Baited bear hunt coming up. Am anticipating a shot at around 60 - 120 yards, likely towards dusk.

Is the 2.5x Leupold I've got in QD rings on my 45-70 Marlin going to be bright enough?

Or should I swap on something else? I like the little 2.5x Leupold on that rifle, but... Wondering if it's enough for this hunt. I've got a good ol' 6x Leupold with the 36mm objective and also another with the 42mm objective that I could just use instead. Thoughts?



Thanks, Guy

I have a similar scope and have had others that were similar. The 42mm will get you several more minutes of shooting time.

Place a dark target outside and when dusk comes you can compare and see what you think for yourself....

Second thought is how far into dusk are you willing to go to be shooting a Bear......

What Paul said.
I have that particular Leupold and have shot more game using it than any other scope. Mine has the heavy crosshairs and is mounted on my 20ga TC Turkey Taker. It diminishes what I can see to shoot during those sunrise minutes. I don't shoot the young Jakes and by the time that I can distinguish the difference between a Jake and a senior Tom the scope gives a good enough sight picture to shoot. The 42mm will give you a few more minutes, but it gives me very few.

Compare the 6x to your 2.5x. IME I lose the reticle before the image.

Basic mechanical Light gathering ability is determined by the exit pupil of the scope, the shaft of light that goes from the eyepiece to your eye. the magnification divided into the objective lens dimeter

The human eye when the pupil is fully dilatated can only use a 7mm shaft of light to see a target. Anything over that is over kill but getting to that 7mm level is important. That's why for many years the Germans used 8x56 scopes on their night hunting rigs for hunting under moonlight. 8 divided into 58mm equals 7mm..

So your Leupold 2.5x has a objective lens of 20 mm, so it's exit pupil is 8mm - PLENTY.


Test your two scopes side by side at dusk looking into shadows and you will see that little 2.5 will do fine.

I carried a Leupold 2-7 Compact with German #4 on a Maine bear hunt. Was all but worthless when a bear showed up at dark. If I go again, I will be carrying something with better light capability and illumination.

How old is that scope? If I recall earlier fixed power Leupold models not all were fully multicoated. You had to get to FX-3 level before you got that. It makes a difference.
If you have multiple scopes why bother asking? Just go test for yourself. Personally I think a 42mm on a lever action is awkward looking but it ain't my rifle.

Exit pupil x quality of glass, measured in % of light transmission and distortion = what you see in low light.
Exit pupil on a coke bottle is over 7 for example but you would not one for a scope.

The advice about testing yourself is a good one.

Just returned from tipping over a Cape Buffalo at 20 yards (festivities began at 30 yards), 15 minutes before sunset. A relatively new FX 2.5x20mm was used on top of a 9.3x62mm.

I knew going in that distances would be close and wanted to try the FX 2.5x in that kind of environment because of it's simplicity. Light gathering was excellent, the wide FOV crosshair worked great against that big black body in the rapidly closing dark.

I'm thinking you'll be fine using yours.

Optically, I don't think a Leupold FX 2.5 rifle scope has anything in common with a Coke bottle.

I think his point was that there is more to light transmission than exit pupil.

Like having fully multicoated lenses.

They are the norm now. They weren't not that long ago.

I realize that Paul.

He just a dumb nonsensical apples to oranges comparison to make that point.


Once again NO Leupold scope ever made has had the poor optics of a glass coke bottle.


And 2-3% more light transmission due to glass quality WILL NOT overcome 10- 30% less of exit pupil.

That is an old scope in the photo. I've had it for 20-25 years and bought it used. It's actually been replaced by a much newer 2.5x with the multicoated glass. I just didn't have a photo of the new scope on the rifle yet. The old scope went to an older Marlin 22.

Why ask? Just to get the opinions of others. I "think" the 2.5x is going to be fine, but perhaps one of my other scopes would be better suited for the task. I dunno. Choices. I like the 45-70, but have to admit that I haven't hunted much with it. One muley about 20 years ago, with that scope on a different Marlin.

Guy

Most reticles are difficult to see especially on a black bear near dark. This is where red dots or Trijicons work well.

I’ve tried to love the Leupold 2.2 x on many occasion only to sell them. They just don’t do it for me.

Even though its 20mm, it doesn’t compare in sight picture to the 20mm variables of Freedom 1-4x or VX3, nor in low light visibility.

I noticed a few years back it won some “best pick” from “Gray’s Sporting Journal” which leaves me wondering if they ever actually use the products.

60-120 yards is a darn long way to see after the color green fades away.

Thanks Guy-and glad you took my question as intended. Dad had a Marlin and wanted it scoped so I picked him up a Weaver K4 (4x38). Those were fully multicoated and bright with a nice wide field of view and didn't look too out of place. I was a nothing-but-fixed-6x guy for many years. They were just brighter than variables I had been around and since all my rifles had fixed 6x I had a simple constant view. About ten years ago, I guess, I decided to try a variable again and bought a Sightron SII but didn't like it. I replaced it with a Vx-3 and found it was super bright and I am loving the wider field of view at 3x. I am about to replace my last fixed 6, a nice Burris #4 with a variable.
My first thought on your case was the 6x36 but I do wonder it you find FOV smallish for the up close that rifle is best at after a 2.5x.

I believe a scope with more power, but at least that magic exit pupil of 7 would let you see (resolve) more detail, and maybe avoid obstructions etc.

You have the 6x42, try it yourself under the lighting you expect to encounter and in cover similar to what you anticipate dealing with. My neighbor has a bunch of Leyland cypress trees on the property line. I use the shadows they throw to eyeball test scopes and reticles in dim light.

In my opinion, anything other than a 20-28mm objective looks like dooky on a lever action rifle.

Easiest answer is leave it alone and use what you have. Shooting game at 100+ yards near dark is risky with any scope. And old eyes don't dilate to 7mm anyway.

Or, you could buy an old Vari-X III 1.5-5X and have all you need.

A lot of that depends on glass quality and optical engineering.

But, the 20mm objective is at a light gathering disadvantage compared to a larger objective.

DF

The 2.5 Leupold is a good scope. I've shot a lot of Black Bears but would never shoot that close to dark....just not a wise move.
Darrel Wick

It will do fine within relatively short ranges.

What you fail to mention is something European hunters have known for a long time: More magnification, combined with a large enough objective lens, results in better "visibility," even at relatively short ranges. This is because many European countries allow hunting all night, not just in the normal "American" hours.

This is called the "twilight factor" (you can Google it) and is why many European "night scopes" had large objectives and more magnification for many years.

Plus for me, it’s a perfect match for your rifle aesthetically.

Aside from the light issue, I find myself drawn to the heavier reticles on the little fixed power or low-range power scopes. Like the 4a.

Black Bear or Grizzly ? I used Varx X-III 2.5x8---it was an older model. It was dim especially when the grizz came in @ 2:30 AM. Go with the 42mm-- 6x. Lighted crosshair would be a plus.

That 2.5x sounds great for baited bears. I’ve used one a bit and was fine until the end of legal shooting hours. You won’t be hunting in the dark. 120 yards seems far for a baited bear, at least in Eastern cover. I might want 4x for that shot. Mine have been more like 20-40yds. My .348 had a receiver sight. I gave up some shooting time for the joy of using the old gun. Have fun and shoot a big one.

If it were me, I would get a scope with a lighted reticle.

With a conventional crosshair or even a standard Leupold Duplex you will lose the reticle before you will lose the image of the target. Anything 20mm divided by 2.5x will have more than enough exit pupil diameter to see into very dim light. A deer at first overcast light under evergreens proved that to me with a Leupold 2.5-8x36 Vari-Xlll. Nope, a heavy Duplex or post would be my choice for bears over bait. I had a 2 3/4 x 20 Redfield with a post reticle on a 10/22 and shot rats in a dump at night with minimal light. A Leupold 1-5x20 Vari-Xlll with a heavy Duplex is on my m99F and there is no losing that reticle into nearly no light. I took that rifle and another with a Zeiss Diavari 30mm 1.5-6x42 with the #8 reticle and watched through both scopes into full darkness. The Zeiss which has very heavy side vertical and horizontal crosshairs and thin center won by a few minutes, but at 4x the price of the Leupold, I was rather impressed with how long I could see that Leupold heavy Duplex into way past legal shooting light.

I guess I'm just old school when it comes to those lighted reticles. When they first came out, I bought a Bushnell scope with the lighted reticle for a varmint rifle. It worked for a while, but hunting in cold weather and bringing the rifle inside caused condensation in the battery compartment and corrosion ended any reticle illumination from then on. They might be some improved by now, but I never bought another one.

Heck of a good discussion guys. Thanks.

This is a black bear hunt in Idaho. I've shot several of them over the years, but always on spot & stalk hunts here in Washington. Want to try the baited bear experience. Maybe even get some stills and video of the bears as a bonus.



Have only taken one grizzly, up in the Brooks Range a few years ago. Quite a hunt! I think that I scratched that itch though, feeling no real desire to hunt another grizzly.

Guy

Cascade;
Top of the morning to you my friend, I hope that you're getting some of the rain down there that we are and also that you're not getting more of our water than you can deal with at the same time.

As others have mentioned, I've always thought that the little 2.5 Compact looked "about right" on a lever gun and in fact ran one on a 336 I'd modified and slicked up.



In fact when that Marlin went down the road, the scope stayed for the "next lever build" which might or might not ever happen.

Our eldest ran it on her Swede carbine for a few years too and it worked well for her.

All that said, a couple of my shooting friends have been fooling with lighted reticles the past few years and in particular for your purposes, one chap is running a straight tube Bushnell LPVO which he really likes. Sorry I think it's an AR series scope but which one escapes me now.

Anyways Guy, if you're so inclined and for the sake of science and all that, I'd at least take a look at a few of the lighted reticle options out there as they do have merit in low light situations perhaps?

Good luck whichever way you decide and good luck on the bear hunt for sure.

Dwayne

Not as compact as a 20mm tube, but great in low light and with lighted dot and duplex type reticle, good for the woods.

I like it better than my straight tube scopes, although it's bigger. This 3-9x40 Trijicon is on my pre-64 .358 Win FTW in Signature rings.

It's killed deer and is one of my fav WT rigs, esp in the woods and over food plots. I have other rifles for long range stuff, although this one will whack'em pretty far. Just gotta know the trajectory. As posted before, fav load is the 178 gr. Shock Hammer over RL-7.

DF

Guy...the 2.5 worked just fine on this Saskatchewan bear.

That is a good looking bear and a great photo.

All but one of my scopes have a thick reticle. FWIW, I lose the reticle before I lose the image. An illuminated reticle or red dot sight on a dark target in dim light would be a plus.

FWIW, had a 2.5x 'standard plex' on a 357 Marlin, at dusk, could not make the plex out on a raccoon that happened by....not that I was going to shoot it as I just wanted to see the optical performance, but a thin black plex in a low power scope, range around 75 yds, was just not what you wanted and almost useless on that dark hair.

SO, if me - a heavy duplex if you use a 2.5x, and better yet, good suggestions above, any type of lit reticle will show it's worth on dark haired animals in dim light.

Happy hunting.

John has already given the best answer, twilight factor is what you want to look at.


This was positively demonstrated to me in South Africa. We were looking at a small herd of wildebeest just at full dark. I had a Leupold 3-9X40 set on 4X - which I figured was better due to a big 10mm exit pupil - but couldn't see the animals at all, the herd was just a big dark blob set against a slightly lighter sky. JJ Hack was my guide and said to turn the scope up to 9 power, which is only a 4.4mm exit pupil, but doing so immediately let me make out the individual animals. The twilight factor of a 4x40 scope is 12.6, √(4 x 40), a 9x40 scope is 18.9 √(9 x 40) .

I still couldn't make out the standard duplex reticle well enough to be comfortable with the shot, but that "higher magnification in dim light" thing was a real revelation.


Also, just to do the math, the twilight factor of a 2.5x20 is 7.

Guy, I have a 1.5-6x42 Hawke Endurance scope on a muzzleloader I use for deer and elk hunting. It has an illuminated reticle (center crosshair area) and that's my favorite feature of the scope. The scope works extremely well in low light.

On a side note, I enjoy your collaborations with Gavin on Ultimate Reloader. Good luck on your hunt.

I’ve shot a lot of deer and hogs in thick, dark woods at last light, with 1-4 variables in both 1” & 30mm tubes….but ALL had very heavy reticles or were illuminated. Twilight factor is great, but seeing the reticle trumps it in thick woods/short ranges. If you can get both, go for it….but inside 100, the LPVs have been fine at dark. Hunting fields, where I might need or want last light image/reticle past 100 yards? That’s where bigger objectives/twilight factors are desired….for me.

Guy,

What you might want to do is take one of your black bear hides and hang it over a branch or bush toward evening, then test how well you can see the reticle and/or hide as light gets dimmer.

Maybe 5 years ago I was asked by a scope company to use one of their variables on a black bear hunt here in Montana. Said I'd give it a try, and I made the same test described above. Could see the hide fine, but toward the end of shooting light could NOT see the relatively fine, multi-point "ballistic" reticle against the black-furred hide.

Have also found that, of course, a cloudy day changes things some....

John

On my brown bear hunt in SE Alaska a handful of years ago my 1.5-5X VX3 was not good at end of hunt days when the sun had well settled. I am heading north again for grizzly next year and my current pick is a Burris 1.75-5X - 32 Signature Safari but an illuminated scope has drawn my interest to include the Credo and Meopta Optika 6.

Great points John, and thank you.

Folks here have made some great points which I'm considering.

Hope to have a successful hunt to report on in a bit...

Thanks all.

Guy