Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Good low light scope?

Several of the guys commenting here were helpful when I was choosing a lowlight scope. I went with a Klassik fixed power and it is really good lowlight. —8x56

Look at a Meopta R2 2-12x50 with a 4C reticle. You can buy one from Sports Optics in Hammond, LA and they will discount it 16%. It gives up nothing to the scopes mentioned above. It will be well under 1500 and is superb.

I haven’t used a Meopta. Have you used a Polar to make the statement that “it gives up nothing”? Other people whose opinions I trust have told me they’ve used both and the S&B is superior.

I don't mention stuff I have never owned when doing a comparison, but you do . Polar is the best view and lowlight performance of all S&B scopes. There are really very few limited situations where it is really needed.

Yes I have owned a Polar 2.5-10x50 and 1/2 dozen other S&B scopes. Zeiss Victory HT , Leica Amplus , Meopta R1 and R2.

They will all work in lowlight every last one.

The MeoStar R2 2-12x50 mentioned above is indeed a terrific low-light scope, but the 4C reticle hampers it a bit as the dot is over and inch in size at 6x. (It's not the target coverage that is the issue but that much surface area being illuminated, which can negatively affect your vision.)

I prefer the bdc-2 and bdc-3 reticles as the illuminated dots are notably smaller (0.72 at 7x). The downside to the BDC-2 and 3 series is that the reticle itself is a bit thin in the lowest of light and against a darker target like a hog. But the center wires of the 4 and 4C are too thin for my preference as well. The illumination on the lowest setting could stand to be a bit dimmer as well, though the 2-12x50 worked fine for me in moonlight.

As to comparing with the Polar...well, the R2 is great in its own right but not quite in the same league as the Polar. So far, the SB Polar remains king of the low-light performers.

Yes the Polar is king of low light performers but you don't need a Polar to hunt and it is 2x the money. I also did not care for the D4 reticle on the Polar thought it was too thin.

Interesting on the 4c vs BDC-2 and BDC-3 . Hard to find the 4c for sale these days.


Have you tried the 4a on a Leica Amplus yet?

I was asking what you were comparing it with. When someone says something “gives up nothing”, that suggests it is equal or better than the other options. Your later post clarifies your point.

No, I haven't and not sure I will. My health has slowed me down to a standstill, so to speak.

I like it just not a lot , I think it weighs too much but the Glass is superb and I never had to use the illumination on the reticle last year , hopefully this year.

Sorry to hear about your health. Best wishes.

Thanks.

I liked the change Leica made to the 4-a with the ER5 series, but of course those were not illuminated. It was bold and stood out well, even in the shadows and against a dark target. The addition of a small, illuminated dot to that particular reticle would work well.

OP only mentioned a "good" low light scope, not the "best".

No clarification on budget, size, weight, or tech (NV, thermal etc.)

He needs to provide more info, but seems absent from his own thread.

Yep...more info would indeed help.

As to an entry-level low light scope with illumination, the Meopta MeoSport 3-15x50 has worked very well for me -- and pay no attention to factory specs as they list it only as 80 percent light transmission. In reality, it is very close to the original Conquest line in that regard. The illumination goes down to an extremely dim level, a definite plus. I've used it in strong moonlight with very good results. There's nothing in the $500 and under class that compares to this one -- at least not that I have found.

The hog below was taken in moonlight. The illumination had to be on either the 3rd or 4th setting to be bright enough. It will not hamper your vision with settings one through five.

Tagged.

Hey Bobby what is the rifle that you use?

It's a TC Contender, first generation. They are sweet! Have a couple myself.

Selector is on top of his hammer. Pretty sure first Gen they were sliders on the hammer weren't they?

Stainless too.

https://www.optics-trade.eu/us/schmidt-bender-klassik-hungaria-8x56.html

Dave

Like ghostrider272 noted, it's an original Contender, the easy-open variety. For the past several decades, Contenders have been my primary go-to firearm. I rarely use anything else anymore.

Learn something new every day.

I thought on the first Contenders they had the selector as a horizonatal slide under the spur, not as a left, center, right switch type on top of the spur like the 2nd variation. Thought blued only too.

Like this one. Which isn't a true original as it is engraved and not smooth on the sides. Think the earliest generation also required a screwdriver to switch from rimfire to cf.


free screen capture software

That’s where I got mine too. More reticle options than anywhere else I’ve found. I’m seriously considering one of the Hungaria 1.5-4x20mm scopes they carry. I’d like to have that FD2 for a woods gun.