Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Someone's missing the boat.

I have a favor, complaint, suggestion, observation etc, etc to ask of all of you gun writers. In your writings you seem to get invited to manufacturing seminars where you get to try out new products and in so doing you get to know these people personally and I've seen it in print where you have even suggested changes in their products. Here's my suggestion for a new product. I live in the East. Hunt mostly whitetail deer in the woods and field edges. I think the optics manufacturers are missing out on a large portion of the market by not offering a binocular for us eastern guys. Let me explain. It seems like every time I look at a binocular ad it is a 8x42 or a 10x42 model. Hey that's great for you western guys glassing across a canyon, but we don't have wide open canyons back here. What I would like to have is a lower powered binocular that draws a lot of light. Say a 6x42 or maybe even a 7x45 something that I can use in the woods early in the morning or just before dark. Nice bucks didn't get that way being stupid. They lay back in the woods until dark before coming out into the fields to feed and back in the woods it gets dark early especially early bow season when the leaves are still on the trees. It's also nice to scan the woods and see one approaching so you can get situated for a shot if he's heading your way. I can't speak for all the guys that hunt the east, but for me I don't need or want a 10x binocular. Give me a good quality 6 or maybe a 7 power with a large objective lens to draw some light with a center focus (would settle or individual focus, but would prefer center) and all the fancy lens coatings for under, lets say, around three hundred bucks. That way you don't mind if they get banged up a little. Ok there you have it, my rant for the day. Ok gun writers, there it is. If it makes any sense to you how about putting a bug in these binocular manufacturers ears. I feel they could sell a truck load of them back here. Comments welcomed. RRM

I only found 6-8 entries for "6x42 binoculars" and "7x45 binoculars" on the first page of the Google search results.

The Leupold 6X30 makes for a dandy bino for the use you describe. I bought both of my sons a pair and just use theirs when hunting here in Indiana.

That said, I've also not had a problem with my 8X Nikons either...

Ok fella's thanks. Also forget to mention I'd like to see them in a roof prism model. Besides the 6x30 Leupolds and 8x Nikons any others stand out? I've got a pair of 8x30's, but there again, they just don't work in the evenings. RRM

If you can find a pair used the Vortex Viper HD 6x32 is excellent, sadly discontinued. The 6x32's are very bright, the exit pupils are as large as 8x40's - 30mm objectives make a lot of sense in a 6x.

Maven makes a 6x30. I've never handled a pair of the 6x30 Mavens, the 8x30's I handled looked impressive, eye relief was insufficient for eye glasses. The 6x30's are advertised as having longer eye relief. Wasn't real impressed w/ Maven's customer service in my limited dealings with them, but if you're really looking for a 6x30, there aren't a lot of options now.

Leica and Nikon both used to offer high end, high quality roof prism 7x42 models, not sure what their current status is.

David

Mule Deer has an excellent article on the power of bino`s used for woods hunting that has changed my view on what should be used and why.It is in the latest Sports Afield.

Leupold 6x Yosemites are great for that sort of glassing and also great for turkey hunting. No optics expert here; but in my limited experience they are hard to beat in their price range. Even without the larger objective they perform well and the compact size is nice, also.

David, that particular model is my most-used and favorite binocular - one of the few good things I have to say about that brand.
But it's discontinuation should serve as proof-positive for the OP that 6x roofs (and even 7x) - particularly at that price point and up are a losing proposition for the manufacturer.
The general hunting public (not necessarily folks here) - even in the heavily timbered areas think more X is better.

Agreed.

That's why I have a pair of the 6x30 Leupold Katmai bought blind because I never saw any in stock - that tells me all I need to know about the market. I don't doubt there are/were others with better glass. Whatever it might be it's always possible to get the same thing cheaper or something better for the same price. The Katmai were available at enough discount that I could rent them cheaply and turn them over if I had no use for them. I kept them.

It wasn't news because the same mid focus applies to reading mirage but I first heard from Ron Spomer (he started as a photographer and I trust him on lenses though his current writing strikes me as more generic as seems to be necessary as everybody pursues news stand sales) that mid focus would allow vision into a certain depth of woods. A feature at times a bug at others. I have also found short depth of field a nuisance shooting small mammals at extreme range with high power scopes. I have to break position to refocus for every new target acquisition.

That said for low light I've never found anything better than 8x56 though only Bill Jordan could make them look compact. Sadly in bright sunshine I find most anything is good enough to be useful. In low light you pay for what you get and get what you pay for. For under three hundred bucks the market is folks who don't know any better or can't afford better. IMHO percentage wise better is a lot more but in dollars doubling or tripling the price will make a huge difference in performance during the dawn and dusk hours.

Bushnell used to make a 6x26 and a 7x27 compact binoculars. From what I understand, the 6x27's were standard issue for the astronauts for some missions. At least Bushnell advertised them as such.

Anyway, back around 1971/2 I bought a set in 7x27 and used them in Nevada where some shots can be way out there. Never had a problem with them and they are quite good even in the late evening.
Paul B.

Discontinued, but the best ones I have ever found are Minox 6.5X32IF. Great clarity, and focus once and forget.

I've been using Vortex raptor 6.5x32's for several years now here in MT. and Idaho hunting elk and deer. I have found the porro prism binoc.s to be every bit as good as roof prisms and the lower power allows for a more clear view because of the lack of shake you notice in higher power glass. I've compared my porros side by side in the field with other Vortex high end roof prisms of higher power and IMO my porros have a better, more clear view. The raptors are also light wt. and not that much more bulky than roof prisms of the same magnification and objective lens size. I agree with the OP that it would be nice with more choices in lower power glass but I'd prefer porros with quality glass like that found in the high end stuff, best of both worlds. 6 or 7x32/38/42 etc porros of higher quality than the Raptors would end up in my grubby hands in a heartbeat.

Thanks to all for your comments and recommendations, but I'm still not interested in 28, 30, 32 objective lens. I want a 6 or 7 power with an objective of around 42 - 44. Something that really draws the light. Now I'm not opposed to a good set of Porro binoculars, but weight and bulk do enter into the equation. How about manufacturers,, I know the big three from Europe are supposed to be good and I bet they are, but are my eyes and ability to really tell the difference? Probably not unless there is a comparison and they're sitting side by side. So I'm thinking more along the lines of Bushnell, Nikon, Pentax etc, etc. You guys get the picture. So with that said any Jap models really jump out at you that fit my criteria? Maybe such a binocular doesn't even exist. I'll even bump up the price tag to $500. That may open up a few doors. That's way I'm here asking that the gun writers put a bug in these manufacturers ear. You never know unless you try. See ya, RRM

If you read the writings of hunting authors from before the 60's always a 6x30 or 7x40 binoculars were recommended and a fixed 4x scope was almost universal except for a few savvy woods hunters who used 2.5 and 3x scopes. Deer seem to have gotten smaller or hunters blinder since then. I have a pair of Leica 10x40s but seem to use my 6x30 Yosemite's more often now except for long range glassing. I think the wider field of view helps me spot more game in the brush and woods. The 10x are superior for judging trophies but since I am mostly a meat hunter they are not needed. The Leica's get the nod for birding but for a casual stroll in the woods the Leupold's are most likely to come along.

I'd suggest you look long and hard a the Maven B2 7x45. For whatever reason Maven understates the fov of their binoculars. The 7x45 is listed at 389', but measures 420. Among the top two or three light transmissions in the mid 90% range, they should work well.

Lower magnification binoculars, ie, anything less than 8x have fallen victim to the more magnification is better idea. They don't sellreal well when the magnification is less than 8x.

SteveC99. Thank you. I think I'm going to take you up on that and see if I can find someone who handles them for a hands on look. That might be what I'm looking for. Thanks again. Scott

Maven sells only through their website (maybe Amazon too?). There has been one reported unsatisfactory experience there, but in my multiple workings with Maven they have been first rate. They usually have some demos one can order and they have a return it if you don't like it. So it is my experience you can order with only the possibility of a return, no hassles noted from my end.

I agree with you, and will add the following: I see the same trend in gun magazines. One example is "Handloader." The reason why I decided to buy Handloader is so I can benefit from the reloading advice and load data for the most widely used cartridges all the way to the ones used in Alaska. In this case the most popular cartridges up here aren't new, and I imagine that that is the case on in the lower-48 States. In here the most popular with Alaska hunters have remained the same what it seems forever, and these are the .30-06, .300WM, .338WM, 7mm Magnum, and .375 H&H. There are all kinds of cartridge in the middle, below (.270, .308, etc.), and above the .375H&H. But all I see in Handloader are reloading articles for rare cartridges and new ones such as the 6.5 Creedmoor. This magazine, just like a lot of other gun magazines, are getting thinner by the day. Every once in awhile I see hand-loads for the .30-06 and a few others, but this is rare. What I would to see are improved or new loading data, not the same old data where older powders and bullets are used, and for the cartridges I mentioned above

Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think I can continue buying Handloader. I will give them the benefit or the doubt through another season, but that is it.

Rat Rod Mac,

As Huntz mentioned early in this thread, a recent article of mine in Sports Afield explains why lower-powered optics aren't nearly as good for "woods" hunting and many hunters apparently still think.

Your assumption that a lower-magnification binocular provides a better view in dim light is incorrect, mostly because it's apparently based on the assumption that ONLY the size of the exit pupil affects apparent brightness. Obviously lens and coating quality does as well, but magnification also increases the ability to perceive detail, which is what binoculars are all about, essentially by getting us closer to the object we're looking at--just like walking closer to something in dim light.

Hunters in many European countries can legally take big game in far dimmer light than most American hunters, the reason they came up with the "twilight factor" formula decades ago, multiplying the magnification by the diameter (in millimeters) of the objective lenses, then calculating the square root. The formula does have its limits: A really small exit pupil of under around 4mm doesn't work as well, and of course the quality of the glass, coatings, etc. also affects the view. But given those basics, more magnification provides more detail in dim light.

Here are some samples of TF numbers:
6x42--15.87
7x42--17.15
8x42--18.33
10x42--20.5

A few people claim the TF formula is obsolete, because it was developed when optics weren't nearly as good as they are now. They are wrong: It works pretty well with any magnifying optics, as long as the optical quality is similar, whether bad or good. I know this due to owning a bunch of binoculars of all sizes, and given good glass and at least a 4mm exit pupil, you'll see more in dim light with higher magnification binoculars. Which is one reason 8x and even more magnification work better in dim light--and the reason very few 6x-7x binoculars are offered anymore. Most hunters have discovered they can see detail better in dim light with today's better glass when using 8x or more--thanks to today's really good glass and coatings.

The hunters that can't either are unable to hold binoculars very steady, or haven't learned how. But that has nothing to do with higher magnification not "working" in dim light.

Ray,

There's a reason Handloader magazine has that name, rather than Alaskan Handloading Magazine.

Strange as it might seem, most magazines try to run articles that interest more readers. While Handloader does periodically run articles with updates on powders and bullets for popular cartridges, fewer hunters use magnums larger than .30 caliber these days, largely due to the vast selection of deep-penetrating bullets. As a result not as many readers are interested in new handloads for such big boomers--which normally don't require new, magic powders to make them more effective. (However, many hunters are interested in new bullets, the reason Handloader runs plenty of articles on those.)

Instead, the majority of rifle handloaders are indeed interested in older (especially obsolete) rounds, and newer rounds. They're interested in semi-obsolete rounds because most Handloader subscribers are rifle loonies who often buy rifles for which ammo is hard to find, if it can be found at all. Or they're interested in relatively new rounds, say those introduced since 2000, for which data is still often relatively scarce.

Another factor is that with the Internet, new-powder data for popular older rounds is quickly available on powder and bullet manufacturer's websites. We no longer have to wait several years for new paper manuals to appear, or handloading writers to "develop" loads.

One of the big reasons shooting magazines (indeed perhaps the primary reason) have gotten thinner in the past decade is less advertising. This primarily occurred because of Obama, who was perhaps the greatest firearms salesman the business has ever known. Since Trump became president, many of the same shooting companies that didn't have to advertise their wares during the Obama administration have discovered they do need to advertise again. Several of the magazines I work for report an increase in advertising, which means they'll be thicker, due both to more ads and articles.