Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Best Deer Hunting Scope

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.