After a 8 year hiatus ive begun hunting in South Carolina again, SC law is 1 hour before sunrise and 1 hour after sunset so low light is obvious a huge factor. At 62 years old I don’t ever see myself shooting over 300 yards. With $1000 being my max and hopefully under what scope would you guys suggest. I’m thinking 10 on high side or 15 at most. Some of the guys I hunt with seem to think Nikon Monarch 7 is the absolute best. Just need some suggestions from those that have been there. I’m shooting a .308

I wouldn't go any higher than 10x , more power equals less light transmitted.
You can buy a good Swarovski for under $1000.

buy a Nightforce scope from Midway USA it will be under a $1000.00

Meopta R2 can run with anything made.

A fixed 6x42, 7x50 or 8x56 is worth a look if you're keeping shots to that distance. Had no idea SC gave an hour on either side of daylight, how generous

Yea, SC is very generous in the hunting hours. Want a variable but can certainly live with a 10X on the high side

Whatever Bobby Tomek recommends.

I use Zeiss here in SC, however, the next scope will be Meopta. Give Doug at Cameraland a call and he will give you the best price and service of anyone around
GreggH

My meopta meopro gives my leupold vx3i a run for its money and a fair number of people seem to think the vx3i is a good low light option.

Meopta 3-12x56. $999 at cameraland

RICKMELEAR,

For low light performance I would get a Leupold VX-5 3-15X56. I compared one side by side on deer antlers 131 yards away
with a Swarovski z5 5-25X52, Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50, and a Leupold VX6 4-24X52. All were set on 15X. The VX-5 lasted
six minutes longer than the others; which all went down at the same time.

If you could afford a Swarovski V8i 2.7-18X56, it lasted another fourteen minutes longer than the VX-5.

By the way once the VX-5 could no longer show the antlers all I had to do was turn up the magnification on any of the other three
and could see for a few more minutes.

+1

I would say a Meopta or a Swarovski. I am in today till Rachael calls asking "When the heck are you coming home?" so give me a call and we can discuss what would be best for you.

Merry Christmas

A Nightforce SHV with illuminated reticle would work well.

I’d like to know more about the MeoStar R2 1.7-10x42 RD. I wasn’t even aware of it until just now.

Hard to beat that Schmidt Bender 2.5-10x56 with illuminated L3 in low light

I just purchased two Meopta Meopros from Doug this year and I would say they are above average for a medium priced scope.
I would rate them better than my Leupold VX 3i so those would be an option also.

I'm not sure a Meostar or Schmidt Bender would fall in your budget.

The Swarovski Z3 looks to be a great scope but never tried one.

We have a 30 min pre/post sunset rule. In my experience, both shooting and just looking through various scopes, the reticle is a lot more important than the particular make/model/power of scope.

It depends on how good your eyes are, and how "bright" the conditions are. In general, I've found that if I need to target anything after the last half of an hour after sunset, or the first hour before the sun comes up, most of the time I need at least a 7mm exit pupil.
That means whatever you choose is limited in magnification to that level. For instance, my favorite is the 6X with a 42mm objective. That allows me to see six times further under low light conditions than I can w/o a scope. The maximum practical would be a scope with a 56mm objective with 8x magnification.
These are general guidelines. I have, for instance, had optics that worked at night with a 4mm objective, IF the sky was clear, we had a full moon and I was in open country. But I've also had conditions where I was in tall trees, with no moon and full could cover. Them my 6X42 couldn't see much over 30 yds. E

I agree. I’ve spent a lot of time looking through a variety of scopes in the $250-$750 range during the first and last 30 min, and the glass on just about any new scope will work fine. The reticle separates them more than the glass in that range of scopes. Maybe the higher end is different, don’t know.

Glass, power, exit pupil, and reticle....it all matters. The hunting conditions play a big part. Clear skies and a full moon over an open field it doesn't take much. Overcast, drizzling rain, in the woods with a broken background and things get a lot tougher. Distance matters, how steady your view through the scope is matters......a lot of things matter. 30 mins pre/30 mins post ain't always the same.

The ONLY scope you will ever need.

Whatever model you end up with, I would recommend an illuminated reticle.

Meostar or S&B with illuminated reticle are the berries, if you can’t get it done an hour before or after, it won’t be because of your optics

I’d find Doug for either one and see what magic he can come up with for ya. I’m betting he’s got some specials that can’t be beat in fixed or variable options

How about a MeoStar Artemis 7x50 with 4C Reticle for only $549.99???

We're here for another 15 minutes

Yes it is, that’s a fantastic optic. Unfortunately it’s hard to stay under $1000 with that one. I wish I could find a few for that!

I fully agree, the weather conditions and the terrain can produce very varied results.

Definitely lots of experience there with low light situations and many scope models.

I'm pretty impressed with the low light performance of the Steiner Nighthunter Xtreme. And, actually, I don't use the illumination - on any of my scopes. In my experience any illumination in dusk or twilight is too bright and messes with my vision. Though if you have to have illumination, Trijicon Accupoint is really good.

I've been using a Trijicon Accupoint 2.5 X 10 X 56 this fall and it has offered really good low light performance. I agree with skeen that illuminated reticles mess with my vision in low light situations but the Trijicon aiming dot is noticeable without being overwhelming. Another added benefit of the Trijicon is that there are no batteries to replace.

The same experience with the Illumination feature. I paid top dollar for a Swaro Z6 1x6 illuminated reticle scope only to be completely disappointed with the lit reticle even when turned all the way down. The next Z6 I bought in the same power did not have illumination and I do not miss it at all. Maybe it's just me and my eyes.

I’d save a few more pennies and go with Schmidt...all the other brands are fine products, but none can hang with Schmidt for light gathering...none. They are also an incredibly tough scope as well. I have three on my most “serious” big game rifles, a Jarrett 280AI, a Carolina Precision 300 RUM and a Sako 338. Incidentally, the Schmidt was purchased for the RUM after it ate a Swaro PH for lunch costing me a beautiful buck that was pushing B&C.

Illuminated reticlea seem to blur the image to me at last minute, I like a good heavy #4 reticle best.

Low light and illumination has been screwed up by a lot of companies and the reticles they provide illumination on. I'm saying this in regard to low light illumination, how bright it is, and the size of the reticle. Daylight illumination is a whole different animal.

Nightforce did it (low light illum) very well with the level of illumination on the NXS IHR I use....it can be set very low with little to no flare. I think this was designed for use with night vision but it works very well in low light for the naked eye. On the other hand, Nightforce's illumination is too bright on the lowest setting with the SHV 3-10 Forceplex (and NX8 FC-MOA). I watched 6 does way past legal shooting hours yesterday using the illuminated Forceplex in a 3-10 SHV.....it's slightly too bright, too big, and has too much flare. It can work but it's not nearly as good as the illumination levels in the NXS series for low light. I was able to watch them for a long time after legal shooting light due to it be a clear sky yesterday with a "waning gibbous" at 99% illumination.....it doesn't take much there.

I really like Schmidt and Bender's Flash Dot illumination. It can be set very dim (or bright) and is also small being a single point. Smaller and dimmer is better. I can't speak to durability but I think S&B's Flash Dot may be the best hunting illumination system. I'm not a glass snob, but S&B's is good enough to make me take note. After using it, I can't help but notice the difference. With the glass quality and FD illumination it's very good.

Exactly, the SB L3 reticle, which is the #4 with I'll imitated dot is hard to beat. It's not really used as a daytime illumination. But when really needed, it can be dialed down so low that the light from the illumination doesn't over power the reticle or your eye. Thus low light clarity and dot work together.

The exit pupil is simply the objective diameter in mm divided by the magnification. 56mm objective/8X - 56/8 = 7mm exit pupil; 42mm objective/6X = 42/6 = 7mm exit pupil...and so forth and yada yada yada.

That chart can't account for alpha glass. A 56mm Tasco won't even be close to an alpha 56mm of even an alpha 50mm. Just saying. It's a good reference though.

I'm a fan of bigger exit pupils but it just tells you the size of the beam of light. Not the % of light lost on lenses, the visibility of the reticle, the clarity, the power, the user characteristics of the scope, light lost to long eye relief, etc. Still, if everything else is the same, I'll go with a bigger exit pupil just for ease of use if nothing else.

Don’t forget, as we age our pupils will sometimes not open to the 7mm diameter assumed on that chart. But...it’s a great reference nonetheless.

I hunt SC and I didn’t benefit from the extended hunting hours until I moved up in the class of hunting scopes. I have good luck with Zeiss, Swarovski, and Steiner with 50mm objectives. My most recent purchase of a Swarovski Z3 40mm did well the other night allowing me to see deer 5 minutes before the end of shooting hours. 6;15 pm on the 22nd. I find the Swarovski lighter than the Zeiss Conquest in the 50mm size. The Steiner is 56mm and very bright. I think the clearest glass is the Swarovski. All scopes mentioned abover were purchased between $699 and $899.

Selling off my Leupolds....

That formula is rarely accurate if applied to scopes with magnification ratio's greater than 3X.

Is there an alternate formula?

^^^This^^^^^ but I'll gladly take what they give me

Yep. A healthy young person's pupils, on average, dilate to 7mm in low light. Although not universally applicable, around the age of 40 the muscles that control the pupil size begin to lose elasticity, and most people this age and older end up with pupils that will only expand to ~5mm in response to a low light environment.

I have a few illuminated scopes. This year was the first time that I actually hunted with one, a Schmidt and Bender Stratos 1.5-8x42, with FD 4 reticle.
I did see in a few circumstances where the illumination could be useful. 200 meters was as far as I would have had a shot.
The Flash Dot is fairly friendly to my eye astigmatism. This is a first focal scope, so magnification has an effect on the dot size / intensity. The flash dot system is probably my most favored 1st focal illumination image. I like that there is no visible dot until you turn it on.

The 2nd focal Leica Magnus illumination in my 1-6.3, might be my favorite of any illumination control and illumination image.
Thus far, I have found little to no use for illumination in bright / full daylight shooting with one exception. But, I do see that could depend on the reticle. I like relatively heavy / thick reticles, with narrow openings in the center. To me, the near perfect is the Zeiss Victory #4 in 1.5-6 and 2.5-10 first focal. The Schmidt & Bender FD 4 is close second favorite.

The same reticle in the same and/or different models with different power ranges, of the same manufacturer, does not always present the same reticle view/dimensions. As I learned with FD 7's in the Zenith 1.1-4 (that I like) and the Stratos 1.1-5 (that I like less). The 1.1-5 seems too fine and too wide of an opening.

The Meopta R2, 1-6 and 1.7-10 that I have seem to be very good scopes. But, to my eye the dot without illumination is almost translucent. Which could be my astigmatism. In certain light and certain targets, illumination is helpful to me. This is the one exception of the scopes that I have.

My Leupold VX6 has an incredible illuminated reticle. When turned down to it's lowest setting there is no blur or blinding at all, just a simple red dot that can been placed against the dark silhouette of the deer. I have found that I can use a good pair of binoculars to identify animals to pitch black, and then once identified there is no animal I can't shoot with the VX6 illumination. The red dot on the illuminated reticle is far superior to a heavy, bold duplex reticle and you don't have a thick reticle to look around, under, over during daylight hours. We hunt to pitch black in S.C. and in 45 years of deer hunting the Leupold red dot is by far the best for low light shooting that I have come across. I am not saying there are not better scopes with red dots, but I see lots of complaints about certain brands having red dots that are too bright, even at the lowest setting for true low light performance. For under $1000 I don't think the VX6 can't be beat. The Leupold VXR also has the same illumination system for around $500.00. My brother has one and loves it. He purchased his VXR after using my VX6 on several hunts and falling in love with the red dot.

Nikon's MONARCH 7 (which has been discontinued) is very good in low light situations. I used a loaner scope from Nikon and took a 25pound porker at 100 yards 45 min after sunset and 3/4 moon. My buddies with much more expensive scope scopes couldn't even see the pigs under a feeder. I have done this with Nikon's PROSTAFF scopes as well. The PROSTAFF line has some of the best light transmission percentage in the industry at greater than 98%. If low light clarity is what you want, definitely check out the PROSTAFF line of scopes.

FWIW...

Formulas provide some general guidance and always plenty to argue about. The marketing department loves them.

Increasing magnification may lower the exit's pupil's value but will increase detail to a point. Brighter doesn't always mean you are going to see more detail and as well quality counts. Balancing variables beyond the formulas...again.

The last shooting light at 300 yards is not the same as the last shooting light at 80 yards. Lowest light at 300 yards comes earlier. Funny how that works...:)

As much as I detest admitting it, illuminated dots that can be dialed down in brightness specifically for low light and subtend reasonably small, are an asset to precision shooting in low light. I like the Zeiss and S&B dots that subtend down to the 1/2" area.

For shorter distance hunting, like say up to 100 yards in the lowest light for that distance, a heavy reticle works for me and I prefer them. But when the shooting is out at 300 yards in the lowest light for that distance, dots are plainly superior for precision.

And seconded--I don't know anyone that has tested more dots than Bobby Tomek.

+1

Your information is generally spot-on, but the 98 percent claim is off base. That # came about from a misinterpretation of the original claim of greater than 98 percent per lens surface, was picked up by an ad campaign (and incorrectly used) and has since circulated widely. But it simply is not accurate.

If 98 percent for the line of scopes would be true, they'd be the brightest scopes in the industry. They are good, no doubt about that. But they are nowhere near THAT good.

Just FYI, the scope line with the highest transmission rate is the Schmidt & Bender Polar, which reaches an amazing 96 percent. Number two is the discontinued Zeiss Victory HT line. As an aside, though, transmission rates are overvalued and largely misunderstood. If you don't have glass with the ability to resolve fine detail under poor lighting, handle stray lighting to prevent degradation of the image and have a contrast level that helps render a picture that is pleasing to the eye and features ample tonal separation to make it usable, that light transmission figure is completely meaningless once the sun begins to dip below the horizon.

As an example: For years, Burris claimed 95 percent total transmission for their FFII line of scopes. The S&B Klassik only claims 90 percent. But take a 3-9x50 FFII and a 3-12x50 S&B and set them both at 9x. Now see which one will render the best image -- one that is perceivably "brighter" than the other -- on a 150 yard target 30-40 minutes after sundown or in pure moonlight. I can assure you it won't be the Burris with its 5% higher transmission rate. This is not a knock on Burris scopes as I find them to be very good and reliable but simply serves to show how light transmission figures can be rendered irrelevant by other factors and that scopes should not be judged on those numbers alone.

Throughput percentage is then 0.98 to the nth power, n being the number of surfaces.

Thanks for all the information guys. Just wondered if Bobby had a recommendation in the $1000 price range.

Rick, sending you a PM.

Rick-

For low light and ranges as you mentioned, even the most primo of the alphas will have a hard time getting it done. An hour after sundown and 300 yards is truly tough and would require atmospheric conditions to be absolutely perfect for you. But there are some some in that $1000 range that will certainly help you out, especially when the ranges are a bit inside of that 300 yard mark.

My first recommendation is the Schmidt & Bender Klassik in either 2.5-10x56 or 3-12x50 format with the L3 reticle. It's just over your price cap, but the $1179 you can get them for at CameraLandNY right now is the best thing going in that ballpark. My 2nd recommendation would be the Zeiss Conquest V4 3-12x56 with #60 illuminated reticle. The lowest setting will work fine for your purposes, but the rest are tailored for day-time use for some odd reason. But the glass is surprisingly good in these. There is an instant $100 discount available from most vendors, so you can get these new around 899.

The Meopta Meostar 3-12x56 has a terrific reputation, and at initial impression in daylight, its image does have more vibrance and apparent image brightness than the aforementioned S&B. But when the light has all but gone away, it is the S&B that gives you the best resolution, separation of tones and overall image quality. Plus, they are even a bit more than the S&B listed above. CLNY does, however, have the MeoStar R2 8x46 with 4C reticle on sale for 999. I had one for a while, and while it didn't quite give the resolution I expected, there was LOTS to like about it for a low light optic and would eb a good contender for you as well.

The size of the dot on the S&B and Meopta is about MOA at max power, and while I'd prefer smaller, for deer-sized game, it is more than adequate.

Also, some tend to believe that lower powers are superior in poor light, and to an extent that is true at very close ranges, but for your stated purposes, you need to be able to see detail, so magnification is your friend. A 150 yard shot in daylight with a 3x scope is a piece of cake but another thing entirely when the light is all but gone. In fact, in many scenarios, it would be all but impossible to find the vitals and execute a humane shot. In good moonlight, I've used magnification greater than 10x on numerous occasions and was glad I had it available.

In the used/discontinued arena, the Leica ERi 3-12x50/illum./ 4-a is incredible, as is the Kahles CSX 3-12x56. The Zeiss Duralyt 3-12x50 and subsequent Conquest DL in the same power range, both with the #60 reticle, do nicely, too. But all of these are getting fairly scarce.

Exactly. I have proved to everyone who will try it. Set your scope on say 6X and aim at deer antlers or something. When you can no longer distinguish the points turn up the magnification: Viola! You can see the points again.

Swarovski, Z3 model works well for me for low light. With tax, you should be able to get it for <800$.

BobbyTomek, your advice on optics is incredible. How would you rate the 3 x 12 x 50 S&B Klassik against the S&B Klassik in 8x56 for low light?

Thanks very much Bobby and to all that responded. I can handle $1200. Have dealt with Doug and CLNY folks in the past and will deal will none others in the future, fine folks

And much appreciated.

We call an hour after sunset "night" here. For hunting at night headlights or a spotlight work great with just about any scope. If you ain't gonna hunt in the daytime, that's what I'd recommend.

My 8x56 S&B was non-illuminated and fitted with the A4 reticle, but purely from a glass perspective, they are close enough that one couldn't easily discern any real-world difference between them -- at least not enough to matter.

While I really like the 8x56 format, there's no denying that on rare occasions, the extra magnification of a variable does come in handy. I'd never feel handicapped by an 8x56, however, especially considering my shots on game are rare inside of 150 yards.

Thanks Bobby.

The 8x56 is now my designated scope for low light hunting from a stand where the farthest shot possible is 120 yards at my place. I love that scope.

For many years 1.5 x 6 x 42 alpha glass was all I needed for any kind of hunting I do, whether in the USA, Canada, or Africa. at 60, my eyes are not the same anymore.
I am going to take your advise and upgrade to the 3 x 12 x 50 S&B for other non-stationary type hunting.

Whatever model you end up with, I would recommend an illuminated reticle.

+1

Think I’m going with Bobby’s recommendation on the S&B Klassick 3X15. A few hundred over my budget but it should carry me through my life. Haven’t dropped the hammer yet but Doug at CLNY have been notified

3 days left on the :

S&B 5 Scopes Sale
&
S&B Year End Sale

Am glad you are carrying the Hungary scopes, Doug. Had a couple in the past and they were both excellent.


***

Bobby, you still on? Did you ever try that illuminated S&B #1? Looks interesting.

Tom-

I haven't...but have been tempted. Still thinking about it, too.

Grinning...yeah, almost like there is a tempter on a guy's shoulder posting...

May get motivated and ask them about the subtensions of the triangle. Am assuming that is a clear space under the triangle--not white hopefully, --kinda like Trijicon's BAC triangle.