Curious besides debating Stats on various models...

Has anyone NOT been able to kill game during legal light b/c the view was not 'bright' enough?

No sir.

Got 3 VX-II's and I could shoot past legal shooting hours here in AR. (30 min. before sunrise to 30 min. after sunset)

Not just Leupolds either. I killed a crap load of mule deer and whitetails in my early to late teens with a Marlin336 30-30 with a Weaver k4, Redfield 4x, and Redfield WideField (remember that one?). No prob in legal light.

No , but unlike so many hunters I do not constantly find myself having to try and pick the 180 class buck out of a herd of 160 class animals ghosting past at the edge of a wood line 600 yds from my stand with only 30 sec of shooting light left. Evidently though I am the exception as the internet is full of guys that have to address this vexing situation on a frequent basis.
Seriously year before last I had a doe come out shortly before dark and begin feeding about 50 yds from my stand. I just sat and watched her and when my partner came up it was pretty dark but still within legal shooting time and I pointed her out to him as he wanted a deer for the freezer. He was never able to see her but thru my old vari xii which is supposedly the same technology as the vx-i I could clearly see her until well after legal light.

Just this last season, a buddy and I spotted a deer in a cut line right at legal shooting time, first thing in the morning (30 min before sunrise). The deer was about 90 yards away. I looked it over through the Vortex Viper 10x42, and then we decided to take the nice, juicy doe. After the recovery, I discovered 2" spikes on the "doe". Neither my buddy, looking through a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 on 9x, nor myself spotting through my FX3 6x42, were able to see the spikes before the shot. Luckily we had both buck and doe tags, even though anything under 4" of antler technically counts as an antlerless deer up here, but what would have happened if we were without a buck tag, and the antlers were 2" longer?

All else being equal, more light and more clarity are never a bad thing, IMO.

Yes, I used a FX-II 2.5x28 IER scope this year on one hunt which has the same level of glass as the Vari-X II IIRC. Thirty minutes prior to sunrise, I was hunting a clearing and was unable to make a shot on the largest boar I have ever seen. I could resolve the black boar rooting against the dark earth background with my 8x43 binoculars, but not with the FX-II. This, despite the FX-II having over twice the exit pupil @11.2mm. Glass matters.

I recall one buck in Alberta on a field edge,whose antlers blended so well with the aspen bush in the background that we could tell nothing about them until he was too far and too late to shoot,and the antlers were contrasted against snow.I could see him to kill him, but could not tell what he was even with good bins to help.

Problems usually don't crop up with deer in the open,but when they are on the edge with no contrast IME....and I have had deer in full sunlight feeding through high brown grass and tricky sunlight/and shade show up a whole lot better through one scope than another of the same make.....one scope had the contrast to "see", and the other, an older model,could not cut it.

I use pretty common rifle scopes,but don't kid myself, and no one is going to tell me there is no difference in glass, or that better optics can't, under some circumstances, make a difference. That's BS.Those who believe it are kidding themselves.

Of course it can.

What that is worth to a person is for him to decide.

There certainly is a point of diminishing returns in optics. In recent years that even came down a lot.

There is "serious" guys out now hunting with 90 $ binos...

Priceless the tendency of the "high optics" clientele rationalizing gear purchases.

Oft encountered - the snearing look at my guiding optics - Minox Porros 10x44 and Leupold Gold Ring Compact Spotter.

Invariably follows the lecture on the brought Zeiss, Svaro, Leica, ...

More often than not, it will be later me spotting the game.

I do not envy my fellow men their gear. I take exception to any trial of one - up - manship.

I'd say "no". If I can identify the deer with my good binos, I can generally still see the reticle in my Leupolds well enough to make the shot. That being said, I've grown to like the little dot in my Trijicon scope and used it a few times this season on late shots. I probably could have made the shot with a non-lit reticle but the dot makes it a bit easier. I could really see the illumination being handy on black hogs at dark, as I just need to get a bullet in their front end, not identify their headgear or precise body angle/presentation.

Much is made of scope resolution under dim lighting conditions on the forum. Where I've hunted a more frequent issue to me is glare and flare by trying to look towards the sun when it is low on the horizon. I've not done any testing in an organized way but I noticed a big difference when I replaced my old Weaver K4 with a Leupold Vari-XII back in the 80's.

About that same time my son and his friend on a backpack hunt reported that they could not get off a shot because of glare. My son was using a cheap Bushnell scope, don't recall what his friend had. (Told my son that keeping his lenses clean of dust also helps!)

Lately, I have looked through a few scopes in a long room in my basement with overhead lights that can be turned on and off to change light angles. There is considerable difference in how different scopes deal with light coming in at different angles.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Yep. I had a 4200 Elite Bushnell that gave me fits with glare and non-critical eye relief. Nice glass otherwise.

I've ruined Nikon Pro Staff scopes for a couple of guys at the range.

All I did was get them to pretend to aim at a deer along a certain brush line when the sun was getting low on the horizon. The sun didn't have to be all that low either. Their view was obscured by heavy veiling flare.

Absolutely spot on....for some a bigger issue than the low light scenario often mentioned....I notice "better" glass/scopes handle those situations when others fall by the wayside.They simply are not built to deal with it effectively.You frequently bump into this out west with a rising sun in your face,and the terrain in front of you in deep shadow.

I bought a used rifle the other day that had a Tasco pro hunter 3x9x40mm on it. I was playing with it at dark last night and there would have been no problem killing any deer with it during legal shooting time. Now if it just tracked properly and held zero it would be useable....

There is world of difference between a long eye relief, 2.5x scope and one with the same coatings but in the 3-9X40 size when it comes to low light shooting. Not even remotely close.
"Glass" matters ? Really ? All the examples I've seen are one of a kind comparisons which are not the same lighting conditions and/or at the same distances. When somne guy shows up with a meaningful test under the same light conditions and at the same distances, then I might buy into this argument.
One thing I do agree on is the crappy stray light management that one sees in really cheap scopes. But that's alot more a matter of internal baffling, and black coatings on the inside of the scope than any tiny difference in light transmition values or resolution. E

An exit pupil larger than 7mm isn't going to do you much good, unless you're a cat.

True. The point is that the 11.2mm of exit pupil delivered by the scope exceeds the 5.4mm my binoculars deliver yet I still couldn't resolve the animal. This eliminates exit pupil as the culprit and leaves only glass quality, magnification, and maybe eye relief as variables. Both optics were used at the same time, at the same distance (110yds), on the same target. One worked, the other didn't. BTW my binoculars are Pentax 8x42 DCF ED's for a point of comparison to the FX-II I mentioned.

No doubt, ZOOM matters in resolving detail, and an IER scope likely has alot of lost light from the sheer distance of the lens to the eye, i.e. the shorter ER scopes i.e. some of the Euro's - it has no downside, as a Bino has VERY SHORT ER and likely your eyes are up against eye cups - so little light is lost along the way to the eye.

No doubt glass matters, I just wondered how much diff one gets as the gap in glass quality from BOTTOM tier to TOP tier closes.

Re: seeing horns, I shot a button buck once, by mistake, broadside standing at 100 yds, VXIII 4.5x14 on 14x, another using a 4200 6-24x - on 24x - at 200 yds....

Spotting 'Buttons' w/a scope is not always possible IMHO shy of the highest quality spotting scope on a tri-pod and w/an objective large enough to transmit light.

Sounds like a majority of shots can and have been made using older tech scopes - the VX1 IIRC now has MC4. At one time - that was sd to be 'the top end' I believe. Times change..and tech no doubt.

Good posts and appreciate all - thanks.

[quote=CKW]Much is made of scope resolution under dim lighting conditions on the forum. Where I've hunted a more frequent issue to me is glare and flare by trying to look towards the sun when it is low on the horizon. I've not done any testing in an organized way but I noticed a big difference when I replaced my old Weaver K4 with a Leupold Vari-XII back in the 80's.

About that same time my son and his friend on a backpack hunt reported that they could not get off a shot because of glare. My son was using a cheap Bushnell scope, don't recall what his friend had. (Told my son that keeping his lenses clean of dust also helps!)

Lately, I have looked through a few scopes in a long room in my basement with overhead lights that can be turned on and off to change light angles. There is considerable difference in how different scopes deal with light coming in at different angles.

Has anyone else experienced this?

It happened to me with a Vari X II 3-9 in about 1997. Had a heck of time finding a buck in the scope, looking into the setting sun. I got him but after that I compared my fixed powers to the 3-9 and sold it. They were much better. I don't remember what they were now. I know one was a Leupold 6x42 and I think some newer Weavers. In 2003, I bought a new VX II 2-7 that was very good looking into the sun. Checking for glare suppression is very important when comparing scopes.

I personally really like the Vx-1 quite a bit. 3-9x40 rocks on the 300 Ackley.

Couple of years ago I was hunting a scrape line and after a NICE 12 pointer I had on camera....At darks I saw him step out onto the field edge at about 125 yards...It was past or close to the end of legal shooting light but I would have taken the shot and not felt guilty.

Anyway...I confirmed him in my Swarovski 7x42 SLCs....I raised my 338-06 with a Leupold VXII Duplex and could not find him...I repeated this 3 times and when I thought I finally had him in the scope on 3x I then couldn't make out the standard Duplex.....He lived.

The next season I began to change out to 6x42s, 6x36's and 3-9 40mm scopes with Heavy Duplex and German #4's.....to me the reticle is as important if not MORE important than the glass when hunting the Thicket Goats here in the Southeast.

Bruz

You should have turned the scope's magnification up. While that will make the image appear darker, it will allow you to see better. But there is a range limit which varies with each day's light conditions.
You also want to remember that a binocular will resolve better because you are using two eyes. E

No ...

This is falicious. I have compared too many too many times to let this go. I have tried it with Vortex Raptor 6.5X32, Bushnell Ultra HD Legend 8X42, RSI 10X32, Minox 13X56, Minox 15X58, Nikon 7-15X35.

Everytime the binos looses to the quality scope when the scope is turned to a higher magnification than the binos. Everytime.

I have only had one scope cost me a deer. It was a Tasco Mag IV. Go figure.

Again, Ringman, try taking an eye test with both eyes, then do the same test with just one.
I understand you are basically night blind. That may make it hard to follow some of this. E

George, all the classic euro night hunting scopes were 6X's and 8X's not 3-4X. That's because the more magnification you have puts you, in effect, closer to the target. When the light is bad, the closer you are the better you can see it.
But you must have enough exit pupil size for the scope to work and eyes that work under such light conditions. E

I'm not a fan of the VX-I, and I certainly like the best glass you can get for the money, and you can get a lot better glass in the same price range as the VX-I, but that being said, I don't think anyone would miss out on a deer in legal hunting hours in this part of the country using a VX-I. Since I still have one of mine mounted on a muzzle loader I've hunted with it a fair amount, and while I certainly like being able to make out more detail in low light, I'd certainly be able to kill a deer with it up until the end of legal shooting time, as well as to see if it was buck or doe.

That said, I've never had a problem with a Simmons or Tasco I have either. I can see just fine well past legal shooting time with either of those as well.

The thing I have more problems with than worrying about last light, is the glare from the sun. As mentioned above, I've had this problem with several scopes I've owned. I've never missed a deer because of it, but I've been in a few spots where had a deer come out in that direction, it would have been extremely hard to get a shot off. The Nikon Prostaff and even the Monarchs I have now, are extremely bad about this. The VX-I isn't great here, but it's no where near as bad as the Monarchs, and I've not had a major problem with it.
Luckily the scope I use on my main hunting rifle is pretty good in this area.


Really the problem I've had with the VX-I's have been them failing to hold zero, and their super inaccurate adjustments. While I'm disappointed in the glass for the price compared to other offerings out there, the glass isn't the reason I don't like the scope.

Eremicus,



I guess you never had an eye test. The doctor covers one eye and then the other while he tests ONE eye at a time. My vision is corrected to 20/15 after he finishes with one eye at a time.

But what does that have to do with the fact that everyone of the folks who do the comparisons with these binoculars and scopes from my porch get the same results? It's called science when we observing things by testing things, repeating things and verifying results.



Please tell us what night blindness has to do with comparing optics by different folks during the day.

I've had lots of eye tests. Never had one that only tested my vision with just one eye. All of mine tested each eye separately, then tested both together. I don't wear corrective lenses.
This post is about low light hunting Ringman. E

If your VX1 won't hold zero, it's faulty. The vast majority of them do.
Any scope, at any price, can go bad or be that way from the factory.
I'm surprised your Nikon Monarch has had problems with flare and glare. I've never seen a quality, fully multicoated scope that had problems with that. E

It looks like you and I had the same kind of test. What's our point?



My responce was about low light testing which is accomplished prior to low light hunting. The test results have taught me to switch to the scope after I find someething whether it is day light or low light if I want to see more detail.

My point is that you see better with two eyes than you do with one.
Even you admit that at the same magnification, a binocular is better than a similar size rifle scope.
Your response has always been that you use rifle scopes that can double the magnification of a binocular, so they are better.
If you have lots of light, which you don't have during many twilight situations, that can work. But, the other thing you need for a 16X or higher magnification scope, is a solid rest. Without something as solid as a benchrest, a rifle scope at 16X or more is useless.
I dunno about you, but I don't carry a bench around with me in the field. E

I never thought of using two eyes while hunting. I aways keep one eye closed. That way if I bump into a banch or twig only one eye is damaged.



It doesn't make any difference about how good a binocular is compared to a scope set on the same magnification when you have a scope that will go to at least twice the power of the bino. I have proven in low light more magnification is ALWAYS better until the light is gone.



Did I ever tell you I am twenty-five years old and am a Navy seal and have been since I was seventeen. Not only that I am six feet tall and 240 pounds. I am so bad I carry a concrete bench rest around where ever I hunt.

You should see my back pack. In there you will find fifty pounds of sand bags to lay on the concrete bench rest on which to rest my rifle mounted spotting scope. There is a complete reloading setup so if I miss a deer I can switch to a differnt primer and powder to solve the problem.

Not only that I have the ability to judge distance without using a range finder. I purchased one many years ago just to show off. I don't really need it since I can judge distance with one eye closed to within two yards clear out to 800 yards. After that I open both eyes and can extend the yardage to about 1500 yards within one yard.

A good friend of mine, though cheap, probably would have paid full retail for either of those scopes last year. He saw an 8-point buck with his naked eye just before dawn, but when he tried to find it in his POS Simmons scope, he couldn't find the reticle. He could see the outline of the buck in his scope but no reticle, so, to his credit, he didn't try to guess where his reticle was and take a shot.

If all I ever had was my 1978 vintage Vari-X II 3-9, I doubt the quality of optics--or the scope in general--would ever cause me to miss a critter.

Don't get me wrong, when I bought my first Vari-X III, I could see a bit better on lower magnification than the Vari-X II's, but in the end......it doesn't make much difference when it comes to hunting "effectivness".

In my opinion, the VX-I's were one of the biggest bang for the buck in rifle scopes, at the same price, the VX-1's are most likely even a better buy.

In the past 6 months I've purchased a VX-3 in 2.5-8 and a VX-I in 2-7. I still can't say that the 2.5-8 is a $160+ better than the 2-7.........


Casey

I really like the old M8's.
Preferebly fixed 3x through 24x models.
I used to run old steel tube 4x Weavers.
They keep me from overestimating my skill.....

Nope. Biggest buck I ever saw came out at dusk years ago. Binoculars confirmed it was a shooter and the old leupold did the trick. And it was a B&C net.
However, now we hunt hogs after dark in moonlight with our deer rifles in TX and wish I had the best scope available. Especially one with an illuminated dot in the crosshairs. Tough to see the crosshairs on the black hogs except on the brightest nights.

jcc

Absolutely, when hog hunting other scopes or features are a definate plus. Like a full auto AR

How about this for hog hunting at night?

Good posts, nice 'Hubble Scope' there for Hogs!

Holy crap, look how the shade follows the barrel taper....how many MOA is that base?

It's on a Near Mfg. 20 MOA base and cradled in a Near Mfg. Alpha mount.

For years I always wondered why my hunting partner always got back to the truck so early. He would always be there for close to an hour before I got there. One time I asked him why he got back so early when it was still legal shooting hours. Answer ? it was too dark for him to see to shoot with his $39 Tasco. I had him look through my scope , which at risk of starting a brand war is a Leupold.An hour after he got back to the truck we could still see good enough to shoot out to about 75 yards . Next season he had a Nikon and doesn't come back early anymore.