|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,952
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,952 |
as does making sure the window is down before pulling the trigger.
When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are something to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches and honors are something to be ashamed of
. Confucius
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,859
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,859 |
Also you have to make sure to tell the guy there is a radio antenna to watch out for.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,309
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,309 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,952
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,952 |
Also you have to make sure to tell the guy there is a radio antenna to watch out for. and hold his beer...but that's a given.
When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are something to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches and honors are something to be ashamed of
. Confucius
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,798 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 28,798 Likes: 1 |
The number of lens surfaces the light has to pass through should also have an effect, I would think. If a lens passes a certain percentage of the light, more lenses should reduce the total light that actually reaches your eye. A simple fixed power, using fewer elements, would be seem to be the best choice for shots at either edge of darkness. In practice, "normal" scopes seem to work fine for shooting during legal hours in most cases.
As a practical matter, I tend to hunt the early and mid parts of the day, as tracking, field dressing, and dragging deer in the dark ain't no fun for an old fat man.
What fresh Hell is this?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,382
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,382 |
For your purposes, I'd try and find a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x50 with a #4 reticle. This model will even suffice for hog hunting when there is decent moonlight and won't break the bank, either. But they are not being made anymore, and Zeiss doesn't even offer the #4 as an option for some odd reason -- not even on a custom basis.
The two keys for a scope like this -- aside from the obvious of good glass and coatings -- are magnification and the ability to resolve detail under poor lighting conditions. This will take you where you need to go as far as deer are concerned.
It's another ballgame entirely for hunting by moonlight, though. You can have a "bright" 50mm Tasco, but I can assure you that under minimal moonlight, you are not going to be able to differentiate between head or tail of a dark-colored hog at 150 yards.
And while it may be no "brighter" than that Tasco, a Zeiss Diavari Victory 2.5-10x50/#4 will allow you to make that same shot with relative ease. Up until recently, I had two of those (one is finding a new home with a 24HR member in Louisiana!). They are the best I have ever tried, and while I certainly have not tried all of the high-dollar offerings, I know that this model works as intended and under the worst of lighting conditions.
Coming close to that performance is a Swarovski PV 2.5-10x56L/#4. The Z3s and Z5s (same glass, different internals) work OK for good moonlight but not when the conditions are tough.
For strong moonlight, a Zeiss Conquest, Swaro AV & Z3/Z5, Nikon Monarch, B&L 3000/Bushnell 3200 (and 4000/4200), Burris Signature & Euro and newer Leupolds from the VX2 on up along with others (given proper reticle) in that same class will do fine -- and 40mm works OK as long as the range is reasonable. But a larger objective will allow a higher power setting, which in turn allows you to see more detail for those longer shots.
But when the lighting is compromised by cloud cover or other factors, a MeoStar 4-12x40, MeoStar 3-10x50, MeoPro 4-12x50, Kahles Helia CL 3-10x50, the Diavari Victory and Swarovski PV 2.5-10x56 -- all with their respective #4s (4-a in Kahles) -- are what have worked for me. The MeoPro 4-12x50 makes the cut but doesn't quite resolve the detail as well as the others. But it WILL allow you to make shots where lesser scopes will fail you.
Two last things: One...the FFP of the Zeiss and Swaro mentioned above are definite bonuses in these conditions. And lastly: if you don't focus the reticle to your eyes, you will "lose" it in poor light as it will seem to fade away much moreso than a sharply-focused reticle.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,134 Likes: 9
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,134 Likes: 9 |
That's the best post on this thread by far.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,848 Likes: 3
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,848 Likes: 3 |
I see you edited out the funnel part.
Ingwe never actually said funnel, but his comment about 50mm lenses begging for 30mm tubes had me thinking about what he was thinking funnel wise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,134 Likes: 9
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,134 Likes: 9 |
Yeah, I noticed somebody else mentioned the "funnel effect."
The myth about 30mm tubes allowing scopes to be brighter, by comparing them to a larger funnel allowing more water to pass through, was invented by an American advertising agency used by a European scope maker in the early 1990's. But the tube isn't what controls the amount of light that makes it through a scope. Instead it's the lens system. If the tube diameter actually made a difference, the exit pupil would be larger than predicted by the formula of dividing the objective lens diameter by magnification. And it isn't.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,848 Likes: 3
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,848 Likes: 3 |
Yeah, I noticed somebody else mentioned the "funnel effect."
The myth about 30mm tubes allowing scopes to be brighter, by comparing them to a larger funnel allowing more water to pass through, was invented by an American advertising agency used by a European scope maker in the early 1990's. But the tube isn't what controls the amount of light that makes it through a scope. Instead it's the lens system. If the tube diameter actually made a difference, the exit pupil would be larger than predicted by the formula of dividing the objective lens diameter by magnification. And it isn't. Salesmen had a bad habicht, um, uh, I mean habit of repeating the myth. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 18,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 18,453 |
That myth has sure sold a lot of scopes for the euro boys
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,125
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,125 |
That myth has sure sold a lot of scopes for the euro boys Hey, if it works... Like Hollywood, when myth veers from fact, print the myth...! DF
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,125
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,125 |
That's the best post on this thread by far.
Facts and actual experience can ruin a perfectly good Fire thread... DF
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,082
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,082 |
But when the lighting is compromised by cloud cover or other factors, a MeoStar 4-12x40, MeoStar 3-10x50, MeoPro 4-12x50, Kahles Helia CL 3-10x50, the Diavari Victory and Swarovski PV 2.5-10x56 -- all with their respective #4s (4-a in Kahles) -- are what have worked for me. The MeoPro 4-12x50 makes the cut but doesn't quite resolve the detail as well as the others. But it WILL allow you to make shots where lesser scopes will fail you.
I agree fully about the Meopta scopes for the worst conditions. I have a 4-12x40 MeoStar with a #4 on my 240Wby. It would be my absolute first choice out of my safe as a nighttime coyote rifle. Very bright and the reticle is impossible to miss under any light conditions. Friend of mine has the 4-12x50 MeoPro with the same reticle and I've looked across his hayfields several hours after dark. I could easily shoot anything out to at least 2-300yds.
Those who must raise their voice to get their point across are generally not intelligent enough to do so in any other way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900 |
For your purposes, I'd try and find a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x50 with a #4 reticle. This model will even suffice for hog hunting when there is decent moonlight and won't break the bank, either. But they are not being made anymore, and Zeiss doesn't even offer the #4 as an option for some odd reason -- not even on a custom basis.
The two keys for a scope like this -- aside from the obvious of good glass and coatings -- are magnification and the ability to resolve detail under poor lighting conditions. This will take you where you need to go as far as deer are concerned.
It's another ballgame entirely for hunting by moonlight, though. You can have a "bright" 50mm Tasco, but I can assure you that under minimal moonlight, you are not going to be able to differentiate between head or tail of a dark-colored hog at 150 yards.
And while it may be no "brighter" than that Tasco, a Zeiss Diavari Victory 2.5-10x50/#4 will allow you to make that same shot with relative ease. Up until recently, I had two of those (one is finding a new home with a 24HR member in Louisiana!). They are the best I have ever tried, and while I certainly have not tried all of the high-dollar offerings, I know that this model works as intended and under the worst of lighting conditions.
Coming close to that performance is a Swarovski PV 2.5-10x56L/#4. The Z3s and Z5s (same glass, different internals) work OK for good moonlight but not when the conditions are tough.
For strong moonlight, a Zeiss Conquest, Swaro AV & Z3/Z5, Nikon Monarch, B&L 3000/Bushnell 3200 (and 4000/4200), Burris Signature & Euro and newer Leupolds from the VX2 on up along with others (given proper reticle) in that same class will do fine -- and 40mm works OK as long as the range is reasonable. But a larger objective will allow a higher power setting, which in turn allows you to see more detail for those longer shots.
But when the lighting is compromised by cloud cover or other factors, a MeoStar 4-12x40, MeoStar 3-10x50, MeoPro 4-12x50, Kahles Helia CL 3-10x50, the Diavari Victory and Swarovski PV 2.5-10x56 -- all with their respective #4s (4-a in Kahles) -- are what have worked for me. The MeoPro 4-12x50 makes the cut but doesn't quite resolve the detail as well as the others. But it WILL allow you to make shots where lesser scopes will fail you.
Two last things: One...the FFP of the Zeiss and Swaro mentioned above are definite bonuses in these conditions. And lastly: if you don't focus the reticle to your eyes, you will "lose" it in poor light as it will seem to fade away much moreso than a sharply-focused reticle.
This is really excellent information; well written,instructional, and obvious Bobby has a lot of experience with these low light scopes. Even I understood it. Thanks for a great post on the subject. Makes me wish I had not passed on that 50mm Zeiss. 
The 280 Remington is overbore.
The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,125
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,125 |
For your purposes, I'd try and find a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x50 with a #4 reticle. This model will even suffice for hog hunting when there is decent moonlight and won't break the bank, either. But they are not being made anymore, and Zeiss doesn't even offer the #4 as an option for some odd reason -- not even on a custom basis.
The two keys for a scope like this -- aside from the obvious of good glass and coatings -- are magnification and the ability to resolve detail under poor lighting conditions. This will take you where you need to go as far as deer are concerned.
It's another ballgame entirely for hunting by moonlight, though. You can have a "bright" 50mm Tasco, but I can assure you that under minimal moonlight, you are not going to be able to differentiate between head or tail of a dark-colored hog at 150 yards.
And while it may be no "brighter" than that Tasco, a Zeiss Diavari Victory 2.5-10x50/#4 will allow you to make that same shot with relative ease. Up until recently, I had two of those (one is finding a new home with a 24HR member in Louisiana!). They are the best I have ever tried, and while I certainly have not tried all of the high-dollar offerings, I know that this model works as intended and under the worst of lighting conditions.
Coming close to that performance is a Swarovski PV 2.5-10x56L/#4. The Z3s and Z5s (same glass, different internals) work OK for good moonlight but not when the conditions are tough.
For strong moonlight, a Zeiss Conquest, Swaro AV & Z3/Z5, Nikon Monarch, B&L 3000/Bushnell 3200 (and 4000/4200), Burris Signature & Euro and newer Leupolds from the VX2 on up along with others (given proper reticle) in that same class will do fine -- and 40mm works OK as long as the range is reasonable. But a larger objective will allow a higher power setting, which in turn allows you to see more detail for those longer shots.
But when the lighting is compromised by cloud cover or other factors, a MeoStar 4-12x40, MeoStar 3-10x50, MeoPro 4-12x50, Kahles Helia CL 3-10x50, the Diavari Victory and Swarovski PV 2.5-10x56 -- all with their respective #4s (4-a in Kahles) -- are what have worked for me. The MeoPro 4-12x50 makes the cut but doesn't quite resolve the detail as well as the others. But it WILL allow you to make shots where lesser scopes will fail you.
Two last things: One...the FFP of the Zeiss and Swaro mentioned above are definite bonuses in these conditions. And lastly: if you don't focus the reticle to your eyes, you will "lose" it in poor light as it will seem to fade away much moreso than a sharply-focused reticle.
This is really excellent information; well written,instructional, and obvious Bobby has a lot of experience with these low light scopes. Even I understood it. Thanks for a great post on the subject. Makes me wish I had not passed on that 50mm Zeiss.  Actually, sorta glad you did...  And, +1 for Bobby's post. DF
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 78,300 Likes: 1
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 78,300 Likes: 1 |
OK...since I have been corrected, ridiculed and educated ( none of which I expected on the optics forum...) I have a serious question.....
Since the 30mm tubes aren't what they are made out to be, do any makers put out a 50mm objective along with a 30mm tube that is actually a good match, and make everything work as it should?
I ask because I have a friend very much enamored by these "Hubble" scopes and I can't see where its gaining him any advantage.....
"...the left considers you vermin, and they'll kill you given the chance..." Bristoe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 18,453
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 18,453 |
Leica just came out with an American assembled line with a 5X zoom ratio that have 30mm tubes. Take a look at the 2-10 x 50. There are still a few Diavari's floating around in 2.5-10 x 50 as well. One in the classified's right now with a #4 reticle. Has the Lotutec coatings as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,309
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,309 |
its good to have such eloquence, I am astounded it still exists on this forum. In the meantime the OP could look at the Europtic links and buy him a meopta. I also think Meopta made the Conquest at one time and their Z plex is similar if not the same as the very dark Z plex in the conquest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,309
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 18,309 |
30 mm tubes on the Victory HT's are not bad with a 50mm objective, at least the one I tried was not bad... However as I hunt GA I opted for a 1.5-6 x 40ish and found that was all I wanted. One of these a year is about all I can tolerate...  The thing with the 50 for me is that the Emericus "eyebox" seems bigger to me. So even a 50 on a 25 mm tube seems to be easier to catch a glimpse thru, but perhaps I am wrong as I usually am. My next scope might be the unholy Meopro 25 mm tube with 50 mm objective and the Z plex.
|
|
|
|
|
587 members (1936M71, 12344mag, 1Longbow, 06hunter59, 160user, 007FJ, 63 invisible),
2,127
guests, and
1,259
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,046
Posts18,482,225
Members73,959
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
