If you had betweeen $1,500 and $2,000 to spend on a scope for deer hunting only. Max power necessary would be in the 10X to 12X range. Shots to about 400 yards. Absolute best low light capability. Low light capability being more important than higher power, or other options. Illuminated reticle?? Pros and cons for the illuminated reticle on a strictly deer hunting scope??

Which would you choose?? Please be specific. I have my ideas, but I am interested in what some of you other guys think. Tom.

I have killed over sixty deer, and a passle of other African game as well as elk and caribou, and have always used the same Leupold and Redfield 3-9 x scopes. They are old but do the job just fine.

Terry

Leupold VX-II 3-9X40, the illuminated reticile is for novices that don't know better. Anything more than $250.00 is a waste of money.

My favorite is a Leupold 3.5-10X50 VX3. No illuminated ret with the old style CPC reticle. It has served me well.

HOGGHEAD it's your money I'm spending so I'm not gonna lecture and if I were doing it my first choice would be a Schmidt Bender....

I am one of those delusional folks who does believe high end glass can help a guy see better,so don't blame a guy for wanting it.

I have a Summit but that may not make it "best" S&B for your purposes...although I intend to use it for just that purpose,and it will go to Alberta with me next time I am there.

Personally I would not want a lighted reticle but that's just me.

I have also liked the Zeiss,Kahles, and Swaro scopes I have used real well; but S&B would be my choice for that kinda chedda.JMHO.

Man, that is some cheddar, too, isn't it?

While I will sing the praises of higher-end riflescopes to the best of my ability (there's many I've never seen) at SOME point it starts to get a bit... nutso <g>. $2k on a riflescope, which is essentially an aiming device, seems over the top to me. Not that I wouldn't do it if I had a truly extra $2k lying around <g>.

Love fixed 4x's and 6x's, but for any potential situation a variable 2-8 or 3-9 leaves little to want. New favorite is the Zeiss conquest which is a bit heavy, but very nice to look through for a $400 scope.

my deer are only worth $500 worth of glass, I could shoot most of them with iron sights but at 400 yards your a better shot than I am. I wonder what a cheap 3x9 conquest with rapid z 600 would do for you.

My vote goes to Swarovski 3-10X 42mm. Have not seen better.

If I were on the market for an all purpose/deer scope, I'd check out Doug's Zeiss demo sales posted today. He has a Zeiss Victory 2.5-10X50 ill. #4(40) reticle with LotuTech coating for $1650. That's about the finest all around scope money can buy. I have the same scope in the Classic trim. It is is leaps and bounds ahead of any US and Pacific Rim scopes I have looked through, illumination is one of the best.
Grab it before someone else does. Hell... log on two more times and I'll talk myself into it.

S&B Summit

Me, Jimmy?

I've used a 3.5-10 Conquest with the RZ600 quite a bit (a couple years). It does work great.

I like how you put it- "my deer are only worth $500 to me"... that's about perfect!

My Weaver Grand Slam 3-10x40 has never left me wanting more in the woods, really has been a great scope for me. I gotta tell ya though, I'm really leaning toward the new 2-10x42 Super Slam for my next rifle. Even better glass than the Grand Slam, etched recticle and goes down to 2 power in the brush. Should be an excellent deer scope.

The man said he wants to spend up to $2k.....gotta go with his wishes....

1.5-6x42 Zeiss Victory Diavari would be my choice if I could afford it. Until then, I will keep the 2.5-8x32 Zeiss Conquest on my favorite hunting rifles. They are perfect for deer hunting for my price range.

Point. And I never answered properly!

S&B or Zeiss for me Hoggshead! I think. I try not to even put much thought into $2k scopes because for me, thinking > obsessing > buying!

Zeiss Victory 2.5-10X42

Best I have ever hunted bar none!!

No doubt it would be Schmidt & Bender or Swarovski. I have both and just took my Schmidt and Bender 4-16X50 off my 300 Weatherby and replaced it with the new Z-6 3-18X50 BR.

The jury is still out on this one, but for now I have a S&B for sale...

Geeeeezus, if it's so damn dark you need a 2000.00 scope to see, you might better buy a spotlight. It'd be a helluva lot cheaper and would probably work just as well or better. Probably not legal but might just as well be if you're shooting so late/dark you can't get the job done with a Leupold/Nikon etc..

Yup.

+1

I shot a deer last Fall right about before dark.
420 yards away and I shot the wrong buck. You could see horns through the VX3 6x42 but couldn't distinguish otherwise like you could 15 minutes earlier.
I'm not knocking the scope but would really like to test out a S&B just to see if they are that much better/brighter.

Shapnel, you should loan me yours for a few months....grin

You are one of the few I would actually do that for...

Thanks Shrapnel. Problem is I probably wouldn't want to give it back...grin

Would the Victory give you a shot that a 3-9x40 Conquest wouldn't, do you think?

The thimg I've noticed about scopes and glass is that the conditions under which you are looking at game can vary so much,that it's almost impossible to say in advance what will work and what won't....

I have never had a scope cost me a shot at anything because I could not see it to shoot......but one day at the range I did have this happen while sitting at the 600 yard line waiting for barrels to cool...it was mid afternoon, sunny,and I noticed "something" with my naked eye in the shadowed woodline,out in tall yellow grass, at the edge,near the 300 yard line.

I grabbed my Swaro 8x30's...saw 2 deer out in the high yellow grass, dappled in sunlight and shadow.I decided to "count coup" on them and grabbed a rifle with an older Leup 6x36....I simply could not ID any of them under those conditions for what they were,and there simply was not enough contrast in the optics to "pull" those deer from screening cover.

I also had a 3.5-10x50 Kahles, and a VX3 2.5-8 along and with either of those(both set on 6X to make it fair), it was easy to distinguish those deer in those conditions,well enough for a shot.To me these mixed light/mixed cover conditions are far more difficult,and a tougher scope test,than gradual,monolithic darkness setting in on an open field.

The optics of thesee two scopes were just enough "better" in contrast and resolution to provide a shot with them, where another would not cut it....

I am no "highclass glass" snob and frequently hunt with 80's era 4X Leupolds but I gotta call a spade a spade and anyone who tells me they will always see everything through the lesser quality glass, simply demonstrtaes to me they have never been in a situation where the differences are apparent.

Conquests have the nicest glass I have looked at in their price range,and Kahles is right there, too IMHO.

I got lambasted here once for making a similar comparison and it still smarts. No one likes to get criticized, but I have had shots in legal conditions where I had a Schmidt and Bender scope and I could do all that BobinNH is describing, while the guys with me couldn't.

I will continue to use my Z-6 in the same way until I decide I need a S&B again. Until that time, whether the know-it-alls continue to poo-poo the difference in high end glass, I will still have one "go to" rifle outfitted accordingly because I have seen the difference.

I would also say I am willing to put my successes in the field against anyone as to my experience. I will also admit the biggest elk and all of my trophies were shot in conditions that didn't require that type of optics, so it is conceivable that you can hunt a lifetime, have success and not have a S&B scope.

That said, I will still use the highest quality of optics on any rifle I own, and there isn't a straight 6X on a single one...

I have had a bunch of different brands/models of scopes and at the end of the day a Zeiss 3x12x56 Victory came out on top.
You've got a lot of advice so far and most of it is worth what you paid for it.
Anybody who thinks a 40-42mm scope will perform with bigger mm's in low light would not be the one I'd take advice from................just sayin

In this same price range....Anyone looked through one of the Nightforce scopes and compared to other high dollar glass?

I have used Nightforce on a few occasions but don't own one. I have most of the others discussed, except S&B. SWFA in their scope comparison chart, IIRC, don't have Nightforce in the top tier, not in the class with S&B, Swaro, and top end Zeiss. Check it out on line.

DF

I have used a Leupy 2.5-8x36 for most of my hunting bought my first in 1977, but updated from the vari-x to the VX3 with BC reticle a few years ago. This is plenty of scope for the last minute of legal light where the legal light is determined by half hour after sunset.
For my heavier whitetail rifle, it is scoped with a Zeiss Conquest, although I did try a Victory. Sent the Victory on down the road because I couldn't stand the swelling cross hairs when load testing at 300 and 400 yard targets.

The Conquest duplex reticle is the perfect weight for me, therefore it is the perfect whitetail deer scope!
If mountain mulies or in the mix, and/or a horse scabbard will be used, the smooth shape of a Leupy 2.5-8x36 or 3.5-10x40 works very well.

I have three Zeiss 1.5-6x42 scopes. I have one S & B 1.5-6x42 scope. I have one Swarovski 1.5-6x42 scope. I have one Meopta 1.5-6x42 scope.

I have used a lot of other scopes. I can't find a better scope than a 1.5-6x42 from one of the above. For my money, and the above represents a bunch of my money, there is nothing better for an all around deer hunting scope for Minnesota. I am good out to 400 easily with any one of them. I am good as long as I have a little light to work with, whether it is moonlight, reflection off a cloud deck in the middle of the night or just before dawn or after sunset. Having that kind of glass at least I know that the ones I can't see well enough to shoot are going to need something a hell of a lot better to be sure about.

My favorite is the Schmidt and Bender because it's a police sniper model with short turrets that let me go from 100 yards to 300 yards with one click and to 400 with three clicks. Otherwise they are so close to each other they are equal IMO.

Low light and long range means lots of objective size and the magnification to go with it. There ain't no way any decent 40/42mm scope can complete with a top model from Zeiss, Leupold, Swarovski, or S&B in a 56mm model.
For twilight shooting you could use at least 11X, maybe more on a bright day.
No way I'd even consider something like that for my big game rifles. They have a bad habit of being troublesome in the field. Any casual bump and you'll probably have to rezero them, for instance. Not for me. I'll stick with my 4-6X scopes. Never had to rezero one inspite of lots of hard knocks. E

i've used several different 50mm swarovskis and have been disappointed in them. Just didn't seem as bright at high magnification as the Leupolds I used to use. Aging eyes may have a lot to do with that, though.

This year i am giving zeiss a try. Victory 2.5-10x42 on one rifle and Conquest 3.5-10x44 on another. Z-Plex reticle and Target turret on both.

I do agree that if low light/no light performance is a priority (either sitting over a foodplot at last light or hunting dark timber where it gets dark before legal shooting time is up), more objective is going to be better than less - but - i got tired of the "dolly" look on my rifles (as someone around here puts it).

I've owned a bunch of 2.5-8 Leup's; they were my favorite scope for years and the bulk of my killin' was through one of those.

BUT, one thing that drove me to try other things is that western Oregon can be so gray and gloomy, and the timber so big etc, that plenty of times the 2.5-8 didn't really get me to "last legal" light (also 1/2 hour post/pre here).

The Conquest do much better.

Haven't tried the new VX3's; they may be better...

For all the guys that gave good serious answers---thank you.

For the guys who wanted to argue?? Well I just don't understand that. You should start your own arguing thread. Not gum up a post where someone is really looking for the experience of others.

I am a handicapped hunter. And now all my hunting is fixed position hunting. In the more open areas. I am looking for something that gives the best clarity and works in the worst conditions. Including cloudy, overcast rainy situations, and low light conditions.

I am looking at one of the Zeiss 3X12X56's that Doug has listed. I am also very interested in the straight S&B 8X56. I did have a 3X10 S&B that I liked. And I do have three AV Swaro's. I am just looking to build one ultimate deer rifle for the hunting that I will have to do for the rest of my life. So I am selling off some stuff and ordering a very nice Cooper rifle. And I want the best scope to mount on top. So for you guys who want to argue about those parameters. I say-Please don't. Tom.

Hogghead,

I hope the thread goes that way for you <grin>. I'm in your debt for the heads-up on the Swaro AV I got.

Seems to me that you are on the right track here. A "real" Zeiss with a large objective, or and S&B, would be my top choices but that's just based on what the BT/DT guys have reported. I'm just limpin' along with my Conquests and AV.

Good luck to you sir!!

I'm partial to a high end 2.5-10X42 as the best all around, do everything deer hunting scope. Although it won't quite hang with a 2.5-10X50 or 56 in poor light, I think it's a good compromise between size, power range, and acceptable low light performance. Depending on the rifle and how I intend to use it, my idea of the "best" deer hunting scope might be a good quality 1.5-6X42, 2-7/8X36, 3-9X40/42, or 2.5-10X42/50. The first 2 configs offer a great combination of wide FOV and enough upper X's for typical forest hunting where max shot distance is limited to maybe 250 yds or so. The latter two have more than enough Xs for everywhere else.

I understand the appeal and can appreciate the simplicity and greater "foolproofness" of fixed power scopes. They have their place. But, for an all-around, go anywhere hunting rifle, I prefer the greater versatility a low to medium range variable offers.

One note on objective size: larger is only better for low light when the magnification used is sufficiently high enough to take advantage of the greater mm's. To say that a 50mm objective always outperforms, say 42mm is false. For example, a 50mm objective will give you absolutely no noticeable advantage over a 42mm objective on a 1.5-6X scope. Even at 6X, the 42mm obj is still providing a 7mm exit pupil, and most people's eyes cannot use more light than this provides. This is the reason optics mfg's don't make 1.5-6X56's, 1-4X42's, etc. Why deal with the extra bulk, weight, and cost if it provides no advantage? If your typical shot distances are barely outside bow range, having a 2.5-10X56 won't provide any advantage over a 1.5-6X42.

If you're using a 2.5-10X, 3-12X, etc., a 50mm or 56mm obj definitely provides an advantage however slight, but only if you have the power dialed above 6-7X. At some point, form factor starts becoming more important than raw performance to me. I'm willing to give up some performance in exchange for a scope that isn't wider than my rifle's forend and doesn't weight 1 1/2 lb or more. There is no such thing as a single "best" anything for everyone. Picking an optic always involves making certain compromises and picking which compromises you're willing to accept in exchange for the advantages that are most important to you.

All of this also assumes you're using high quality optics as well. A large dia obj on crappy optics with poor resolution, light transmission, and contrast won't outperform high quality optics with a smaller objective because a large exit pupil doesn't compensate for poor image quality.

HH,
One of my hunting buddies has that scope. It's certainly a wonderful scope, and would fit your needs well.

Personally, I'd rather have the aforementioned Zeiss 2.5-10X42 because it will do nearly everything the 3-12X56 will do, and where it falls behind in super low light and longer distance, it more than compensates in size... to me.

But, a good deal is a good deal. I have a Zeiss 2.5-10X50, and although I'd prefer the 42, the fact it was a demo and had a discontinued reticle, I got such a good deal on it that I couldn't resist.

Good luck with your decision!

HOGGHEAD
The 3-12x50 S&B Zenith Flash Dot.Fitted with a PH turret.
For more power a 4-16x50 S&B PMII
For a fixed power.A 8x56 S&B with a 30mm Tube fitted with a PH knob and illumination.
If weight isnt an issue
A 5-25x56 S&B PMII with a P3 mil dot reticle.


dave

Dave, my next one is going to be the S&B Summit. What advantages do you see with it over a Swaro A 3.5-10x42 ?

I did not know you could get the illumination on the 8X56?? That is very good information. I will look up what the "PH" knob is. I do not know what that stands for. Thanks for your comment. Tom.

I'm guessing PH = precision hunter

Earlier I posted my advice. It was a S&B Summit. I have two Summits, a Bushy 6500, a bunch of VX-III's, a VX-3 and a two week old S&B 3-12x42 precision hunter. Although I can't say much about the new S&B, I find all of the other scopes more than adequate for hunting whitetails up till legal shooting light and beyond.

My eyes, I will soon be 60 years old, cannot see the optical difference between my Summit and my VX-3 or any of the others in low light. I am convience someone younger with great eyes can see the difference as many here at the campfire have told us, I am just unfortunately not one of them. Other scopes may be as good or better but I do not have any long term experience with them.

So why do I say the Summit is the best Deer Hunting Scope? A scopes main job is to be a aiming device. It must be extremely rugged, hold zero without fail, have precise adjustments, adequate eye relief and a useful magnification range, all in a package that is fairly light weight. The S&B Summit is superior to all the other scopes I have now or have ever used when it come to these traits.

Any of the high end Leupold's, Ziess, Swaro's, etc. will have optics that will get the job done. I suggest getting a scope that will not let you down when you need it most.

Jeff-

About the only thing that is noticable is how "crisp" the view is. I've found that the "crisper" image is perceived as brighter but I feel it's very close!

As to lowlight performance, being in a different focal plane is the only real difference.

To answer your question! There's really no sacrafice with the Conquest!!!

Etched reticles ROCK

If one were to scratch off all the logos between the Summit, Victory and Z6, it would take a hell of an eye to tell much if any difference. It's all personal preference from here out!!!!

You sir are welcome.
PH is the percision hunter knob.Can be had as an option.
Depending on the model of S&B, illumination can be added.
I have a 3-12x50 Classic that I was thinking about either sending in and having it added or trading up to a FlashDot.
Lit reticles will best the heavest of heavy reticles in the dark,every time.
And yes you can get a 30mm tubed 8x56 Fixed, with the PH and Illumination.
Im thinking that would be a heck of a scope.Not so much for bump and run stuff but from a fixed hide.It would be hard to beat.
All the crap you read about big obj. scopes moving usually comes straight from the loopie cool aid drinker crowd.People with limited rifle scope experience see big obj.loopies float around and think all rifle scopes are the same.To a man,any that say that crap have never hunted with a big Schmidt.

I personally like FFP reticles in low light.
They just stand out better.
lit reticles are more flexable in that you can have a much finer aim point than say a heavy 4a but with illumination you can always see it...no matter what.
S&B vs. Swaro is always a toss up.Pick the features you like and be happy.


dave

I had a reputable dealer who sells both the Leica and S&B scopes tell me the Leica has superior glass to the S&B, but I have a hard time buying that one. I'm not interested in the least in a Leica scope. I'd also think the S&B glass is superior to the Swaro A series riflescope glass, but that's just a guess.

Tom,

If you want to take a test drive, you can buy my Zeiss here:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...iss_Conquest_3_9x40_ANIB_w_p#Post5189365

After receiving it, if you think it is LACKING in ANY way optically, re: FOV, Eye Relief, Resolution, Light Transmission, sharp contrasting etched reticle, etc., send it back for a refund less shipping. IMO a 40 will sit lower and provide/offer a better cheek weld to stock allowing better shot cycle vs. a higher mounted 50, hence why I own nothing over 40 - in fact I sold a 3-10x50 Leupold that was on a rifle my son inherited, to buy this Zeiss which it replaced. Personally my eyes showed the Zeiss to be better optically.

You can also buy you a nice light bino if you don't have one like a 6x30 Yosemite - Leupold for under 100 bucks, it will rival quality 8x30/32s and show less 'shake.' You will then be left w/plenty jingle for other things. Nothing against the BEST and most expensive glass, but I personally as some above feel that for an aiming device they are RARELY necessary to be effective.

Bobin, I bet my 6x Leupold would have shown those deer - either Katmai or Yosemite Odds are my FXII would too....no doubt using BOTH eyes usually wins when looking to resolve things or 'pull out' an object vs. using 1 eye .....IMHO. No doubt the VX3, as the newer FXII and 3, is better glass than an M8.

I have had both the AV and the Summit and the Swaro PH....to my eyes(which may be whacked although the Dr's say they are very good the Summit is more akin to the Swaro PH,not the AV.

I say this having peeped through all of them on deer as the light went south,not in a store,but at my range.And the darker it got, the better the Summit got. They all look good in good light.

I'll admit these differences are small,but do exist to my eyes anyway.

In any event, I am not going to choose a scope based soley on optical purity....I will lean heavily in favor of mechanical ruggedness,even if it means leaving some fractional optical goodness on the table.

Optical purity can be "seen";the reason it get so much play in scope evaluation....mechanical integrity cannot be "seen"...and is only proved from round count and time afield...over years.I will run with reputation on that front.

Zeiss

+1 bob.



dave

HOGGHEAD,

I don't really think you have to spend that much dough to get a top-notch scope, with great low-light capability.

My .257 Wby, aka my Hayfield Rifle, wears a Leupold VX-3 3.5-10 x 50 scope. At 10x, it's a 5mm exit pupil, about all my old eyes can handle anyway.

Two years ago, I took a whitetail buck in a wide-open hayfield, exactly 30 minutes after sundown, which is legal shooting time limit in my area. I could see the buck very clearly, even though by the time I shot him and walked up to him, it was near dark.

I've checked that scope against my Leica 10x42 binocs, and it has every bit the low-light capability of the binocs.

It shouldn't be compromised for excellent customer service either, regardless of the company.

I have both, and IMO there's not much difference in image quality, but the Leica has greater FOV at the same power, greater ER, and a tad less tunnel vision at the lowest magnifications. It also has Leica's version of a hydrophobic outer lens coating like Zeiss's Lotutec. There aren't enough differences in image quality alone between the two scopes that you'd ever get a consensus on which is "better." Both exude quality.

If it hadn't been for the fact I got such a fantastic deal on one (less than $1K new with the promotion going on at the time), I wouldn't have bought my ER 2.5-10X42. I'm glad I did, as it has a good combination of virtues that makes it unique from other alpha class scopes. Trust me, it's no "me too" product.

My two biggest deer and longest shots were 440yds (1/4 mi fence) with a Rem 700 .270 and an old fixed 4 power Weaver K4. The second was a measured 313yds with a Sav 99 .308 and a $27 Simmons fixed 6 power scope. For deer now, my Sav 99 and Win 88 both carry the 2x7x32 Vortex. My long range blind rifle is a Ruger #1 in .270WBY with the 3x9x40 Minox.

If I had $2000 to spend on a deer scope, I would spend most of it on a hunt or a rifle.

It sure is nice to have both the toughest in scopes and the best in customer service. E

I would be tempted to buy a moderate priced scope of the many mentioned above and then use the remaining money to buy some high-end binos. IMO, the extreme quality glass will do you more good in your viewing optic than in your sighting device for deer hunting type applications.

+1

I'd rather Alpha Bino's, and a solid simple reliable sighting device w/decent glass (whether a solid fixed 4x/6x or variable topping out at 9-10x max), if I wanted to outlay 1.5-2k.

Finding more game to later stalk/put in your crosshairs would give a higher likelihood of being successful than NOT having a good bino.

If I had yet to own a pair, Leica, Swaro, or Zeiss bino would be under serious consideration, assuming cash was in good supply.

Agree totally, but the title of the thread is "best deer hunting scope," and anytime any discussion of "best" anything ensues, the high end stuff kinda has to enter the discussion. "Best" with no other qualifiers implies that price isn't a consideration. High end optics is far more important to have in binoculars and spotting scopes than in a rifle scope. With the former, providing more detail with good image quality is their sole purpose. The latter must first and foremost hold zero, with optical quality being secondary.

Given the choice, if money's tight, you're far better off getting the best optics you can afford in your binos or spotter than in your riflescope. Still, the best is still the best, and if you can afford to do so, it doesn't suck to have great image quality in all optics. Whether or not the "best" is worth the price premium over the "really good" or "adequate" is an individual value judgment.

If you are seriously talking $1500 to $2000 go get a Swaro Z6. My favorite scope is my 1.7-10x42. Very versitile, extremely wide view, and my best low light scope (better than my Leupold V3 50mm). The only reason I don't have more of them is the weight factor. I don't want a 16.6 ounce scope on all my rifles. If you want a scope in the 12 to 14 ounce range, take a look at the Z3's.

I've never had to use S&B's customer service..............................

Leupold VX-II 3-9X40

HOGGHEAD -

My choice would be a Leupold 2.5-8X with a B&C crosshair, but if you want more magnification you would not be wrong to to with the 3.5-10X B&C version instead.

If I wanted more low-light ability, maybe go with the 30mm in a VX3L. Not sure, might have to go to their custom shop to get all the features in one scope but it'd still be way within that budget.

Tom

I bolded the points that make the following picks fit for you. This is what I would look for in the same situation...not what I'd pick for where and how I hunt now or for an all around scope for most hunters, but for you.

1. Schmidt & Bender 3-12x50 Precision Hunter 30mm Riflescope with Mildot or DH rect

2. Swarovski 2-12x50 Z6 30mm Riflescope with Plex or #4 Rect

3. Zeiss 3-12x56 Victory Diavari 30mm Rifle Scope with Z-plex or #4 rect

My reasoning is based on the following:
1. longer shots
2. these all have high quality glass
3. you'll be in a fixed position (good rest) not moving around so the weight/size makes little difference
4. go with whichever is heaviest and darkest rect...which is sometimes hard to tell...it would be much better to look through them to determine this, but a light reticle can be lost in low light even if the glass is good
5. look at the ease of elevation/windage adjustments as well since stalking closer isn't an option
6. look at which have the easiest focus to use as it becomes important at the higher powers and longer ranges...don't want to fight with one that is hard to focus.
7. larger objectives can give you a larger exit pupil which can help get a sight picture especially if you're in an awkward situation and can't get behind the scope just perfect

Again, just my 2 cents base on your specific criteria and the hunting situations and physical conditions (handicap and terrain/light) you listed. I don't have experience with any of these, but they are where I'd start.

Good luck on your search!

Why limit the range to 10 X-12X? I purchased a 5-25X52 z5 Swarovski for my all around hunting scope. It goes on my .25 SLR when it get back from the fun smith. In the mean time it is goes on the Savage with the .257 Weatherby Magnum barrel.

The illuminated reticle is cute, but adds weight. The idea of so much magnification eliminates the need for a spotting scope. Without more magnification there have been a few times when I could not make out antlers on game I found. Someone had to tell me which one was a buck. Now I don't have to go to another glass or a budy.

if i had the money to do it, id have a 2.5-10x56 trijicon accupoint on my deer rifle..thats just me tho

For hunting whitetails in Michigan, it is hard to beat my Weaver 2.5X fixed power scope on my Savage 99 Featherweight. Light weight, great field of view, large exit pupil, 100% dependable. 200 yard shot are no problem, thats about all we get here in the northern lower.

FWIW...

The best low light capability parameter leaves scopes like the Summit and other thin reticled scopes like it out of the running IMO.

Have an S&B or two and Summit, as wonderful as S&B glass is, does not hold a candle next to a 6x42 S&B with the heavy #4 reticle in very low light. Did lots of comps this spring with that particular 6x42 and am impressed. Whitetail scope!

Have no desire for an illuminated reticle for deer hunting and simply cannot understand how an IL can outperform a non-illuminated heavy reticled scope, unless you have a center section on the NI reticle that is too wide....which could easily be the case on a FFP scope at higher power.

Re low light, and needing to spend that kind of moolah...first choice: S&B fixed 6x42 or better the 8x56 S&B, if you can stand the big objective with #4 reticle, and then either a S&B variable w/56mm objective & A4 reticle or Zeiss Diavari 3-12x56 w/#4 reticle.

I have owned and hunted w/the Schmidt and Bender 2-12x42 Klassic since 1998. I have killed untold deer and hogs w/this scope up to and including up to and slightly after dark. When this scope is set to 6-7X it has no peer in my opinion. I do not like the 50mm scopes having had two before buying the 42mm. Most guys buy 3 or 4 scopes to do different things. I say save your money, say $1000-$1100 and wait for a nice used one to come along. This scope on a fast high powered rifle(pick your caliber)is the best stand-bean field rifle a man could ever own. powdr

For those that do not know this the OP has passed on , roughly a year or so ago. He brought a lot of good information to these topics. Good Guy

My apologies and I hope he got to do what he intended.

tom