Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Brightest Low light scope

WT deer horns have been known to reflect moonlight in the early a.m....using M8 6x

I have shot deer in DARK THICK hardwoods at DARK THIRTY, a heavy post duplex was used in a 6x42 M8....

The #4, and post duplex are good, but for that close, I had a #1 reticle in a 4x33 M8, WOW, Fast to target!

For shooting that close, a #1 would be great, esp. on pigs that may be dark, but doubt you'd lose the reticle before the view.

A #4 is great, and the Burris 2-7 is a good one.

That said, if the above won't do it, likely nothing will, and it's just time to go home.

Hunted till legal light ysdy evening, could make out duplex on a 6x33......

My findings as well. Glass quality makes a big difference. I just ran out to do a quickie fox hunt and was able to tell the color of two different foxes at 200-230 yards at 20x and the moon isn't up yet. My partner had the NF and he wasn't able to tell at any power what color they were, just that they were foxes. There is a difference in image quality vs light transmission vs exit pupil, etc. This is real world side by side testing. Results are in the predator/varmint section .

Rich, I've done tons of comparisons with lots and lots of different scopes pretty informally and all I can say is that exit pupil and magnification matters more to me, than even differences in glass quality if the glass quality is good to begin with.

I have done a lot of big game shooting in conditions that I thought were just too dark. In most cases I have used a Leupold 3X9 compact/ultralight with the wide duplex. Neither the scope nor the crosshair is known for lowlight performance. I didn't find that outfit lacking. I could see well enough to make a shot even under conditions where I was not able to see my feet all that well. Just about all modern scopes work well enough for hitting big game. I think it would be quite difficult to make out fine detail including the color of the target.

The Conquest reticle works real good for me too Jimmy. Plus the Conquest color balance is great in low light for my crappy eyes.

Back to the OP's Q, it'd be fun to try the �ber expensive scopes. Failing that, I'd try to budget at least $350-$500 for that Ruger .308.

That would allow say a 3-9x40 Conquest with a #4 reticle. Or, a 3-9x50mm with the duplex.... It's a shame that the 3-9x50 behaves a little differently to the eye (eye relief, box, gack) than the 3-9x40mm.

It'd look like ass on a RSI, and I know this cause I have one on a M7, but my personal choice for an affordable low light scope has been a 1.8-5.5x38mm Conquest. It's very bright but just as importantly it's just optically stunning, all around, and it's amazing what an effect something like depth of field can have in VERY low light. For my crappy eyes.

But it's flat goofy looking on a short rifle. Here's a pic of mine on a couple recent bucks (that's to distract you from the goofy looking scope!)

I've got a couple of days lined out next week when me and a buddy are going to do some night coyote hunting. The 6-24x72 Hensoldt will be on my 30-378 AI. If the sky is clear I'll be able to see very well. If it's overcast and cloudy, blocking the moonlight and starlight, I'll have a more difficult time.

I agree the black etched reticule stands out better for me, I have a question into Leupold if they would build a FX2 6x36 with an etched reticule, no answer yet. The lighted reticule thing I have one but not sure its all that good of an idea it helps in one area but hurts in the other.

if you want an etched reticle in a leupold, you have to either buy one with some kind of ranging reticle as they cant make those out of wire or the VX-R series as they cant use wire for that either.... Im not sure if the vx-6 standard duplex without illumination has an etched reticle (according to midway, its wire....)
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/76...0mm-tube-2-12x-42mm-duplex-reticle-matte

etched reticles usually add an additional lens over a scope with a wire reticle which theoretically could rob a fraction of light transmission but i think its too little to tell

The scopes that Scottyman has posted are terrific. However, on my .308 Win 70 Classic Stainless Featherweight (my thick cover/nasty weather rifle), I've got a Leupold VX-3 1.75-6 x 32 with Heavy Duplex mounted on it. That's a great scope for the conditions you're describing and it would look great on your Ruger RSI.

I typically keep it set at 4x in the early mornings and late afternoons. This gives you an eight-millimeter exit pupil, which is all the light your eye can use.

You've evidently missed the numerous posts Mule Deer has made on the etched/wire/optical quality tests he's done.

You didn't mention a price point.

For all out performance, an Alpha Euro of the Hubble variety should out perform most. But the cost and size, IMHO, are limiting factors.

If you're talking most performance for the dollar, I'd check out JB's testing and the experience of the many posters on this site.

To me, it's hard to beat the Conquest 3-9x40, especially at $299, as offered recently by Cabelas. I haven't tried the FX-3 6x42 that so many here seem to love, receiving very high marks from JB. But, they cost more than the Conquest mentioned above.

DF

good baseline for sure but then that would assume we all have identical eyesight and all of our pupils dilate to the same amount etc

And while Mule Deer has forgot more on optics than I've ever known I totally don't agree with his thoughts here. The reticle almost always is the weak link in low light performance and an etched reticle like the one in my Conquest stays visable longer than the wire in my Leupold VX3. That's what my eyes tell me anyway.

I'm in the same boat, all my etched reticles stick out pretty well in comparison to wire.

I think wire reticules are like broccoli, some likes it and some don't.

The best low light scope I have ever owned is a S&B Zenith 3-12X50 with a very bold FFP plex reticle that gets ridiculously large as the power is turned up. It's a great scope.

The reticle is every bit as important as the OBJ.DIA. or coatings.



Terry

I'd go even further than that. I've found, like JJHack, you don't need to see much of the target. But you absolutely must see the reticle clearly.
The only other thing I'd point out is that extra large exit pupils flood the eye with extra light. That makes the image appear brighter, and it also can allow one to see a harder to see reticle better. So, if you have trouble seeing the reticle in bad light, try reducing the scope's magnification.
Yes, FFP reticles are a good idea for a low light scope. E

Terry,
Did your March do well in low light? I know it had a fine reticle and that ain't the best. We did a little comparison a few weeks ago. A friend had the 2.5X25 March with a good hunting reticle, and I had one rifle with the 3x9 Conquest, and another which was a Leupold 2.5x8 VX111. The March was decidedly better, but both the Leupold and Zeiss were just fine for me.
I cannot afford the March.

Was out last week with my SS Howa which has a S&B PM2 on it..

Beyond "last light" when there was just a bit of after glow lighting up the sky, I noticed a problem I had not encountered before and that was that the glare off the brushed stainless barrel was enough to "wash out" the image in the scope...

Butch, I never got around to checking it for brightness because the reticle was so thin it dissapeared in early afternoon at the first hint of darkness. once the razor thin crosshairs were gone it became useless. Considering what I wanted to use it for I made a bad choice with the reticle on that scope.

On the plus side it was without a doubt the clearest glass I've ever owned. The size was perfect and it looked extremely well built. I checked into a reticle change on it but it wasn't in the cards. They really aren't as service oriented as a lot of other scope makers. Those scopes were/are hard to come by and I was able to get what I paid for it on resale! all in all my experience with March was a good one

Terry