Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Do I have to compromise on a scope?

What's up guys. My first deer season with my new rifle just wrapped up. It's a Kimber Adirondack 308 that I have done all the bedding and pre flight stuff to. It shoots great. My scope is a Leupold 6x42 heavy duplex. I killed a good buck with it at 178 yards. But, I also lost a chance at a bigger buck with it because I couldn't see it through my scope 28 min after sunset at 145 yards. I could see it through my 8x42 Mojaves just fine. Needless to say I'm putting this scope on my sons 300 blackout. I'll admit that my eyes are not great and I'm having lasic surgery this year. Ok so to the topic. I want to put the best scope I can put on it without compromising features. Our property is heavily managed and we have to be able to make sure it is 8 points and 15" wide before we shoot or else be in hot water. Something else I have thought about doing is 2 scopes for 1 rifle. Like a Leupold 3.5-10x40 VX3i with heavy duplex and cds for everything until sunset. Then I would have a Schmidt and Bender 8x56 with #4 reticle. I would have rings that I could take off and return to zero. I don't mind carrying a torque wrench to the stand with me and swap them out as needed. If I was going with one scope I have it narrowed down to a Swarovski Z5 3.5-18x44 #4 reticle, Swarovski Z6 1.7-10x42 #4 reticle, or the Schmidt Summit. I bought this rifle to be a one gun kind of guy. Now I just need a scope to go with it. I really don't want to put a 30 mm tube scope on it but if I have to oh well. So my requirements are 1. Be able to judge a whitetail buck at 30min after sunset. 2. Keep the weight under 6lbs all up. 3. Be able to dial for shots up to 400 yards. 4. Fit in Talley lightweight lows. (Unless I go with 2 scopes). 5. Have a bold reticle like the heavy duplex or #4. I don't scan through my scope but if I see a big buck I'm judging him through my scope bc they don't stick around long. Im sorry if this is jumbled up but I'm not a great writer. Which scope would you recommend even if it's not on my list and cost is no object. Can Schmidt and Bender add a turret and bold reticle to the Summit? I have a headache after all this and I appreciate any and all feedback anyone can give me.

Yes,everything is a compromise. Do you mean you couldn't see that buck at all through your 6X42 Leupold? They are pretty good at light transmission.Could you not see the deer or not see the reticle,or perhaps both? I would think your eyes are holding you back more than your scope.

For your situation this woukld be my pick and I would learn to use the dots rather than dialing.
http://www.scopelist.com/kahles-kxi-35-10x50-illuminated-4d-dot.aspx

I wouldn't even consider changing scopes during a hunt. No way would I trust a return to perfect zero at longer distances.


The Leica is a great low light scope too,just a little larger with 30mm tube and heavier than the Kahles. I have not compared the Leica to the Kahles.
http://www.scopelist.com/leica-er-i-3-12x50-ballistic-56010-rifle-scope.aspx

Let's start here and the need to have a stand rifle at this desired weight. Unless the answer is "it's just what I want" - then that's good enough for me.

Understanding the above will likely net you more considerations. And I'd get the two-scope thing "ought-yer-head" right now. *grins*

I can't not imagine taking two scopes to a stand and switch out as light fades. To each his own though.

IMO if you can't see the deer with the 6x42 it's either too dark to shoot or it's your eyes. If you can't see the reticle to shoot then that another problem. When it gets to that point with the scope I'm hunting with at that time it's too dark to shoot no matter what the legal shooting hours are (my self imposed hunting limits and ethics).

Fix your eyes first. The scope you had will do what you want, but obviously your eyes won't.

Leupold vx6 2-12x42 with firedot reticle

Don't talk him off the ledge! We are supposed to be enabling irrational spending on here. To that end I say you probably need the S&B Summit. But since you want to dial, naturally a P&M II is the logical choice.

What was said above.

FWIW:

Your bino/scope example shows you the advantage of power. (and two eyes). But it certainly isn't as much as an advantage as you report.

Lasik may not do anything for your night vision...

S&B, as of last year, will not retrofit the Summit's reticle. Great scope--but unless it is a new one offered with the A4, I wouldn't get too excited, personally, for what you describe.

The Swaro Z3 with the 4a, will show you just as much with respect to light transmission and are lighter than the Z5. A 50mm objective is an asset for most folks depending on their age and their pupils ability to dilate. The Leica ERi 3-12x50 with the dot is heavier but has advantage over the Swaro Z3 and they are discounting them.

Bino-wise if you can hold it steady, a 10x50 may benefit you. It does me. A 5mm exit pupil is fine and that will be the case with the 50mm riflescope as well, i.e. you can probably crank it up to 10x at those distances 30 minutes after sunset.

You should be determining whether to shoot a particular deer or not with binoculars, not the scope. If low light is the limiting factor then you need to optimize the exit pupil and select either an illuminated reticle or heavy post/plex reticle. High magnification in a scope usually doesn't correlate well with low light performance, so a fixed or variable that would go down to 2/3x should perform better than a fixed 6x or 8x. Trying to manage two scopes is going to cause more problems than it is going to solve.

Whenever Ringman chimes in I'd go with that....

LASIK will also more than likely reduce your low light vision. It did for me...

for your edification

Low Light Performance Calcs

I disagree. With a 42mm objective lens a 6x scope will provide all the exit pupil that a person's eye will admit. The extra exit pupil afforded by low magnification does nothing but illuminate a ring around the outside of the aperture at the front end of the eye. Photons that don't hit the retina won't do any good. In contrast, the 6x scope will provide the benefit of the target appearing larger and it concentrates the available light into a beam that lands its illumination on the retina where it counts.

Ok. Thanks guys. I think. Like I said I don't scan for deer with my scope. If I see a buck that is possibly a shooter the binos get put down and the gun goes up. It happens every year. Someone sees a monster but it happens so quick that he leaves and they still have binoculars in hand. I went with the 6x42 with a heavy duplex for exit pupil and a bold reticle. The two scopes thing was just a trial balloon and it's been popped. I mean can't a brother get a Schmidt and bender summit with a heavy duplex and an outdoorsman turret please. I should have said I don't care for ballistic reticles or illuminated reticles in the first post. I don't necessarily need to dial. It would be nice to be able to though. If it wasnt for the 30mm tube I would already have a Z6. That comes from the fire too. Why on earth would you want to put a big scope on such a petite rifle. I'm going to look more into the kahles 1" tube scopes. Thanks to all.

Future thread:

"It was 28min past sunset and the Deer was at 145. I know I hit it hard, but it ran off and I couldn't find a blood trail in the dark. What......"

I'd pm cumminscowboy

If that is going to happen I'll need a better scope lol

Most folks just use a spotlight when they need to shoot deer in the dark.

Across the pond they use an 8x56. In Alabama its 30 min past sunset. I guess this dumb ol hick Alabama boy needs to go buy a tasco and be done with it.

Notice that 8x56 gives you a 7mm exit pupil, which is about the most an eye will take in.

Same for 6x42. Or a 7x50 since I don't know of a 7x49.

Basically choose the magnification that will give you a 7mm exit pupil with the size/weight format you're willing to accept.

I've been a 6x42 fan for a good while now.

Clark, I could see the reticle but not the deer. It very well could be my eyes more than anything.

I researched a lot and bought the 6x42 for the 7mm exit pupil and the simplicity of it. I'm going to have the doc measure my pupil when its dilated to see where I stand there. Has anyone compared the 44mm z5 with a Summit in low light?

Sage advice here.

What your own eye will do definitely has an effect, so my post was in general terms.

If your eye won't go past 5mm then 8x on a 40mm scope will work that way.

While 7mm is the most that young eyes generally will take in on average, if you are not that young anymore and say your eye's pupil only dilates to 5mm, it is effectively stopping down the optic to 5. (didn't see your last post).

In that case turning up the power will improve low light performance. There is a difference betwixt low light performance and brightness as you can see by monkeying with the calculation link posted above.

I took the time to put the results for scopes and binos on hand with above online calculator on a spreadsheet. The outcome 30 minutes plus past sunset for actual comparisons of low light performance and brightness generally line up with the spreadsheet.

Sometimes the view can be brighter and yet not show you as much or potentially as much, as a higher powered optic. For example, when I had a 6x42 Swaro it was certainly brighter then a 50mm Swaro FFP set at 10x, but it did not show me as much as much detail at 200 yards.

A 10x50 binocular will show even more. YMMV

Just a warning about the Lasik surgery. I had it done 4 years ago. I love it and would do it again in a heartbeat, but one of the first things I noticed afterwards was my night and low-light vision was not as good as it was prior to the surgery. It wasn't a huge difference, but it was enough that I noticed it.

I don't know if this is common or not, but it was my experience.

I think what you need to be doing is finding out what percentage of light is getting transmitted through the scope. Most manufactures have it listed somewhere in the specs. This is usually a function of lens coatings. If your Leupold is an older model, It may only transmit 95% of the available light where as a brand new model may transmit 98-99%. I am only guessing at the transmission rate as it is not listed in the 2017 catalog. Leupold is listing 2 low light lens systems, Twilight Max and Extended Twilight lens in their catalog. They claim to transmit the desirable colors for late light shooting. One thing no one has mentioned is how are the lenses in your eyes. If you are developing cataracts, it would definitely make a difference in low light shooting.

Light test from Bushnell
http://www.bushnell.com/elitetest

A discussion from Optics Talk about light transmission rates (2004)
http://www.opticstalk.com/light-transmission-question_topic847.html

He does a 123 yard deer antler test that is as scientific as it gets.

I don't think the scope is an older model. I'll have to look at the serial number when I get home. The very first thing is going to get my eyes checked. I hope that having the surgery doesn't make my night vision worse. I'm 36 and have had contacts since 12. I don't think I am going to keep the scope anyway. I want to put a better quality more versatile scope on it.

Ive done the side by side tests with a vx2 and vx3 vs Z5, in low light the z5 is heads and shoulders better than the leupold.

Thank you WRO. I have been leaning toward the Z5. Did you have a reticle preference? I know I can send it in and have a 4 (not 4a) installed. I'm going to look at one this weekend with the plex. I'm not sure which others they have in stock. How do you think the Z5 would compare to the Summit or Z6?

Beware of skinny reticles in the Z5. Just ask Dirtfarmer who has much experience with them.

Illuminated reticles may be able to help you.

^^^^^^ this . I might add Thank God Alabama finally has fixed starting and ending shooting times. I was getting skeered in the dark all by my lonesome in the past.

I looked thru a Z5 3-18x44 , Leupold vx-6 2-12, Conquest HD 3-15x42 and a Swarovski Z3 4-12x50 and the Leupold Zeiss and Swaro Z3 were brighter IMHO

Don't thank goodness. I preferred the old way. Too bad idiots thought it meant they could hunt all night. The way it is now,some days it is dark at 30 minuets after and some days early in the season you could go 20 minuets longer by older standards.

It's not just a stand rifle. I'm putting in for an elk tag this year in Colorado. And it's also my my stalking / man drive rifle. It's my only hunting rifle now. I have given the others to my sons. Right now it is 5lbs 10oz with scope, mounts, and 4 in the magazine. So that puts me at a max of 17oz for a different scope to keep it under 6. I just want an Alpha scope that will do it all.

Here's you a good review of that Kahles I gave the link to.
http://opticsthoughts.com/?page_id=1415

I don't know on the Summit, the z5 I use has a 4w in it.

The z6 is a bit brighter and the illuminated reticle has a night setting,

Those are only going to be available on close out now, when SONA took over Kahles distribution in the us, all that will now be sold is the tactical models.

I used to leave the stand in the dark and heard shots from the house almost every night. Let me go thru another season before I have final thoughts on the matter. It didn't matter to me the stuff hung around my neck and on the rifle didn't care what time it was.

Then you must make a serious compromise.

Try a 42mm nxs compact. If that doesn't work due to weight or sight a scope isn't your problem.

I know. It's a real shame everyone didn't have enough sense to know when "dark" was.

We still hear shots way late around where we hunt too.

20.5oz. She is compact and chunky.

Worry more about 3.5 lbs on your ass than 3.5 oz on your scope.

I was never a big objective fan but after I got the Zeiss HD5 3-15x50 smaller objectives don't look nearly as bright and the extra magnification has come in handy too, particularly for elk in Colorado.

Go bigger on the objective with good glass and lug a few extra ounces up the hill.

RAAK,

I understand the dilemma.

I bought a Leupo 6x42 after playing cat & mouse with mule deer in the dark timber ribbons along the breaks of the Snake River one season. My previous scope didn't allow me to see the bucks after sunset. I'd locate them in my binos, then raise my rifle only to find that they had moved and couldn't locate them in the scope! This went on for what seemed like forever, while we moved thru the underbrush. Switching from rifle scope to binos wasn't ideal. It happened numerous times and was frustrating. Those timber patches were dark, even though most of the hillsides were wide open.

Overall, I was pretty happy with the Leupo 6x42. JB has stated that it does well in his low light test. I've always assumed that being a fixed-power scope it has fewer lenses than a variable. One day I was at the Leupold facility and asked one of the techs if this was true. He said it did have fewer lenses... two fewer. This should help light transmission, I think.

What I soon discovered, however, was that the Leupo 6x42 was "brighter" than my previous scope but still no match for even my modest 7x36 binos. I could see things in my 7x binos that I couldn't with my 6x scope. So, I think my point is that exit pupil is a good thumb rule but I would use it with a scoop of salt. A fixed-power scope has fewer internal lenses, but exit pupil doesn't take this into account. And even with variable power scopes, they can use a different number of lenses for a given configuration (power and obj. size)

The "brightest" scope I've owned was a 2-7x Kahles. I think the quality of lenses was a factor, but am not an optical engineer so don't know for sure. So that is another factor.

At any rate, I don't think you're crazy for trying to find a scope that works well in low light. I'm not the most experienced or successful hunter, but fully understand what you are asking about. I suspect that these sorts of scenarios are rare for some regions. Dark timber, coastal rainforest, steep eastern slopes, etc. can be extremely dark. Or maybe some Alabama jungle.

Jason

Thanks Jason. It's really frustrating especially when I like everything else about the scope. I may still be a little crazy though

[quote=specneeds]I was never a big objective fan but after I got the Zeiss HD5 3-15x50 smaller objectives don't look nearly as bright and the extra magnification has come in handy too, particularly for elk in Colorado.

Go bigger on the objective with good glass and lug a few extra ounces up the hill

I wouldn't mind the big objective as much as the weight. The rifle weighs 4lb 13oz bare so I'm afraid that with too much scope it will want to run top down all the time.

An extra 8 or 10 ounces added to your 5lb gun will probably make it point and shoot better......my goal is to be exhausted coming off the hill on an elk hunt with 60-80 lbs on my back. A few ounces might help you get that tired too. For my part I'll take 5 or 10 lbs off the midsection to make up for the heavier rifle.

I used a Leupo 6x42 on at least 6 rifles and was happy with it for the most part. But, it didn't really work for the last 30 minutes of legal hunting in the worst areas with thick dark canyons and timber. These areas get dark well before the sun sets.

I had similar issues with my dirt bikes as these hell holes would be so dark you'd want a headlight, with the sun still high in the sky

With a high quality variable you can basically tune the scope to your eyeball as the light drops via changes in magnification. There's all the science of it, then there's what works for YOU. Given your budget and desire to keep things light I'd be looking at the Euro Alphas in the 2-10x42 or 50mm range. Or maybe one of them newfangled jobbies with the high zoom ratios, though I tend to distrust high zoom ratio scopes on principal.

I'd bet money you'd have killed that buck with a "lowly" 3-9x40 Conquest with the great glass, blue-white color balance, and nice visible etched Z-Plex reticle. That stuff adds up. I like Leupold scopes in a few ways but in really low light I have yet to be wowed. YMMV.

Good luck, and please report back on what you buy so we can argue like ninnies about it.

Ever use one or just read product descriptions? You want a good do all scope get a good one don't fret over 5 or 6 ounces.

I have never used one, I have just read the product descriptions. All I have to go by are the descriptions, pictures, and reviews. I'm sure it is a nice scope. I would like to try one on my Scar 17 but it isn't right for the Kimber. If I was going to put a scope that heavy on there it would be a FFP S&B.

Thank you Jeff O. I think that is the way I am going. The Z6 1.7-10x42 BT reticle #4 is the closest I have found with the least compromises (30mm). I would like to compare a Kahles and a Z6 to be sure but with the Kahles there are more compromises to be made. Do you or anyone else have any experience with the Swarovski Z6 #4 (not 4a) or the plex reticles. I have been playing with the Swarovski subtension program but i think it's acting crazy. Thanks again

The exit pupil thing gets way too much play here, it's a gross oversimplification of how things work. Magnification comes into play also, you'll be able to resolve a lot more detail with a 10X scope than a 6X given equal glass and comparable exit pupils.

I'm not a fan of the 6X fad on here, at least not for where I hunt. It might work for the western states but I want more magnification for when the light gets low here in the south where our deer show at last light. The magnification is for resolution, not long range. My deer rifle is a pretty light custom built on a borden alpine action and I use a meopta 3-12x56 on it. It might look a little out of place but it's gotten me shots in low light that I'd have never pulled off with a 6x42 leupold. I personally don't have the same aversion to 30mm scope tubes on light rifles that many do, pretty is as pretty does. It's a tool, I don't feel the need to sit and admire how "svelte" it looks.

No way I'm switching scopes in the deer stand, but I wouldn't have a problem swapping scopes for an elk hunt. The scope needs are different so swap on a lighter scope for the elk hunt and re-zero.

to the OP:

I have the same rifle, and it is a dream with a Vortex RAZOR LH HD 1.8-8x32 scope on it in lightweight talley mounts.

with sling it's 6lbs on the dot.

glass is better than your leupold, (trust me I have VX3's in 1.5-6x, 2.5-8x, and 3.5-10x) the VX-6 1-6x is pretty close to the vortex... warranty is comparable.

An exit pupil on a scope over 5 is overkill for everyone on earth, 4 is about all anyone at any age can reasonably use, I won't own a scope that doesn't have 4 at it's highest magnification. I like big exit pupils, but there is a point where your physiology can't handle any more. Anything over what your eye can open up enough to receive just gives you more room to wiggle behind the scope.

That's what I like about the "old" FFP scopes, Crow. Dial them right up for bold reticle and magnification in very low light and then back down mid-range for longer daylight shots with a finer crosshair.

Not to say that maximizing an EP isn't a bad thing cause it ain't, but if a guy spends some time (with good glass) comparing a brighter 6x42 to a 42-50mm variable cranked up to an EP of 4.5-5, you can see the advantage to the variable in detail discerned.

Not to say it would make any practical difference on a shot--am not inferring that. I wouldn't hesitate to take my Leupold 6x36 into any dark hole to hunt...it is completely adequate for getting the job done--but also because I do the hunting with a great binocular...:)

I have the Z6's in 1.7-10x42 with Plex and the 1-6x24 #4.
I prefer the Plex over the #4 for low light.
If the #4 had the same dimensions as the Plex, I would think it near ideal.
I am a big fan of the Zeiss 1st Focal #4, it is my favorite. Though, I have not viewed the Schmidt & Bender 1st focal #4.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Jeff O. I think that is the way I am going. The Z6 1.7-10x42 BT reticle #4 is the closest I have found with the least compromises (30mm). I would like to compare a Kahles and a Z6 to be sure but with the Kahles there are more compromises to be made. Do you or anyone else have any experience with the Swarovski Z6 #4 (not 4a) or the plex reticles. I have been playing with the Swarovski subtension program but i think it's acting crazy. Thanks again [/quote]

Swaro z3's in 4-12x50 are not only very bright but they are also very light and slim for their size, they weigh what many 3-9x40's weigh. The only issue is to me the plex reticles are very thin so you just need to find a reticle that works for you. That would be the best way to get great glass without going too big or heavy.

Today I looked at a Z6,Z6i,Z5, and Z3. The Z6 plex was razor thin. The Z5 plex was thicker but didn't look as bright and vibrant to me. I think the ocular on all but the Z3 is too big to run Talley lightweight lows. I'm taking the gun down there in a couple of weeks to be 100% but I'm 99.999% sure they are too big.

[quote=ldmay375] I have the Z6's in 1.7-10x42 with Plex and the 1-6x24 #4.
I prefer the Plex over the #4 for low light.
If the #4 had the same dimensions as the Plex, I would think it near ideal.
I am a big fan of the Zeiss 1st Focal #4, it is my favorite. Though, I have not viewed the Schmidt & Bender 1st focal #4.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Since you said this I'm going to call on Monday and make sure that the demo Z6 was a plex and not a #7. He said it was a plex but I didn't see the box. The Z5 plex was much much thicker than the reticle in the Z6. If that is the case then I will be really excited and if it will mount in lightweight lows while clearing the bolt handle i will buy it.

Talley lows aren't very low, they're closer to a lot of other's mediums. I'd be hard pressed to see them not working with just about any ocular.

I have a couple of sets of them and one is a set of mediums with a 56mm objective meopta, that gives you an idea of how high they are. I'd hate to see the scope that required highs.

I've started getting away from them lately, I've put on a couple of sets and had alignment problems. The problems went away when I switched mounts so it was the talleys and not the rifles. I think their QC is slipping.

I have the lows on it now but they are 1". There is about enough room to slide 2 pieces of paper between the bolt handle and the ocular when the bolt handle is up The Z6 ocular is bigger than the Z5 and the Z5 is bigger than the Leupold. I didn't measure, just with them ocular to ocular.

I think it will depend on how you mount the Z3. If you want it further back the taper of the bell on the objective end might touch. But you might be ok. I'm pretty sure I ran Talley mediums with mine but it's a Rem 700 not a Kimber.

I just called Schmidt and Bender. There is no turret available for the Summit. You can order a Summit with the A4 reticle. It will take 6-8 weeks to get it. An elevation turret is available for the 6x42 classic for $350. I have it narrowed down to these two. They will both work with the lows I have now. Which do you think would be the best when the light is fading?

Summit with A4 reticle
6x42 Classic 1" tube with A4 reticle and turret.

I personally would go with the variable set-up.
I am sure the fixed 6x would work also. I like 1-6 / 1.5-6 variables, but can appreciate a bit more power at times.
My main attraction to the variables is the lower power ability. But, my hunting situations and requirements are different from yours.
I have been in search of "do-all" scope to use on 338's and smaller for sometime. Still searching, inspires many head aches, lightens the wallet considerably and frequently.
My quest for the perfect scope has replaced the quest for the perfect rifle/cartridge combination.

Edit Addition:
I will add that my "current" favorite low-light binocular is the Zeiss HT 10x54. I find it extremely helpful in identifying smaller details in very low light.


---------------------------------------------------------------

What's up guys. My first deer season with my new rifle just wrapped up. It's a Kimber Adirondack 308 that I have done all the bedding and pre flight stuff to. It shoots great. My scope is a Leupold 6x42 heavy duplex. I killed a good buck with it at 178 yards. But, I also lost a chance at a bigger buck with it because I couldn't see it through my scope 28 min after sunset at 145 yards. I could see it through my 8x42 Mojaves just fine. Needless to say I'm putting this scope on my sons 300 blackout. I'll admit that my eyes are not great and I'm having lasic surgery this year. Ok so to the topic. I want to put the best scope I can put on it without compromising features. Our property is heavily managed and we have to be able to make sure it is 8 points and 15" wide before we shoot or else be in hot water. Something else I have thought about doing is 2 scopes for 1 rifle. Like a Leupold 3.5-10x40 VX3i with heavy duplex and cds for everything until sunset. Then I would have a Schmidt and Bender 8x56 with #4 reticle. I would have rings that I could take off and return to zero. I don't mind carrying a torque wrench to the stand with me and swap them out as needed. If I was going with one scope I have it narrowed down to a Swarovski Z5 3.5-18x44 #4 reticle, Swarovski Z6 1.7-10x42 #4 reticle, or the Schmidt Summit. I bought this rifle to be a one gun kind of guy. Now I just need a scope to go with it. I really don't want to put a 30 mm tube scope on it but if I have to oh well. So my requirements are 1. Be able to judge a whitetail buck at 30min after sunset. 2. Keep the weight under 6lbs all up. 3. Be able to dial for shots up to 400 yards. 4. Fit in Talley lightweight lows. (Unless I go with 2 scopes). 5. Have a bold reticle like the heavy duplex or #4. I don't scan through my scope but if I see a big buck I'm judging him through my scope bc they don't stick around long. Im sorry if this is jumbled up but I'm not a great writer. Which scope would you recommend even if it's not on my list and cost is no object. Can Schmidt and Bender add a turret and bold reticle to the Summit? I have a headache after all this and I appreciate any and all feedback anyone can give me.

Seconded on that particular Zeiss bino for low light hunting...:)

**

RAAK, if you would spend some time with low light performance page (link above), it may be helpful to making a decision. And if your eyesight was possibly the culprit, why would consider going back to Egypt?

The Summit has considerably more mounting latitude than the fixed 6x. Fits most anything. I put a 6x42 S&B on a rifle with a shorter LOP than I usually use.

Definitely order the A4.

The S&B website pic of the A4 doesn't show the center of the reticle being very thick.

If you email them, they will send you the reticle subtensions. The ladies are very nice...:)

Added:
mathman, the reticle subtensions for the 6x42 at 100yds are .60" for the crosshair, heavy posts are 6.30" and center space is 25.20".
Tis substantial...

The .6" crosshair isn't that thick, and the center space is too wide. Super heavy outer bars way out to the side aren't to my taste, the center being the business part of the reticle. I'd rather the center wires be a full MOA thick if I'm worried about deep dark visibility.

Well, I agree with you on the 1" crosshair, but only Leupold does it. Too bad the Germans didn't have us helping the design team...

Zeiss #4 FFP variables were advertised at .54. Swaro at .40. The 8x56 A4 S&B is .50. Swaro's FFP plex was .60. The center section for FFP variables is basically the same as as the 6x42.

However, Zeiss 4 & Swaro Z3 2cd plane centers are tighter at around 16" but Zeiss discontinued the 4.

Its dang difficult to lose Swaros FFP plex in anything near legal light...

You're OK with the real wide spacing of the outer bars?

If I'm counting on the heavy outer bars for bracketing, especially given a thin wired center, then I'd like them to come in tighter.

Yes, with buts...

I like the Zeiss 2cd plane #4 the best, like you say, for bracketing. The Leupold HD always show up. The Swaro (PH) plex reticle's crosshair is really tough to lose, but the plex doth suck at the low powers.

Excluding moonlight, with the FFP #4 centers, some Kentucky windage is necessary but not too difficult. By the time I lose the crosshairs, it's too dark to see my feet and so the shots are closer--as the scene at longer distances gets pretty washed out.

fwiw...

I've compared a bunch of scopes including high end Euro stuff and IME once we're up to the level of full multicoating the reticle makes more usability difference in dark spots than the last nth degree of lens coatings.

gets expensive, but do save on the bar tab...:)

sometimes comparing in two scopes of the same make & vintage a guy can see differences...which is a bit disconcerting for brand arguments...

too, sometimes as the light changes in the same evening, one brand looks better than the other & then they trade places...

it's interesting to see it, but do agree the most advantage for killing is netted with a good low light reticle

You are trying to shoot past legal shooting hours

I helped you. Some places allow 1 hour after sunset.

And, within defined legal shooting hours, terrain and environmental circumstances can create some very low light conditions.
Large open fields, plains, desert terrain can differ greatly from a timbered valley or inside timber, as to the amount of light at a given time.

Thank you for those subtensions tomk. I too wish that the Euro manufacturers would give us a heavy duplex like Leupolds. I love the reticle. I have an appointment on March 8th for an eye exam. I am going to wait until after that and look through the Leupold again as the light fades. If it greatly improves I may leave it as is. I still have to scope my boys rifle and he had zero problems getting behind it on my gun. So I may get a new one anyway. Thanks to everyone.

Most of the deer not recovered by folks that I was hunting with were shot right at the limit of legal shooting hours. Heart/lung shot deer most always do a death run. How far? Until they bleed out. Heart shot around fifty yards, lung longer, maybe much longer. Now we need to trail them in the dark. If not found quickly, and sometimes they are not, the coyotes and other scavengers may be the lucky finders. If not scavengers, the weather may let spoilage set in unless t is really cold. In Texas, hunting can be in a blizzard or in shirt sleeves.

In other words, game shot at last light may be game wasted. I usually pack it in, just after sunset while hunting meat. If I know that a trophy buck lives there, maybe not.

Best wishes,

Jack

I always stay up until the time expires. I set a vibrating alarm on my phone. When it goes off I'm done. I won't be shooting much past 150 yards at last light bc it is almost impossible to judge a buck if i can even see it. It happens once a year or so that a big buck walks out really close right at dark 30. On another subject, I couldn't find the diameter of the Z6 ocular on the website so I called. It is 1.79". The FX3 is 1.60". So a Z6 is out completely for sure. The S&B 6x42 is 1.61". I am really thinking about getting some Talley bases and Warne mountain tech rings and conduct a return to zero experiment.

I've made probably 95% of my kills in the last 15 minutes of legal light. If I quit hunting at sunset I might as well not go, I killed one deer this year where I got on stand at sunset, 15 minutes later I shot.

Deer are almost nocturnal in my part of the world. I envy those whose hunting occurs in broad daylight, but that's not reality where I hunt. Hence good optics, if one steps out right at last light you've got to be prepared to make the shot or go without.

Blood trailing and recovering deer after dark is just what you do. That's what headlights and flashlights are for. I'd never not shoot for fear of having to track in the dark.

We do a lot of bow hunting at the beginning of the season. We actually enjoy tracking at night. We get down and go to the cabin to load up on lights and beer giving the deer some time. By the way the only light I use is a surefire Maximus. It is amazing.

THis ^^^^ the biggest bucks I have seen on the property I hunt in Alabama come out at last possible light.

Same for me in Ohio.

Raak,

I've found the 6X42 works great. One small trick I've used is rather than just focus the reticle with the eye focus I use the eye focus to focus the target at around 300 ish yds. Makes a noticeable difference IMO concerning the quality of the sight picture. Especially if your eyes are not so good.



Trystan