all ive used are 42 and 50mm scopes...2 of my uncles use a 3-12x56 zeiss and say that could hunt all night if they wanted....i am somewhat considering buying a 3-12x56 possibly a meopta meostar for upcoming whitetail season. was wondering if anyone else uses a 56mm scope and does it really offer a big advantage over say a 4-12x50 in lowlight because i know they are much heavier and will require tall scope rings

big advantage? during legal hunting hours medoubts their overall efficacy...

larger objectives pick up the resolving of detail, brightness in low light and things do get bigger if you keep turning that dial...

prefer a high quality 42mm with heavy reticle...but the promise of something better in optics always suckers me anyway...:)

just seems like u read reviews n stuff and ppl say things like "my zeiss or my meopta 56mm is the ultimate whitetail scope" etc etc. so its got me curious lol. not sure i like the idea if somthn that big and heavy on my rifle but at same time if the advantage of hunting a little longer and what not is worth it i would consider it

The problem with a 56mm scope is one loses a consistent cheek weld from shot to shot. The scope has to be mounted so high that it does not allow a good consistent sight picture. I have personally never used above a 50mm objective but the problems above were there. Using a 56mm can only exacerbate the problem. Most people cannot hunt all night legally, especially for deer, so unless you're buying it for other types of hunting it will not be an all round asset. Most people already have their mind made up that bigger is better so if you must go ahead and buy one and find out for yourself. I know your uncles will think I'm crazy. powdr

I used a vx-3l 3.5x10x56 in south Carolina where an hour before sunrise and an hour after sunset is legal shooting times...made a huge difference during those hours...nice a clear glass...gonna send it in for a number 1 reticle to help during those extended hours as well

did mounting it so high cause any annoying issues? cheek weld,view,etc?

With said HQ 42MMs and a #4 reticle have killed several bucks when my BIL was walking back to the truck with a flashight.

He says: "I knew that was you"

On a trim sporter, they sure get awkward. If I was treed all the time, I might live with it.

No issues for me at all...it is primarily a stand hunting scope of course....wouldn't use it for any other hunting...it's too bulky

thats mostly what i do is stand hunt. my dad has a .243 he never uses i may slap a 3-9x40 on it and use it for when i go in the woods instead of open field

I you want the ultimate in low light performance, find a fixed 8x56. I usually don't hunt 56MM objectives, but I bought a Swarovski PH8x56 from a member here out of curiosty. It is UNBELIEVABLE ! in low light. I use it sometimes for last light food plot hunting

I've got a Kahles with a 52mm and that baby is bright. Since most of my guns are more of the mtn rifle variety, most of mine wear a simple 3-9x40, but I definitely like the bigger scopes for recreational shooting.

My main rifle wears a Swarovski PH 2.5-10x56 with a #4 reticle. It is a specialized piece of gear for the stand hunting I do. It IS bright, you could hunt all night with it with a little bit of moon if you wanted. It's been my experience that if a big whitetail is going to show himself on a field then it's going to be at very last light. For those that'll crow about not needing to hunt after legal shooting hours, try pulling a big deer out of the woodline 200 yds away when it's 29 minutes after sunset on a cloudy day. It does make a difference.

If I were out west I probably wouldn't be using it. Where I hunt and the with the game I hunt I find it invaluable. The bulkiness is overrated, it's not something I ever really notice and my Swarovski weighs 19 oz, that's only about 3-4 oz. more than most "normal" scopes. The cheek weld argument is ridiculous, we're not shooting quail over pointers with fitted shotguns here. It's simply not an issue. There are multiple ways to raise the comb height if it bothers you, I've never seen the need. Half the guys you see nowadays are running around with these "tactical" style rings and mounts on their rifles anyway that cause the scope to be mounted much higher than normal, my 56mm sits lower than just about any 40mm that's got a picatinny rail under it.

the red dot #4 reticle on the meostar. anyone have experience with the red dot?

The cheek weld is a big issue with me. Most deer I have shot have been moving fast and close. I also shoot a lot of skeet and bird hunt. It may just be the way I mount a rifle, because of the shotgun hunting, but I can take valuable seconds if I don't have good cheek weld and proper eye relief on my hunting rifle. I can see though where it wouldn't be such an issue for your hunting method.

I don't care for the floating, head high position either.

My smoothest handling rifle is a short action Rem. 700 Classic fitted with a Leupold 6x36 in low dual dovetail rings. I've let several people of differing builds try it out. Pick out a target point, close your eyes, mount the rifle, open your eyes and the target is near center.

This!

I have 40mm, 42mm, 50mm, 52mm scopes and never have a cheek weld problem. I don't need to lock my face into the stock because I use muzzle brakes and hold the rifles lightly like I would hold a BB gun. My best offhand at 100 yards is 1 1/4" for three shots. On a bad day it is 6" with my .375.

I will add if you are not looking right down the middle of your scope when you throw it up to your shoulder it is not mounted correctly. You can check this quickly with a variable by putting it on the highest setting. With your eyes closed throw it up to your shoulder, open your eyes and check. Maybe the scope needs to be lower or higher or forward or backward. But then it might be right already. Go shooting!

That is exactly why I don't like high mounted scopes.

Ring height has a lot to do with stock design/comb height. Most of my guns simply wear mediums.

i have a swaro 50mm on my remington 270. has small dnz mount

Same here. My preference is 36 mm scopes. I can do a 40 mm if the rifle has a high comb.

For legal hour hunting in the US a quality 36-42 mm scope is all one needs. These 50-56 30mm scopes are made for hunting at night which is legal in most european countries. I might add a well designed reticle is just as important.

Yep. I have a 36mm 32mm Leupold with a heavy duplex that will get me just as far as a 50mm Swaro PH with a thinner reticle.

i have always wanted to put a #4 or a #1 on a 36mm leupold....would prolly be as multipurpose as i would ever need...

They're made for hog hunting in Europe at night. In my state of Mississippi it's legal to hunt hogs at night also, these scopes work just as well over here as they do over there.

Sorry, but I don't agree. I have that exact scope, a 1.75-6x32 leupold with a heavy duplex, sitting on top of my .375 H&H. It's a nice scope but it won't get you as far as a 50mm swaro PH. The PH is first focal plane, so by design even the thinnest Swarovski reticle is going to be thicker than the SFP leupold heavy duplex when the power is turned up. The #4 reticle is the one to have for low light hunting, the leupold heavy duplex is a poor substitute for a good #4.

I have a PH Swaro 4-16x50AO and it has a second focal plane fine duplex reticle. My 1.75-6x32 is a VX-III with a heavy duplex. Those are the two scopes I mentioned, and I've compared them side by side as the light failed. The 50mm lens and magic euroglass doesn't overcome the thin reticle.

#4 reticles don't thrill me that much. When I want a heavy reticle I want it heavy in the middle where I'm looking.

Well, since you have both scopes then I have to defer to your judgement between the two. I can tell you that my 1.75-6x32 heavy duplex isn't even in the same country compared to my PH 2.5-10x56 with the #4 reticle when it comes to low light. The middle of the reticle isn't the part that matters, it's the big heavy posts on the sides that allow you to bracket the animal that matter. When the light gets really low you're not going to see the intersection point of the crosshairs against a dark animal, no matter how thick the middle is.

How tight do the thick bars come in to the center of the FOV?

one of the reasons im considering selling my swaro z3 is the reticle just isnt quite bold enough i like that 4c red dot meostar reticle on the 3-12x56

I believe the thick parts of the Meostar reticles come in tight to the middle. That's useful.

I tried to find a picture online but couldn't find the right one. Imagine this reticle without the illuminated center part. The thick bars come pretty close to the center, in the 4A they're wider. This reticle is like mine on medium power (5-6X), when it's turned up to 10X the bars are a lot fatter.

crow hunter im from MS as well...is the reticle photo above from the meopta or is that something else?

The center in the 4 subtends around 24" IIRC and is definitely a better choice in the Swaro for low light than the 4a.

Gonna agree w/mathman here. Have compared the Lupy HDs to a lot of scopes and I had access to a lot of different Swaros. The Lupy HD always shows up in low light. I use an "old" 1.75-6x Vari-X III with a G4 as a threshold. The crosshair is heavy like the HD and it hangs right in there.

You may think I'm nuts and I suspected that I may have been prior to confirmation by someone who probably isn't nuts....the 6x36 Leupold with a heavy reticle can be downright embarrassing to the big three in a low light comparison.

All that said the view is extremely satisfying with excellent glass. The lit reticles are an asset to FFP with wider expanding center section.

FWIW, am allergic to batteries...my pick for low light detail with a bold #4 is the S&B fixed 6x or 8x with an A4 reticle. Been dinking with a new 6x42 thusly outfitted this spring and am impressed.

These folks were a pleasure to do business with--keep Google translator handy:

Pinter S&B

The comfort level is not as high as dealing with a dealer you know...:)

That's from a Swarovski, but the meopta is very similar. I have a 3-12x56 meopta meostar as well.

Where are you located in MS?

For point and shoot at moderate range an FX-3 6x42 with this reticle in it would be good as the light goes down:

I tried but just could not do it. Tried a 3.5-10 VX3 with one und a Leica. The Leica was a really nice scope, too.

I shoot high on moving targets and really had to focus on stationary--not conducive to whitetail pursuits.

It must be why Mom always said I wasn't trainable...

Do you shoot a number 1?

I've tried them out, but I don't own one yet.

have you considered a VX3 3.5-10x42?

I may know a guy...:)

My heavy duplex equipped VX-III has my point and shoot, thick reticle spot covered.

I concur

Well, since I kinda started this whole friendly reticle argument I figure I should offer up some pictures. Please forgive the crappy pics, I'm no photographer, especially at 1 AM after a few drinks.

First is the Swarovski 2.5-10x56 #4:

2.5X:


10X:


Meopta 3-12x56 #4:

3X:


12X:


Leupold Vari-XIII 1.75-6x32 Heavy Duplex at 4x (looks the same at all magnifications):

The only adavantage you will have over other scopes with a 56mm obj. is if you turn it down to 8x. All else being equal it may have a small advantage over a 50mm obj. set at 7x or a 42mm obj, set at 6x.

It comes down to what works for you. I only use 42mm obj. lens scopes to lower the (small) centre of gravity. If I shot from a stand or from a truck it wouldn't make so much of a difference.

If I need max light transmission I turn it down to 6x..

I've used them for years without any problems at all.Excellant early morning and late evening clarity and contrast.

Great pictures thanks for posting them..

im in Raymond area. u?

Definitely can see the advantage if using higher powers, but at the bottom end I think I would prefer the Leupold HD.

My best scope now is my Leupold VX III 1.75-6x32 HEAVY DUPLEX
that Sits on my WBY UL WT 30-06.
Crow Hunter wanna sell that VARI X III 1.75-6x32 HD?
It would work well on my Ruger RSI 77 7mm-08
AMRA

My comparisons definitely DO NOT agree with this, AT ALL. If someone wants to see the numbers let me know. A private message works.

Near Meridian

I own a Meopta with a number 4 reticle. I think the inside section of reticle is actually too thin. The outside bars are bold, but the center section is like looking at fishing line. You can lose the bullseye in a dark background.

yea ive heard that as well. the one im lookn at tho has the red dot in the middle

A 56mm scope will let you see at 56 yards exactly what a 50mm scope will let you see at 50 yards and exactly what a 42mm scope will let you see at 42 yards, all else being equal scope wise. Any other way to compare different size scopes is subjective to ones eyeballs, light conditions, etc

The above is half the picture. The other half is the reticle�

If one can hunt all night long with a 56mm scope, I would guess he can hunt all night long with an equal quality 50mm scope, he just needs to get 1/10 of the way closer.

Aic

Do any of you have experience on the Weaver 8x56mm?

Based on side by side comparison I find this impossible to agree with.

Has anyone looked at the Victory 3-12x56 HT? Any comments on how it compares to the Diavari?