Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Best light gathering lightweight scope

I am looking for a lower power light weight scope to put on a featherweight 270wsm. I like the variables in the 2-8x range and also the fixed power 6x with objectives in the 32-40 mm range.

With a McMillan Edge stock I am trying to keep the overall weight under seven pounds and a 12oz or less scope would be ideal. This will be used for all around mountain to desert hunting, but will include stand hunting for white tails where the last five minutes of shooting time can be critical.

What medium priced scopes would best fit this application?
I am considering Leupold VX-III, Zeiss Conquest, Bushnell 4200, Pentax and Nikon but I am open to any suggestions.

I am willing to go slightly higher in price and weight if the low light capacity would be significantly improved.

Best quality low light scope, that light in weight. Is there such a scope? I don't think there is such a scope made. If you want the best in a low light scope then you buy and S&B. At the price range you ask about there is no top or even good light weight scopes that I know of made. Low magnification fixed power scopes that are good at light gathering and low in weight, are unknown to me. Or even adjustable power scopes which meet the above criteria.

Here is a case where you pick one or the other. You don't get to have both.

3sixbits is right that you can't have top end low light performance AND a small,lightweight scope with a small objective.IMO nothing beats the large Euro's for top end low-light performance, but they are "large" and on the heavy side. I know of none that weigh 12 oz.But you can compromise a bit and not do too badly.I'd look at a 2.5-8 Leup or the same scope in a Conquest.

I don't know about the Zeiss,but think the Leup weighs about 12 oz. I have used the scope in Alberta and Central Canada for that hunting,posting on large fields,and my last big whitetail was killed right at dark.I have also used the Leup many times mounted on lightweight 270's and 7 mags in the western states for elk,mule deer and antelope. It has worked well, if not perfectly, in all these applications.

Actually there is a scope that comes relatively close to your criteria, a Swaro 3-10x42 AV. It weighs 12.7oz and can maintain a 7mm exit pupil up to 6x. Even better though slightly heavier at 13.9oz is the 4-12x50. Optics are equivelant to S&B and/or Zeiss (I've got all three). Both Zeiss and Swaro even make a couple 30mm tube scopes that are within a couple ounces of where you were wanting to be.
With an appropriate reticle such as a 4a you should be able to make just about any shot during legal hunting hours that you'd want to make.................................DJ

There was such a scope and I have one but it's not made anymore. It's a Kahles 3x9x42 American. Mine has a TDS reticle. Very impressive optics for the money ($450 used for mine) and about 13 oz. I doubt they are all that hard to find, thought the TDS reticle might be, but they also came in a plex and 4a reticle. I'd opt for the 4a over the plex but either would make most guys very happy.

2.5x8 Leupold is usually a good choice as is the 3x9x36 Swaro (better optics than the Leupold but it's more expensive. I'm partial to 36mm objectives for a light weight rig . . .

A good 6x42 will be lightest.
My Kahles is able to do shots at night by the slightest moonlight.
Leupold 6x42 and Nikon Monarch are very good.

Swarovski 3-9x36 Habicht is damn good. 3-9x42 is heavier.

Boston,
I see this is your first post and nobody has properly welcomed you....WELCOME to the 24hr Flame eeerrr campfire
B
btw a scope transmit's light, not a scope on the planet gathers light

Being a little pedantic are we? One of the scope companies even named one line of their scopes the "Light Gatherers".

Light goes in one end of the scope, gets focused and comes out the other. A scope with a bigger objective does more of it than one with a smaller objective. If some people, including scope manufactures describe this as "gathering" who cares. It's also a widely used term in Astromical telescopes and used to describe birding binoculars. Why some people think it should not also be used to describe rifle scopes is strange to me.............................DJ

I couple of years ago, I was having problems with my Leupold VX II holding Zero. after a couple of trips back to Leupold, I was complaining to my local gun shop about the scope. I liked the low light quality of the scope, but I couldn't get it to hold zero. This was put on a Rem 700 in .30-06. The guy at the gun shop had a Pentax Gameskeeper 3-9X40For $100. I didn't want to buy a cheap scope, but he told me he would take it back if I didn't like it.
I took it home compared it with the Leupold at dusk and again in the morning at daybreak. I'll be darned if I can tell the difference. Not only that, but it solved my problem of holding zero. All I need to do is tweak it at the begining of every hunting season and I'm good to go.
I know there are a lot of fans of the high end scopes out there, but I have shot a few deer with this scope and i'm going to put another one on my new Tikka Lite. But if you want to spend the extra few hundred dollars, I don't think you can go wrong with the Conquest. I don't think you would notice the extra few ounces either.

Thanks for the answers so far. Yes I want to have my cake and eat it too, everything is a compromise. Yes I know it is hard to beat a quality 8x56-30mm scope for low light transmission.

I like the 2.5-8x VXIII and the Conquest as well as the 6x Kahles and a few others. I guess the question is can a single mid priced scope fill these requirements? Or even a higher priced scope instead of two different scopes.

I think where I am confused is that beyond the twilight factor there are other factors in light transmission that are not listed and hard to find any information on other than add copies and subjective opinions. Things such as individual light transmission, reflectivity, interior glare reduction, type of lens glass, size of lenses and housing, coating types, dispersion, edge aberration, etc. etc.

Can't these things be measured objectively with something as simple as a light meter and a test pattern? I was also looking for a ranking of light transmission for similar sized scopes, especially the smaller to mid sized ones. I know that any of the better mid range scopes would work well within legal shooting time.

I also hunt hogs at night, this is probably beyond most medium sized scopes, but I was hoping not to have two scopes for this rifle. Actually two scopes and quick detachable Tally mounts are not a bad way to go. I have my .375 set up this way for travel.

Thanks for the welcome. I have been a lurker for quite awhile. Most of my favorite gun writers are on this board as well as the opinionated old Geezers and Rifle loonies, of which I am both. There is an incredible body of knowledge, talent and experience on this board. Thanks to the sponsors for providing this forum.

Thanks for the info.

Unfortunately it's not as easy as just using a light meter and using light transmission to judge scope quality. You can look through an empty toilet paper roll and get 100% light transmission but it's not going to help you see to shoot better! A brightly lit unresolved blob is still an unresolved blob. Some scopes use an extra lens to help sharpen and refine the overall image. It won't be as purely bright as a scope without it but the image will be better.
Also scopes with different coatings transmit light at different wavelengths in different amounts. The trickiest thing about this is that different people see into different wavelenghts better or worse than others.

In the end the very best way to see which scope has the best optics is to look at it side by side with the other ones you are comparing it to, preferably in low light. The more expensive scopes usually are better overall but to get a little bit better optics you have to pay a lot more money......................DJ

Oh come on now, my S&B is only 30 oz or so. OK, not exactly the best choice for a light handy rifle....

Unfortunately getting real answers to those questions from advertisements is pretty much impossible. All we can really do is get our hands on them and look for ourselves so we can judge the end result of all those factors.

I'll bring up one that hasn't been mentioned yet and may work especially well for your dual use including hog hunting at night--who here has used the Trijicon 3-9X40? They list at 12.8 oz and are very reasonably priced. I've got a couple 4X32's and let me tell you, if the glass in those is any indication they may be one of the better values. Compared with scopes with similar sized objectives with lesser glass, they really look like "somebody turned on the yardlight"--they have the low light glass/coatings down really well and are extremely sharp.

Anyway, just another option. Quite a bit cheaper than the Swaros and lighter than Meoptas. It would make for an interesting side by side with a Conquest (I haven't done so), though I don't think Conquests in that size are available with illuminated reticles.

DJ,
You do have a good sense of humor, "pedantic" let me quote that 1 more time while I am drying my eyes from laughter "pedantic". I have not heard that term since 9th or 10th grade but it is brilliant !!! (but wrong).
I was simply trying to point out a common misnomer. btw I noticed on your following post you used the term transmit and did not say gather.....interesting.
If I was trying to be "pedantic" I would bang on my keyboard and say "for the 752nd time it is MUZZLE BRAKE not MUZZLE BREAK". I did not do that.
B

Ok, Since your common use vocabulary is a little lacking I'll make it simpler for you:



This statement is completely wrong, the opposite is true. Every magnifying scope on the planet "gathers" light.

Simple enough?

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/586053/telescope/44207/Light-gathering-and-resolution



Also applies to binoculars:

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/gear/binoculars/light




Google "light gathering" and you will find dozens of optics references that use the term "light gathering".

I beleive that the common misconception comes from Leupold. They have a technical article that mentions that scopes don't "gather" light but transmits it. This article is wrong. Most other optical authorities including other scope manufacturers use the term gathering, as you notice it's even defined in the Britannica article quoted above. I realize that some people have tried to redefine the term but that doesn't make it correct.

Any way you want to look at it a scope takes an objective sized shaft of light and gathers it into a smaller exit pupil shaft of light. Whether you call it transmitting or gathering it's still doing the same thing.........................DJ

Boston, welcome to the campfire. You didn't say what's the longest range you intend to shoot while hunting. For low light hunting a heavier reticle is better than a standard or medium reticle. Over 300 yards most folks don't want a thick reticle. I have or have had Burris Signature, Pentax, Nikon Monarch, and Leupold scopes. My Leupold scopes on my centerfire rifles have a heavier reticle than the others listed and are better in low light. The Leupolds aren't brighter than the others but I can use them with less light because of the thicker reticle. I'm 55 and my eyes don't work as well as they did at a younger age (DUH). I wear glasses so that's one more lens to rob light and distort the image. As they say, your mileage may vary. A fixed magnification scope will have a slight edge in "brightness" over a variable of equal quality. I hope this helps. Dave

Welcome to ya,Boston!!

I've got three scopes I've bought for the low light situations I encounter here in WV. A Weaver GS 4.75x40,a VXlll 1.75-6x32 w/hvy duplex,and a Sightron Sll 1.5-6x42. The Weaver is the only one I've hunted with(just bought the other two since last season) and is GOOD in low light but I found I needed a lower power at SHORT range,plus it's e/r is too short. The Leupold and Sightron compare favorably with each other in low light even though the objectives are different sizes(better lenses/coatings on the Leupold?) but the Sightron is giving me a better edge to edge image and it's e/r is better at 6x having an almost constant 4" through out the power range. I definitely like the Leupold hvy duplex but the Sightron duplex is ok. Until I get to hunt with both I won't know which scope I like better but the Sightron was ALOT less expensive.

Hey,Dave. How ya been? I can sympathize with you on the glasses. I HATED having to hunt with them. After 20+ yrs I finally went with contacts maybe 7 yrs ago as I was going through glasses too often with the work I did(logging/tree trimming and then hvy construction). I wish I would have went with contacts 20+ yrs ago. I'm 61 now and haven't had to change my scrip since I went with them. Maybe something for you to consider?

til later

I have used them all at one time or another, and I have a barb wire fence about 200 yards behind my house and the Leupold shows that fence as well as any higher priced scope, it lighter in weight, has a better profile, slick and trim..I don't see how there could be a better scope. I could cuss and discuss this til hell freezes over based on a lot of years hunting with a lot of high end scopes, but I won't, I am happy with my personal decision and thats what I recommend, but thats what makes a horse race, a gun fight, or WW3~!

EZEARL, alive and kickin'. How have you been? I think you'll like the HD reticle. I ordered a VX2 3x9 with the post & duplex and will try it this deer season.

Thanks for the contacts suggestion. I've thought about contacts but I'd prolly need to remove at least one to gut a deer. The folks I know that have tried bifocal contacts didn't like them at all. The glasses are only a PIA when it's raining or snowing. I could get by without glasses enough to hunt in those conditions but my scopes don't have the Euro type fast focus feature.

Take care and safe hunting. Dave

Try the Leupold 3x9 Ultralight. I have the current model and have had the "compact", which was its predecessor. Have had 10 or 12 total and never a problem. Get the wide Duplex. I compared it to my Z6 2x12. It comes pretty close and is 20% of the cost of the Swaro.