Sitting in the woods. Last 30 minutes til black dark. 20 feet off the ground in a climber. Ruger 77 RSI .308. Last light brightness is the objective. Deer and big black hogs are the game. 70 yards is the furthest that can be seen in good light. What scope? Keep in mind the asthetics of the compact rifle.

FX3 6x42 with heavy duplex reticle is a killer combo and very, very bright.

Do you want peformance or the scope to "look right" on the rifle ?
A Leupold 6X42 is more than enough. An FXII, 4X would probably work but I'd play it safe and make sure I had a Heavy Duplex or, better yet, their German #1 reticle.
Any of the larger variables would work. But they'd need a heavier reticle as well. Scope should be focused for that range. E

The Leupold FXIII with a Heavy Dup is a good option. My choice was a Leica with a #1 reticle. But I'm somewhat fashion-challenged.

1.5X-5X VX3? 1.75X-6X VX3?

A little bit hard to hit moving deer in tight dark quarters with a 6X.

Negative. We've killed black hogs at near dark at 10 yards no problemo, and not near a feeder of any kind. Hogs never stand still.

Well the 6x42 is great.

Any nice Leupold or euro with a 56mm obj would b a little brighter

not doubting it but I'd rather have my scope on 1.5x-2x for a 10 yard shot..... If. I had the right variable, which "I" do

Just because person A has done it, doesn't mean it's the best/easiest way to be done for person B.... I've hunted hogs at night in Florida and Georgia swamps.... Personally when I'm on foot in a thick cypress hammock or swamp bottom, I want my scope on a low power because I know I'm not shooting more than 30 yards

A host of factors come into play like skill level, moonlight, etc

Zeiss Diavari or Swarovski for the best and brightest.
Zeiss Victory Diavari 1.5-6x42 T*
Zeiss Victory HT 1.5-6X42 Illuminated
Swarovski 1-6x24 Z6i
Swarovski 1.7-10x42 Z6i

After reading about the new Zeiss Victory HT line, I'm inclined to believe this may be the scope for low light viewing. If you can afford it.
I'd love to see a comparison between this and a Diavari to see if the marketing has substance.

Several years back, I did low light test of my own. Very informal. None were mounted on rifles. Some were mine and some were borrowed. VXII 3-9-40, Swarovski 4-12-50 A series, Kahles 3.5-10-50 American, Conquest 3.5 10-44. One afternoon in a 3 year old clear cut and a second afternoon in heavy canopy SMZ. In the clear cut, all were able to get you passed legal time. As light faded to pure darkness. The Kahles was the best and the Leupold was the least, but the difference was not as much as you think. In the woods, I saw no significant advantage with any. When it gets dark in the woods, the shadows inhibited me from seeing a big difference. Someone else might be able to. I had 56 S&B about 15 years ago. it was nice and heavy. Since this test, all I have had was 40mm leupolds and alpha binos. If it is light enouugh that i can discern a diffence whether or not he is a shooter with the binos, I can see well enough through my VX series to put the bullet in the boiler room. This is inside 100 yds. Past that the alpha scope might some help me but dark is dark. If I am going to pull the trigger at 5:45 pm or after, the fine is no less whether I shot him with zeiss or a tasco and a Q-beam.

Given a quality scope with multi coated optics, as long as you have an exit pupil of seven for the power you are using, you'll do fine. Even an exit pupil of five or six is often adequate.

Those would be my suggestions for 'brightest' for brightest that wouldn't break the bank Leupold VX3 1.75-6, 1.5-5.5,or fx3 6x42

My 3.5 x 10 x 50 is pretty bright at end of shooting time, but I can use a 2.5 x 8 x 32 Conquest then as well because the reticule is blacker and easier to see.

Yep, same here the reticle is the weak link with a Leupold but with that said my VX3, 3.5x10x40 is a nice scope. And I can't dig the heavy duplex that you can get with a Leupold, etched in the Zeiss is a better mousetrap.

The Conquest 2.5-8x32 is by far the best low light scope in my collection. I just got a Victory Varipoint 2.5-10x42 with an illuminated #60 reticle from cameraland this evening. I can't wait to see how it compares to the Conquest.

For the money I am really impressed with my Trijicon Accupoint amber post 56mm. I can shoot WAY past legal light.

No offense cfran, but I have Conquests and VX3's with duplex reticles too. The Leupold duplex is thicker than any of my conquests. I'm specifically referring to the thin wires of the reticle.

I picked mine up on sale for $699 two years ago. Pretty sure it would take a 56mm illuminated Euroscope to much better. I can also tell you that any Leupold VX3 40mm is not even remotely close.

the 3-9x40 conquest with z-plex has a decidedly different plex than the 3.5-10x44 or 4.5-14x44.... It is thicker than either and thicker than any Leupold duplex I've seen. And it doesn't change colors in the sun

You may be right about the 3-9 Conquest,as I haven't seen one in a while and was going from memory. The 3.5-10 and 4.5-14 Conquests definitely do not have a thicker reticle than the VX3's. Has the color changing reticle hindered your hunting in any way? Just curious.

Non taken sir, just my observations and the black color of the Zeiss show up better in low light due to color. Otherwise agree re thickness.

The maximum exit pupil for a human is somewhere in the neighborhood of 7mm. So theoretically a 1.5X with an Objective lens of "only" 20mm is going to have an exit pupil of 13.3mm and a 1.5X with a 42mm obj lens is going to have an exit pupil of 28mm. Both provide a column of light that is far more than can be taken advantage of by the human eye. So are we now talking about the "Quality" of light; if so how does this translate into being able to see more in dim light?

Right on cfran. I'll be the first to admit the Conquests are hard to beat as an overall package in their price range, that's for sure.

They are but I'm really digging my VX3, great overall package - not perfect but nothing is.

Moses,

I did some side by side comparison with various optics of varying prices. Exit pupil didn't seem to make any difference. If you would like to read my report I will send it to you in a private message.

Me too buddy.

has it hindered me? well i dont have a leupold anymore so if it did, it doesnt anymore...and i like leupolds but i like other scopes also and it is possible for leupold to not be the best in every single scenario for every person like some want to believe

all in all, i prefer my reticles stay black unless i "click" them to glow though, just me

I have several brands but the swaroski is the brightest I have. The 4 reticle would probably be the heaviest and best reticle for your situation

A few general comments:

1) Extra magnification, as far as is practical, helps us see better in dim light. This is why turning a scope down to 2x doesn't help.

2) A heavier reticle definitely helps.

3) An electronically illuminated reticle doesn't always help all that much as some believe, because many are mounted on a piece of plain, uncoated glass, thus dimming the image slightly.

Years ago I developed a night-time brightness test with a black-and-white chart illuminated with a 100-watt bulb at 25 yards. With scopes set on 6x to even out the effect of magnification, all modern scopes test between 6 and 8 on the chart. So far all the 8's have been scopes costing over $1000 with wire reticles.

If the reticle is mounted on glass (whether because it's illuminated or etched), very few scopes have tested over 7. These require a heavy reticle to make up for the slight reduction in brightness.

What all of this means is that it helps to actually look through a bunch of scopes with various reticles, rather than debate what makes a difference on the Internet.

There are too many factors in optics and reticle to say THIS IS THE BEST.

Mule Deer,

You're not goin' bring in science are you?

So a medium magnification (4X-6X) with the widest field of view is a great start?

You really should post this topic in the European section because there you will get really good advice on bright scopes. My advice is buy a quality European (Zeiss, S&B, Swarovski, Kahles) 2.5-10x56; 3-12x56 or a fixed 8x56 scope preferably with thick reticle or illuminated reticle and you will have the brightest scope money can buy....it�s as simple as that !

We Europeans do a lot of night hunting so we have the experience and know what we are talking about when it come to bright scopes.

There are parameters. Giant scopes on compact rifles......
There are no great choices at more reasonable prices?

Trijicon 3-9x40's are great for black hogs in low light.

Already mentioned: FX-3 6x42 HD

I did this just last night with an FX3 6x42 (on a compact rifle). I got some extra time in as I waited for the buck chasing the doe to move on before I climbed down..and they hung around for a good while. Could see deer fine in thick pines well after legal shooting light. The heavy duplex is great for this. The main problem in this case would be seeing limbs...deer could be seen, heavy duplex could be seen,....but lots of little limbs between the heavy duplex and the deer that are seen in daylight/dusk couldn't been seen after dark.

I think the FX3 6x42 with heavy duplex is the most bang for the buck in low light shooting, though there are a lot of scopes that would be right with it.

I should add to the above... It was so dark that I could barely make out movement without scope or bino's if they were in a spot with a light background but couldn't see exactly where the deer were. With the scope I could see well enough to take a shot (if it were legal hours). I could see the deer with the bino's (Minox IF 6.5's) but not quite as well as with the scope (FX3 6x42)...I think...really splitting hairs...

For your situation I'd take a hard look at the VX-R series, probably in 2-7x33 with FireDot Duplex.

Wow there is a bunch of bait for Eremicus to use.

Not to Hi jack your post but I also am wondering the exact same question as Moses.
I have a Lipseys limited run Ruger 77 RSI stainless 7mm-08
that has been sitting in my Gun Case for a while now.
I got it for my Daughter to hunt with but she did not like it at all.I have been debating selling,trading it for awhile now but
IF I keep it what scope that I have now would be best?
VX III 1.5-5x20 Heavy Duplex that I bought here from the classisfieds
VX III 1.75-6x32 Heavy Duplex that I traded for here also.
I hunt near MT CHEAHA in Alabama,THICK SWAMPS,Thick pines,Hills and Hollows,with a lot of twigs ,limbs that can and will deflect shots fired.
I also suffer from Night Blindness that gets worse every year.
At 51 now I want to set up my rifles one last time and be done with it and just go hunt with what I have in the gun case.
A WBY ultra lt wt. 30-06 bought here from Wes7x57
The Little RSI 7mm-08 if I keep it.
WBY Custom shop stainless 270 wby mag with a Zeiss Conquest 2.5-8x32 #20 Ret.
Which scope should I put on the RSI,WBY LT WT,?
AMRA

Kahles CL 3-9x42

http://www.opticstalk.com/swfa-riflescope-rating-scale_topic8185.html

John-

Of the scopes you have tested that were 7 or 8 what ones had wire reticles? I see you say all but what brands?

Thanks

Rob

if I'm not mistaken, out of all the scopes JM has tested to date the Minox 3x9 Z3 is a 7+ on his scale.

not bad for $400......

I own one and it quite the scope for the $$ optically

I just changed out a Zeiss 2.5-8X32 on a Ruger Hawkeye 308 short action. Change was mainly for function and aesthetics. I had the Zeiss mounted about as far forward as possible and still felt like I needed to push the gun forward when mounted, it's a long scope for a short action.. I changed to a Leupold VX2 2-7X33 LRD. Looks better, less weight, and I don't feel that I have given up anything in the switch. JMHO

Get a Hensoldt 6-24x72. It'll look ridiculous, but you'll have the "brightest" scope in the forest. You'd need a Night-Vision scope to top it.

Yeah; how much is that puppy?

I have been using a Burris 2X-7X35mm German #4. Looks right; somewhat bright, eye relief could be better. For an inexpensive scope it is not bad.Would like more "Pop".

Magnumdood,



Didn't anyone ever tell you all those rifles with those funny looking little scopes are the ones which look ridiculous? I think we need a re-education program around here!

That is the truth. I have one on my TRG and there's nothing brighter in low light. The Nightforce 56mm objectives do very well also but the glass isn't as good. I do quite a bit of night hunting here. With any moonlight, you can see a snowshoe hare at 200 yards against the snow. Probably not appropriate for a light weight rifle at close range though.

and what will that give you relative to an FX2 6 x 36? A minute longer to shoot at most? At some point all day optics cash in their chips and go home.

Perhaps that is why alot of people here question your findings Rich. Exit pupil and magnification (and there relationship to each other) are the most important factors in low light scope performance.

Finally! I found someone else who owns that Hubble! Welcome friend!

But...the image is unparalleled and it leads the pack in passive NV.

Just a quick explanation of Mule Deer's comment that a higher magnification scope looks brighter (assuming an adequate exit pupil and comparable light transmission). Take a 2x scope with a 7 mm exit pupil, this means the light entering the scope is coming in through a 14 mm entrance. Now take an 8x scope with the same exit pupil. For this scope the light is entering through a 56 mm entrance. So comparing an 8x scope to a 2x scope with the same exit pupil, the entrance diameter is 4x bigger (56mm vs 14mm) and the entrance area is 4x4 = 16 times bigger. So there is 16x more light coming out of that 8x scope compared to the 2x scope. It looks brighter because there is a lot more light coming through the same exit pupil.

Hey Roy, I can put that scope on 10x and have a 7.2 exit pupil.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps a lot of those people here do there comparing with there computer keypad and have not compared different optics side by side in fading light and learned empirically like I have with results I can post. Facts are not often accepted by theorists.

Actually, that's not true. The percentage of light transmission is the same given two scopes of the same manufacturer and lense quality. The only difference there would be the amount of image magnification.

I can't speak for others Rich and I am only saying that if exit pupil makes no difference in your actual side by side testing, that will be confusing to folks who don't have vision issues like the ones you have claimed to have (your night vision issues that is).

We have flogged this dead horse before. My son-in-law can see in the dark without a flashlight. He has participated in some of the side by side comparisons.

So what do we have? One guy who can see in the dark and one who can not and two guys who can see in the day perfectly who come to about the same conclusions.

Run some comparisons and let us know your results.

There is also the issue of image clarity, a direct result of the quality of the glass and coatings. I have taken my "Hubble" and another scope, a good one, but not an Alpha scope and compared them at dusk, and after, set for the same exit pupil. My Hubble just blew it away.

So it's not all about exit pupil; there is also the question of image clarity. I can look through a Night Force now and see with my own eyes that it is not equal in image clarity, being able to discern small details, that my Hensoldt can. So, exit pupil is one of three things to consider.

Along with image clarity you must also consider magnification. My Hubble set at 10x will be able to discern more detail than another Hensoldt also set for a 7mm exit pupil. This is a detail that E hammers home, and he's correct, as he got the information from John. If you can "get closer" by increasing magnification and still maintain a 7mm exit pupil, you will be able to make out more details of your target.

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

Adjustable illuminated reticles work. I have no problems seeing both my target and my reticle on my two low light scopes. If you want tools that work, buy tools that are proven to work in the conditions you need them to. Almost every scope I've owned including an old plex reticle 3-9x33 vx2 can put a shot on a deer long after sunset. If you want and are able to legally go all night you can't take any shortcuts.

Never owned Terry's scope, but I have looked through a lot of Euro's and American scopes.Nothing beats the high end,30mm Euro's like Zeiss, Swaro, S&B,and Kahles after dark, for my eyes.I love aiming through those things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51jTG7BV3fA

I also have the schmidt zenith 3-12x50, with a #4 reticle. The only scope that does as good or better than my binocs at low light!

Here's a good one.

Doesn't look like there is alot room for front ring placement on that scope. Guess a rail mount would be the order of the day.

Pat send it here and I will test it for you.....

Not seen anything else run on rigs as serious as they use. Most don't have s&b's in talleys. Not being a jerk I don't own anything as serious as gap rifles and s&b scopes. Maybe one day

I disagree, RD. Here's another way to look at it. Take a zoom scope, let's say 2x-8x, with a 56 mm entrance. At 2x, the exit pupil is 28mm, and since your eye can only dilate to 7mm, most of the light hits around the eye, and only a fraction of the light entering the scope goes into your eye. Now zoom it to 8x, the exit pupil is 7mm and all of the light entering the scope goes into your eye. More light entering the eye means a brighter looking image. BTW, this is not my original thought. Bob Bell made exactly the same argument many years ago in Gun Digest, I believe.

Within the limitations you specified, a Leupold 6x42 with their #4 would be pretty good. I currently use a 3-9 Conquest with a #4 and like it better becuase of long range considerations, but at close range like you specify, the Leupold with HD or #4 would be great.

John

Single turn.
Double turn
PMII.



dave

222- one thing about your posts - the eye loses it's ability to dilate as we age, IIRC 5.5 is the max, or 5 for many folks middle aged and older. Not that a higher EP does not matter, but perhaps is not all utilized.

65BR,
You are absolutely right. However, the relative brightness still increases with power - up to the point where the exit pupil is smaller than the maximum dilation of the eye, whatever that is.

I think we are on the same page but we are perhaps just using different terms. When I say that light transmission is the same, I'm referring to the amount of light that the scope is capable of transmitting meaning, for example, 90%, 92%, 95% etc. The power setting has no bearing on this meaning it has no bearing on the percentage of light transmission that the scope is capable of. For example, if you took say a Swarovski 3-10x42 set on 6x and a Swarovski 6x42 and compared them for light transmission, the straight power 6x42 would probably be slightly brighter simply because it has fewer internal lenses. Both scopes have the same glass, coatings, objective size lenses and exit pupil sizes, however, the lense system is different.

Yes, they take the cake at the end of the day. The FFP reticle comes into it's own as the sun goes down.


At 3X. The bush is 208 yards.

At 6X. The reticle is VERY bold.

At 12X. The reticle is huge. Keep in mind the target is over 200 yards away.


This scope just plain works in low light.

Terry

Great pictures Terry! I never could get them that clear with the camera on my phone, but they illustrate the reticle very well!

Sure works good at 6x Terry

The 6X power setting is an excellent choice in low light. I took a decent deer two weeks ago with this rifle that ranged 377yds. I had it on 12X for that shot. The 3-12X is a very versatile scope.

Terry

Nice, what cartridge is that in? Ruger correct?

Guess you hate to scratch up those pretty blue/wood guns?

I was looking at your pics above and the fov seemed sweet at a mid power setting, but that was about half the distance as your shot.

No doubt, not much you couldn't do w/that scope.

Yes, it's a Ruger 77 MKII. It's chambered in a .264WM. There is a soybean field down in Como, MS I get to hunt. That rifle was purpose built just for that. I have a couple synthetic stocked rifles, I like and use both types.

Terry

Finally some great advice here ! I use the exact same scope on my 25-06 and I also have a S&B Zenith 2.5-10x56 which is even better in low light on my 30-06.....one of the best scopes money can buy !

Good pictures Terry. They help illustrate the point.That reticle doesn't block anythingbecause the target is magnified as well.

I am not a scope maven and mostly hunt with pretty pedestrian stuff But,when it comes to serious low light glass I have yet to see any 1" scopes seriously challenge those 30mm FFP's from Swaro,Zeiss,S&B etc...the only one's that have come close that I have looked through are the S&B Summit,and the Kahles 3.5-10x50.A 1" Swaro isn't in the money. The 3-9 Conquest got close but the reticle quits while that of a 2.5-10x42 Swaro PH just kept trucking.....I'm talking 250 yards up into trees where resolution was still sharp enough in bad light to really see.Both are good but a real solid notch below a top end 30mm FFP for brightness, resolution and plain old "seeing".

Terry, no doubt - hard not to admire beautiful wood while in the field. Remember my Dakota Predator 6BR, sure was nice holding warm Walnut on the cold mornings I launched some 95 BTs thru deer vitals

I have used both as well, and no doubt, synthetics are great tools. What not to like about that hunting tool of yours, and in a 264 bore!

So Bobin, the 30mm PH was distinctly better than the 1" models, nice to get feedback. What reticle on the Conquest quit?

Good info.

65: Their version of the Duplex.To be fair, I should add that it was likely after legal shooting light at that point.Up to then the Conquest did very well;but the Swaro PH outclassed it after that.

I hear ya, well if I ever go night hunting... No doubt the PH ups the ante...

Look at it this way, maybe the Conquest will keep you outta jail...

Sounds like that PH Swaro may tempt you to take a shot way too late...

Just saying...

DF

DF: Not likely It was an exercise while testing scopes over the winter,or at the range on local deer off season;not something I'm really hung up over. I spend only a little bit of time stand hunting,and mostly walk.

Very few of my better deer have been killed at last light.

I did some "testing" outside recently after getting a Conquest 3-9, and I definitely could go "to jail" shooting a deer out to a few hundred yards at least 7-8 minutes past legal here in MN with it.

I do like the Conquest. My latest was a Cabela's special, $299 for the 3-9x40. I had to pay state sales tax but no postage; final cost, $311. IMHO, that's about the most glass for the buck, anywhere.

DF

Conquest is a lotta bang for the buck....I don't know of anything better in that price range.

Put a German #4 in that 3-9X40 Conquest and it becomes a serious contender also.



Terry

What does Zeiss charge to retrofit a #4 reticle?

DF

Konnari
Thanks for posting that.
You dont see many of those around.
Very nice.

dave

I love the S&B Zeniths, but they do not have much travel in them. You are limited to what you mount them on if you want to use a 100 yd zero.

Great scopes though - VERY clear!!!

For what Bobs talking about.
Its a non issue.
Ill take the fat FFP reticle and the bomb proofness.
Everytime.

dave

FWIW...have done some shooting under same conditions--though not from a tree.

If you are sizing the game up, my experience with all the top name Euro & US scopes has been that a really good bino trumps the best rifle scope--always. Provided you have the luxury of the critter staying in view long enough to get the bino on him, or you do what I do in those last minutes--keep the bino plastered to your face.

Once the light recedes enough you can't judge horns or age with the scope, there will still be enough light left for the bino to make the ID and then make the shot. That doesn't represent much time at all, but it still is a little time and anything prior to that ain't a issue with a decent scope & reticle.

A 42mm objective and heavy reticle like the #4 in the Conquest or the #1 in a Leupold will get the job done. If you want to spend the bucks you can do the Euro 1st plane FFP at 6x--no flies there, just cash, but the end result will be the same.

Having used both I respectfully disagree.

Back equally respectably disagreeing with you, Terry...:)

but I do agree with your 98 selections....

I can see mo with the S&B than I can with my Leupolds. IMO, mo is better.

Merry Christmas my friend. ;^)

Merry Christmas Terry.

I certainly would not argue that particular point...