Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Brightest Low Light Scope

Actually, that perceived brightness from the wider field of view would only work for fairly short yardages in moonlight. You need magnification along with ample resolution to make out detail in order to execute an ethical shot. It's a completely different ballgame than daylight. While a 2x scope is a cinch for making a 150-200 yard shot on a hog or coyote in good daylight, it won't cut the mustard in moonlight or extremely low light for that very same shot. With a 1.75 or 2x, you would not be able to even tell for certain what it is, let alone whether it is fully broadside, quartering, etc -- or even if it is the neighbor's dog. Most of my moonlight shots fall into the 150-175 yard range and occasionally just a bit farther, and I don't think I've ever gone below 8x on my variables and in fact have used 12-14x on more than one occasion.

The coyote below was taken with the Minox ZE 5i set at 14x. The moonlight was lightly diffused, and the coyote was blending with the parched grass, making it a very difficult shot. But by increasing the magnification 14x, I still had an amply-bright sight picture and was able to put a bullet where it needed to go.

I have proven over and over for those who want to compare their scope set on low magnification on antlers 131 yards away in the woods with the same scope set on higher magnification that the higher magnification lasts longer. John Barsness verified this with his own low light scope testing.

The two scopes I own that are the best in low light are a 3-9x42 Kahles AH and 2.5-10x50 Kahles Helia C. I’ve never owned a S&B but the ones I’ve looked through were very fine. Happy Trails

Somehow our fathers got it done with iron sighted Marlin and Winchester 30-30's.

This be true.

different type of man there bud. they were actually hunters not what everybody these days thinks you have to be which is a long range scout sniper.
Big Ed

Bobby is correct. I recently picked up a SB polar 4-16x56 and its stupid how bright it is in low light. My 48 year old eyes are getting bad and this optic helps tremendously.

This has got to be one of the funniest threads ever. For added hilarity, would someone explain to me why some people insist on specifying 30mm tubes in their responses?

With a given scope I try to get an exit pupil of around about 6 or 7 meaning if I have a 50 mm objective, divide the objective diameter by the desired exit pupil (6 or7) and that will give the magnification that will allow the maximum light that the eye can use . IOW 50mm divided by 7 (magnification) gives an exit pupil of 7. So somewhere around 6, 7 or 8 power will generally give the maximum exit pupil that the eye can use (i.e. brightness)

A little playing around with magnification in low light can fine tune that.

I’ve got a discontinued zeiss Duralyt 1.5-5 x 42 with a heavy #4 reticle that is very bright. Looking for scopes with those types of specs should get you where you want to go.

I have also had phenomenal luck with a 2.5-10x 56 trijicon.

Also fixed powers in theory can be brighter as they have less lenses to reflect/ absorb light.

Those 8x56 Meoptas I’ve heard good things about.

I’ve thought about that Trijicon myself. Looks good on paper but can’t get one to try out at night.

Any of the High end 30mm scopes with 46mm or more obj.lens will be all you can get for bright in low light conditions.

I use swarovski, Kahles, and Zeiss. I love each of these brands, but I'd have to say, that the Swarovski's show more definition and are clearer in low light. Not as much fuzzy edge when looking at a deer before sunrise and after sunset. I'd say any of these will add an hr to your hunting visibility.

I do not own one, but have shot many times with Docter scopes and found them to be excellent. They are on par with above.

I'm not sure of the price on Docter, but any of the above will be in the above 1500 class.

I've always said and stand by this statement. I'd rather have a hundred dollar hunting rifle and a 1500 scope...they are more now....than the opposite.

Mongrel

Like Bobby Tomek,I have hunted a lot in low light for hogs. KIlled a lot by moonlight alone without night vision.

I like the big Euro Variables, I have several scopes in 3-12x56 size.I have a Ziess Victory,a Schmidt and Bender,,and a Meopta. In the past I have used a Swarovki in the same size.

Have also tried a bunch of scopes with 42 and 50mm objectives.

There is a reason why the 3-12x56 is the popular scope for hunting a night in Europe. The 56mm objective gives you a 7mm exit pupil which is the largest most hunman eyes can use. Most of the I left the scope set at 8x for this reason,but if you needed more detail,you can zoom up to higher magnication and still retain a decent size exit pupil. Sometimes on tough shots,I would start at 8x and zoom up until I could see maximum detail for shot placement.

In addition to optical clarity,the correct reticle must be used. It must be bold enough,and or properly illuminated for this kind of work.

The best low light scope for the money today is a 3-12x56 Meopta or Schmidt and Bender Classic in my opinion

This. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You don’t need to read anymore of the thread.

The only problem with the fixed 8x is like in my case. I ended up picking up a Mint used 4-16x56 Polar because I needed the low end for some of my hard woods shooting where shots are fairly close. I know in my case, 8x finding a deer at 50-60yards in thick brush is a little tough. Also, the variable mag allows me to zoom out on our open fields and power lines.

Just so we're all on the same page. The brightest of a scope is a function of the size of the objective lens divided by the magnification. That will give you the size of the exit pupil. The bigger the exit pupil the more light is reaching your eye. The intensity of the light will diminish as a function of the amount that gets reflected at each air-glass boundary encountered in the riflescope. In the days prior to coating, each air-glass boundary reflected about 5% of the light coming to it. After a few pieces of glass, the accumulated loss would become too great. Now, the exit pupil would not shrink, it was the amount of light that was diminishing.

With the advent of coating the reflection loss tumbled from 5% per air-glass boundary to a fraction of a percent. This is my overall light transmission in quality multi-coated optics is upward of 90-92%. The German magazine Der Vizier did some extensive testing in the last 2000s and found that Nikon Monarchs had the best overall light transmission at the time, better than S&B, Docter, Swaros, Nightforce and all others. It was not really surprising as Nikon was a leader in lens coating.

I believe the maximum possible light transmission has been pegged at round 98%, but I'm very willing to be corrected on this. All the top optics are within a few percent of one another, I would think, but again, I'm happy to be fact-checked on this. All that to say, that it is not possible for the Mark 1 eyeball to be able to perceive a difference or a few percent in light transmission.

Bottom line is for quality optics, the brightness winner will always go to the biggest objective at any specific magnification. The difference in light transmission between a fixed power and a variable is inconsequential given proper multi-coating is used throughout. Select a riflescope with the big objective & magnification range you want and make sure it's fully multi-coated.

And tube diameter is not a factor in light transmission unless the erector assembly is bigger than usual.

That's not quite true as other variables do come into play. Take for example the S&B 2.5-10x50 Polar, the S&B 2.5-10x56 Klassik, the S&B 2.5-10x56 Zenith, the Zeiss Victory 3-12x56 and the Kahles CSX 3-12x56 -- and all set at 10x. The only 50mm objective in that batch is the Polar, but its perceived brightness over the others in poor lighting is enough to detect with relative ease.

I had a Polar 2.5-10x50 and a Zeiss Victory HT 2.5-10x50 as well as a bunch of 56mm Alpha scopes and your observation is correct.

I’m no optics expert, but doesn’t a variable scope have more internal lenses than a fixed power scope? If it has more lenses and each lens cuts down on the light transmission by a small percentage, wouldn’t a fixed power scope transmit more light back through the scope given equal quality glass and coatings?

Yes that’s how I understand it. If the scope has an Etched reticle instead of a wire reticle that is just one more glass surface that the light has to pass through and will lose a tiny percentage of light loss due to reflection.