@Swamptrudger: I topped my .375 H&H with Leupold VIII 1.75 - 6 with 32m objective. Very pleased with it and meets my requirements: Ability to reach out to 150 - 200 yrds and also close range 25-50 yrds. I took my Grizz at 40-50 yrds…. It’s also trim & lightweight, holds zero perfectly after 70-80 rounds of practice, looks “appropriate” in my personal opinion (Not too big or clunky), and a very reasonable price for the functional quality ($500).
I think the Monarch Africans are solid for a reasonable price. I have seen some sell for what I don’t consider to be reasonable, but around the $500 mark (which is more than they sold for initially), I believe they are a good choice. I initially set one up a couple months ago on a .404. Digging around in the gun room, I found an older Z6i that I swapped out.
I see. So those other guys are gentlemen but I'm not?
Other than that, I agree with you entirely. I think the other gents assumed too much. Because my hunting was historically so rugged that I would never consider risking tight budget funds on a luxury scope does not translate as criticism for their choice of scope or where or how they hunt. They made that conclusion on their own. 
@RR 314 regarding Nikon Monarch - I’m only familiar with their Binoculars and think those are excellent quality especially for the $$. Because my Monarch 10x42 only weighs 21oz —- it travels with me much more often then the much heavier 10x42 Swarovski. My Swaro’s may have “very slightly” better clarity but Not enough to off set their 50% increased weight over the Monarchs. I use the Swaro’s when hunting out of a box blind but not when walking a lot. But I’ve never tried their Scopes and probably should.
@Ontario Hunter - you make some interesting points and have a lot of knowledge based on your extensive experience….but what makes You “Closed Minded” would be a stand alone — Long running thread !! However, I enjoy your posts whether I agree with some or Not.You forget I did my time in the US military. I recall not so fondly the first time I was handed an M16. Really? They're sending soldiers into Vietnam combat with this pop gun? Thankfully, my duty weapon was a 1911. And then that was replaced with 9mm. Brother! So I'm supposed to be impressed with the scope choices Uncle Sam makes in outfitting soldiers?
The point I have made is expensive does not always equate to quality. But somehow that makes me close-minded?
I was going to same something like the above post. You do have good experience, and knowledge. Maybe some of your points are valid, and have some value, however, I believe it's all in the delivery. I do like your approach to life in a simple, no-frills ways. 
That should read "Black Friday 2018 ..." if I had bought a rifle scope in 1918, that would make me the oldest guy on this forum ... maybe on this planet.I see. So those other guys are gentlemen but I'm not?
I have shot animals with 3-9x Leopold scopes and they were fine for the job. Of course the glass was better than my old battered 1972 3x Weaver. Black Friday 1918 I saw a nice Nikon 3-9x on sale for a hundred bucks. Why not? I had shot a fine buck that fall with my brother's BAR mounted with 3x9 Leopold. Better glass for older eyes. Then for no good reason that new scope crapped in Africa the following year after taking six animals. I finally shot my kudu the last evening using a rental rifle equipped with a 3x9 Leopold. Nikon fixed the scope and it's worked peachy since. The following year I put optional iron sights on my Springfield so now I'm always fixed with a backup plan B should something happen to my scope.
Scopes are delicate tools no matter what the cost. We all know that. I strongly encourage the OP to go the quick detach route with good iron sights. And no, I do not consider classic multi-leaf fixed V "express" sights to be particularly "good." They look very Capstick-ish but other than that they're usually not terribly functional, especially sitting on a close range DG rifle that will never be shooting at anything 300 yards away. Find a single leaf rear sight that's adjustable for both windage and elevation. Filing down express rear sight notches and/or whacking on the front sight is Bronze Age stuff. I always chuckle when I see a fancy lighted reticle scope sitting on an African rifle with express sights. High tech glass and no tech irons.
If the OP's rifle has a European style straight comb stock, he should get the lowest rings and bases he can find. Don't even bother with "medium" height rings. A word of warning: every manufacturer has a different idea of what constitutes low, medium, or high height rings. Even the same manufacturer's QD rings can be different height mm than their same "low" height standard rings. Someplace on line I found a table of ring heights for all manufacturers. I'll see if I can dig it up again. Most base/rail makers list the heights but you have to look for it. Have yet to find a multi-maker table of base heights.
I was thinking maybe 1981? But probably not such a good deal back then.That should read "Black Friday 2018 ..." if I had bought a rifle scope in 1918, that would make me the oldest guy on this forum ... maybe on this planet.
