a significant difference on the gold. I would invest in a euro that was desighned for this type of shooting,Meopta and IOR come to mind on a budget not a Doctor fan.


Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: January/12/2007 at 13:40
Also keep a look out for the new Kahles KX on a budget.


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: January/13/2007 at 19:45
Good post SVD666.

-------------
D. Overton



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net