Low Light Scope

[HamSlamma]

You guys need to check out MeOpta .......http://www.meoptasportsoptics.com/shop/us/r1r-3-12x56/meostar-r1r-3-12x56/ctgRus.html

 

[hq]

This is all you need for low light shooting

Errr... no. Don't get me wrong, I really wish there was a cheap scope that was good for more than just mashing potatoes in the dark, but during last three decades or so of dawn/dusk and nighttime hunting I have yet to come across one. In this regard I've thought of the Meopta Meopro 4-12x50 as the bargain of the century, at MSRP of just over $700. Walkalong's Leica is even better.

 

[bjs1187]

My go to has become the Swarovski Z5 3-18x44. Great glass, fairly lightweight for what it is, and the BT system is nice. It’s not cheap, but it’s not 2g’s either.

 

[RussellC]

A scopes magnification and objective size go hand in hand determining low light use. If you divide the front objective size by the magnification the number you get is the size of the light beam coming out the back of the scope and entering your eye. For example a 40mm objective with 4X magnification results in a 10mm light beam coming out the back of the scope. This number is known as the exit pupil. The larger the beam of light (exit pupil), the better the scope works in low light. At least up to a point. The pupil on MOST adults eyes will only open about 5mm, and any more light is wasted. If you're in your 20's and have above average vision 6 or 7mm is possible but not common. The advantage always goes to lower magnification, but details are easier to see with more magnification. At least as long as you have enough light.

For ideal low light use you want as much magnification as possible and still get a 5mm exit pupil. A 40mm scope maxes out at 8X. A 50mm scope transmits exactly the same amount of light at 10X as a 40mm scope does at 8X and only has slight edge when set on 9X. At more than 10X low light use is hampered with either 40 or 50mm scope. Both 40 and 50mm scopes transmit more light than the human eye can use on magnifications of 7X or less. To use 12X in low light you'd need a minimum of a 60mm objective to gain anything in low light.

And all this just determines the size of the light beam coming out the rear of the scope. Not the actual brightness of the light. Very complex testing methods are needed to determine this and hard numbers are hard to find. Most budget scopes are in the 80-85% range. Most mid-level scopes selling in the $300-$500 range are in the 90-95% range and the really expensive $1000+ scopes are in the 95%+ range. Glass quality always trumps glass size.

A good quality 40mm scope will always cost less than a 50mm scope of the same quality. At the same price point a 40mm scope beats a 50mm scope every time because the better quality glass. Now if you move up to higher quality, and more expensive 50mm glass it will be slightly better, but only at 9X magnification.

I have several 3-9X40 Leupold VX-2's and several 3-9X40 Zeiss Conquest scopes. The Zeiss are better, but only slightly so. I can use either of them after legal shooting time has past.

Same with astronomical type telescopes. Its all about exit pupil, which gets smaller with increasing power. In those telescopes for sky use, a "Rich Field" scope is used for greatest light gathering which has great light gathering ability with the correct eye piece, but you are limited as to magnification.

This is why observatories have such huge telescopes, light gathering ability at higher power.

Russellc

 

[entropy]

Your literally asking for the very best in light gathering and resolution. You cant get that on any knock off.

IMO take a hard look at the euro optics, they tend to shoot in darker conditions than we do a lot of the time so often have larger and brighter scopes.
@cdb1 also once theorized, that companies that build a lot of dawn/dusk/night (not bushnells line) scopes tend to carry that into there more mainstream lines of scopes as well, so that might be helpful. Tho who he suggested to me as being brands to watch have fallen clean out of my head right now.....

Yes, the better glass and coatings of the high end euro-glass makes the sizable investment in them worth it for such use. Many years ago, the Swarovski rep took us out to a range late in the afternoon, and we shot the various rifles he had the Swarovski scopes on well after legal hunting would have been. On cheaper scopes you have to rely on lower power and higher objective lens size. The brands I definitely recommend for low-light are Swarovski, Zeiss, Schmidt & Bender, Nightforce, and the top end Leupolds. The better of the more affordable scopes are Leupold, Nikon, and Burris.

Actually, you're "wasting" light in both cases. The closer the exit pupil at your actual pupil diameter the better and the rule of the thumb of 7-ish mm works. I tend to crank 56mm diameter scopes to magnification of 8 and 50mm to 7 for maximum light transmission in the dark, following the legendary fixed mag low light scope, Zeiss 8x56 Diatal principle. More often than not you can tell the difference by looking through the scope, changing magnification slowly and suddenly the image seems somehow brighter.

Technically correct, but you do gain some 'slop factor', that is, you can put the gun up not perfectly, and still have 100% of the view, instead of 'lunettes'. (crescents on the side that rob you of view and light) A worthwhile trade off for most types of hunting.

Your statement that I bolded again is true, but due to the eye accomodating.

 

[DannyLandrum]

You first must tell us what the budget IS; not what it's not.,,, in order to help.

 

[drmajor]

I'm looking hard at the Vortex, but in 56mm. Also the Trijicon Accutpoint 56mm. Looked thru both at store- In order of cost and and quality: Vortex, Trijicon- $650, then Leica- $1200. The Leica is GREAT..but out of budget.

 

[BrocLuno]

Here it is legal to hunt 30 minutes before/after sunrise, sunset. I use a VX-R 4-14x40. I can see deer clearly before/after sunset that are nearly impossible to see without the optics.

There are probably better choices, but I consider mine more than adequate. The Firedot is REALLY excellent. Easy to adjust brightness. Never needed to replace the battery. If you don't move the scope, it shuts itself off after five minutes, and comes back on when it moves again.

That's where I'd go for a "learning session". The VX-R line is really bright compared to others I have tried. The fire sight is plus as things get dim. Off if you are glassing, on to shoot. The reticle is pretty robust, but as it gets dark, any black reticle will tend to disappear ...

 

[Bbear]

I hunted in Finland a few years back. Their hunting 'day' is basically 24/7. (or it was then). Sitting on a stand as far north as Alaska in late October, sundown is about 4 PM. They didn't come by to pick me up until around 7. Low, cloudy day watching a large pile of potatoes in an open field waiting for whatever to come in. We were told to shoot whatever we saw but if a doe came with a fawn, or a moose cow came with a calf, shoot the younger one first. In short, it was DARK when they picked us up.
All of the rifles were loaners in various calibers. Mine was a Tikka T3 in 300 WSM. The scopes were a variety of Kahles, Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica's.
Being able to pick out individual fist-sized potatoes at 100 yards with my Kahles was educational, to say the least.
Prior to that hunt, I worked in the sporting goods arena. One of the lines we carried was Leica. I still have some of those scopes from back around 2000. Good, clear glass and great coatings. Fast forward to today's offerings and my Sig Whiskey 5, Minox HD5 and Zeiss HD5's all have as good or better, glass and coatings than did those 'ancient' Leica's.
I've taken all of these out in the dark just to see what can be seen. All give you enough light transmission (actually, light flow-through) to allow you to tell a buck from a doe out to 100 yards at your feeder. In heavy brush or overhanging trees, not so much.
Like you, I don't care for any scope with the illumination. Good, quality optics cost some money, but in the nearly 18 years since those Leica's hit the market, optics companies have really stepped up their game and brought out some really good stuff and for a lot less than what retail was on those Leica's back then.
Look at some of the following in your price range and I'd wager you'll find something that will give you what you're after:
Leica (on sale, of course)
Minox
Sig Whiskey 5 series
Zeiss Conquest or DL series
Bushnell and Leupold in their 'upper' end series

Good luck!

 

[drmajor]

I found a Trijicon AccuPower 2.5-10x56. Glass looks good. Have not mounted it yet, so will have to see you it works in the woods. \
The Vortex Crossfire was my second choice. Feel the Trijicon is better glass.

Now I gotta buy some really tall scope rings.. that don't go for high price.

 

[cdb1]

I found a Trijicon AccuPower 2.5-10x56. Glass looks good. Have not mounted it yet, so will have to see you it works in the woods. \
The Vortex Crossfire was my second choice. Feel the Trijicon is better glass.

Now I gotta buy some really tall scope rings.. that don't go for high price.

In my non scientific based experience, European scopes tend to be better in low light than Pacific Rim manufactured scopes. There are exceptions of course, such as the better scopes made by LOW in Japan. I’ve also noticed a huge improvement in Leupold low light performance in recent years.

To my eyes the worst low light scopes are Nikon and Vortex. The best bang for your buck low light scope for me is the Meopta MeoPro line. If I had the money I would run Leica almost exclusively. People use different criteria as to which scopes best fit their needs. At the top of my list is low light performance because I’ve shot the vast majority of my game in low light. If I were ringing gongs at 800 yards my criteria would be different.

 

[hq]

I hunted in Finland a few years back. Their hunting 'day' is basically 24/7. (or it was then).

Still is, like in most European countries. Like you described, that's a major factor for choosing a scope for many or even most hunters and it has resulted in local manufacturers spending a lot of money on R&D developing better glass and coatings with low light performance in mind. Schott HT glass and the latest proprietary coatings are the hottest combination at the moment and yes, the latest offerings from high-end manufacturers are visibly better than anything on the market ten short years ago.

On the other hand, resale value of high-end glass is great, up to 80%+ of retail prices, so once you've bought a quality scope upgrading to the latest model doesn't necessarily set you back that much. I rarely if ever buy second hand scopes but lightly used Zeiss scopes are in such demand that I'm happy to watch people outbid each other in a frenzy on eBay for whatever I'm unloading.