need some fellow hunter advice. I got a new deer rifle and shots in the woods are 100yards if lucky and less but fields could reach 100-150yards if the 45-70 is capable of that. right now I just have Nikon prostaffs but part of me says go with something a little more clearer but another part of me says save the money. would say a leupold vx2 be worth the extra cash then a Nikon prostaff or leupold vx1 for hunting in ohio? I have honestly not shot a deer at last light so never had an issue yet with a Nikon but just trying to prepare incase that happens.
thick woods and scopes?
- Thread starter Axis II
- Start date
- Status
Well if you're not wanting to run irons, I suggest taking your current scope out at dusk and just glassing around. If it's not enough to give you enough confidence, then sure swap out, but if it IS then we shouldn't tell you how to spend your money, at those distances, I've planted plenty of game with ye olde iron sighted .30-30. I think if you're in the light shooting into the shadows near dark, you may have some troubles, but I think you should at least go give it a look first.
Im sure some of the more enlightened scope guys will be along, with a better answer, but from my experience of shooting pigs in papaya field right at dark the nikon SHOULD be enough.
I dont think the Vx1s will offer you much more in terms of light gathering, or shooting time. The better coatings and better resolution of a vx2 might.
On the guns i now use for shooting late in the day, or for night hunting when doing game control, I have Simmons Whitetail Expedition 3-9x42 (which may be the best scope line simmons ever put out), and a Weaver V9 3-9x50. Both of those scope deliver plenty of light, but are not as good at resolving dark on dark images as my Nikon Buckmasters, or the vx2-3 class leupolds ive had, and a far cry from some of the nicer, and larger scopes Ive used.
BUT, they do get the job done.
I dont think the Vx1s will offer you much more in terms of light gathering, or shooting time. The better coatings and better resolution of a vx2 might.
On the guns i now use for shooting late in the day, or for night hunting when doing game control, I have Simmons Whitetail Expedition 3-9x42 (which may be the best scope line simmons ever put out), and a Weaver V9 3-9x50. Both of those scope deliver plenty of light, but are not as good at resolving dark on dark images as my Nikon Buckmasters, or the vx2-3 class leupolds ive had, and a far cry from some of the nicer, and larger scopes Ive used.
BUT, they do get the job done.
nettlle
Contributing Member
On my muzzleloader and 12 slug gun I have Leupold 3x9 compacts. I have owned three of these scopes for decades and they have been trouble free and crystal clear. These are what works best for me in the woods of SE Ohio and at home too.
I've done a lot of woodland deer hunting. My first scope was a 4x32 East German Ziess with the German #1 reticule. That scope sat on top of a Brno 601 .243. Shot a lot deer with that rifle, scope combo. I used a Ziess variable 1.5-6x42 on my Heym-Ruger for over 35 years.Killed over 60 deer a year, plus a load of park deer and the scope never once came of six power. This Scope accounted for a lot of Fallow deer and fox's at very last light I have a Big Schmidt & Bender 3-10x50 on my Mauser. A huge scope thats like having a 2 litre bottle of coke mounted on the rifle. I don't like the S&B for deer hunting, but its good for boar at night.
I have 2 Favorite scope for woodland stalking. A Meopta 1-4x22 R1,also my driven game scope, and the scope on my combi, a Kahles 2.3-7x32 with #1 reticule from 1976. It's the clearest scope i own. After Over 45 years of woodland deer hunting I prefer the smaller, lower magnification scopes.
I have 2 Favorite scope for woodland stalking. A Meopta 1-4x22 R1,also my driven game scope, and the scope on my combi, a Kahles 2.3-7x32 with #1 reticule from 1976. It's the clearest scope i own. After Over 45 years of woodland deer hunting I prefer the smaller, lower magnification scopes.
FL-NC
Member
For the distance a good fixed 4x should be fine. The ACOG used by the Army and USMC in desert combat is a 4X, and we made successful engagements on people a lot further than 150 yards with them. Or you can get a 3-9 Bushnell banner for under $100- just keep it on a lower power setting. The plus is that it has an illuminated reticle, which would come in handy during poor light.
I think the VX-2 is a better scope. But not necessarily better in low light. I'd think a 1-4X20 VX-1 or VX-2 depnding on budget would be perfect for your rifle. But the scope you have would probably work just as well. I'd use it for now, if you decide to upgrade later you can.
There are 4 things you need to know about low light optics.
#1, Exit pupil size. This is determined by taking the scopes front objective size in mm's and dividing by the scopes magnification. This will tell you the diameter of the beam of light exiting the rear of the scope and entering your eye. The larger (up to a point) the better. A 1-4X20 scope set on 4X will have a 5mm beam of light exiting the rear of the scope. A 4X scope with a 40mm front objective will have a 10mm beam of light hitting your eye and be much brighter. At least in theory.
#2, Your eyes limits. A person still in their 20's with good vision can open up their pupil enough to allow 6-7 mm of light to enter the eye. Once you start to get into your 40's or older your eyes simply don't work as well and about 5mm is all you can use. A scope that has an exit pupil of greater than 6-7mm is wasted on everyone, and above about 5mm on most of us. I'd want a scope, or binoculars for that matter with an exit pupil size of at least 5mm for low light use. In bright sunlight lower numbers work fine.
#3, The more magnification, the easier to see in low light. Unless your front objective is too small. Going to larger front objectives has trade off's. A 40mm objective is just fine when set on 6X-7X or less, but is pretty useless above 8X in low light. A 20mm objective works well at 1X or 2X and is just barely acceptable at 4X. Going up to a 50mm objective doesn't really help on lower magnifications since the extra light is wasted, but at 8X or 9X does offer some advantage over a 40mm scope. At 10X or more, it isn't any better than a 40mm scope.
The 3-9X40's are the most popular for a reason. They are a great compromise. On 3X magnification isn't too much for close shots, they work well in low light as long as not set on the maximum magnification, are reasonably light and compact and are value leaders.
#4, Light transmission rating. These can be hard to find, especially with low end scopes, but is really the most important. The exit pupil rating tells you how large the beam of light is coming through the scope, but nothing about how bright it is. Most of the cheaper scopes are in the 80-85% range. Meaning 15-20% of the light entering the front of the scope is lost and never reaches your eye. Moving up to the mid level $200-$300 scopes you see numbers in the upper 80's and low 90% range. The biggest difference in the $400-$600 scopes is light transmission ratings around 95%.
There are 4 things you need to know about low light optics.
#1, Exit pupil size. This is determined by taking the scopes front objective size in mm's and dividing by the scopes magnification. This will tell you the diameter of the beam of light exiting the rear of the scope and entering your eye. The larger (up to a point) the better. A 1-4X20 scope set on 4X will have a 5mm beam of light exiting the rear of the scope. A 4X scope with a 40mm front objective will have a 10mm beam of light hitting your eye and be much brighter. At least in theory.
#2, Your eyes limits. A person still in their 20's with good vision can open up their pupil enough to allow 6-7 mm of light to enter the eye. Once you start to get into your 40's or older your eyes simply don't work as well and about 5mm is all you can use. A scope that has an exit pupil of greater than 6-7mm is wasted on everyone, and above about 5mm on most of us. I'd want a scope, or binoculars for that matter with an exit pupil size of at least 5mm for low light use. In bright sunlight lower numbers work fine.
#3, The more magnification, the easier to see in low light. Unless your front objective is too small. Going to larger front objectives has trade off's. A 40mm objective is just fine when set on 6X-7X or less, but is pretty useless above 8X in low light. A 20mm objective works well at 1X or 2X and is just barely acceptable at 4X. Going up to a 50mm objective doesn't really help on lower magnifications since the extra light is wasted, but at 8X or 9X does offer some advantage over a 40mm scope. At 10X or more, it isn't any better than a 40mm scope.
The 3-9X40's are the most popular for a reason. They are a great compromise. On 3X magnification isn't too much for close shots, they work well in low light as long as not set on the maximum magnification, are reasonably light and compact and are value leaders.
#4, Light transmission rating. These can be hard to find, especially with low end scopes, but is really the most important. The exit pupil rating tells you how large the beam of light is coming through the scope, but nothing about how bright it is. Most of the cheaper scopes are in the 80-85% range. Meaning 15-20% of the light entering the front of the scope is lost and never reaches your eye. Moving up to the mid level $200-$300 scopes you see numbers in the upper 80's and low 90% range. The biggest difference in the $400-$600 scopes is light transmission ratings around 95%.
Bull Nutria
Member
I suggest a variable power scope. I have used 1.75 x 4.5, 2x7 and 3x9scopes. I sight them in at 100 yds at highest power. when I hunt I keep them on lowest power. If by chance you get a long shot you usually have time to dial up to higher power. anyway that is my strategy, I have used, Bushnell, Tasco, Leopold , Redfield,Nikon,and Vortex scopes. I have never paid more than $250 for a scope. most have been under $150. Bushnell has replaced several scopes that failed over the years. I have not had a leupold fail yet. It is good time to be in the market for scopes most of the companies have a no questions asked warranty and are in competition. I have been using scopes for 50 years.
LA has mostly thick brushy woods with the occasion pipeline right of way or power line ROW. where longer shots frequently occur. Buy once cry once especially applies to scopes. A Nikon prostaff is an adequate scope I doubt a much more expensive scope would improve low light shoot very much.
Good luck hunting!
Bull
LA has mostly thick brushy woods with the occasion pipeline right of way or power line ROW. where longer shots frequently occur. Buy once cry once especially applies to scopes. A Nikon prostaff is an adequate scope I doubt a much more expensive scope would improve low light shoot very much.
Good luck hunting!
Bull
Patocazador
Member
IMO the main reason to buy a Leupold or Burris scope is their lifetime, no questions asked warranties. I have had to have two Leupolds replaced (free) recently because of adjustment problems and yellowing of the lenses.
However, I would not toss any of my Nikon, Bushnell, or Redfield scopes just to trade them for a Leupold or Burris or Zeiss or ...................
However, I would not toss any of my Nikon, Bushnell, or Redfield scopes just to trade them for a Leupold or Burris or Zeiss or ...................
EIB0879
Member
My favorite rig for thicker woods is a Marlin 336 with a Vortex Viper 2-7x 32mm with the Versa plex C3 reticle. The C3 reticle is a open circle type reticle and I can pick it up if I have enough light to shoot. Unfortunately Vortex doesn't make that combo in the Viper anymore but I'm sure there are similiar ones out there.
The Leupold pig plex is kinda similar, as are the reticles on some of the shotgun type scopes.
The leupold illuminated vxr-hog 1.25-4x20 is on my list of wanna try scopes, but thats a much more expensive scope.
huntsman
Member
I'm using a Leupold 3x9 vari-x on a Ultra Slug hunter and while it can be a hindrance in really thick cover it has been a blessing overall. My son has the same setup as you and I believe it will give him years of service. If I were to just hunt in heavy cover I'd opt for a red dot but the mixed woodlands l own a scope is a better choice.
what part of ohio you in? I go from 20min from the lake all the way to WV so it can be fields to hollars.
Captcurt
Member
Same here. I have had a 2X7 vx-II on a 300 WSM for 20 years and never had a problem, but I have never had a problem with a NIkon either. I have a 2X7 and a couple of 3X9's Prostaffs and, to tell the truth, I see no difference in clarity between them and my Leupold. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
huntsman
Member
Ashtabula county
MidRoad
Member
Shots under 150? Leupold 1-4 vx hog or vx2 are perfect for that 45-70. My brother runs that setup up here in the thick stuff and loves his. I have a Weaver 1-3 on my 336 and love that too. If there's not enough light to see the deer in that 20mm tube, you probably shouldn't be shooting anyways. Might be able to find a used Nikon African 1-5 30mm scope on eBay too.
I feel that what you gain in field of view and the ease of getting off a quicker shot that comes with lower power scopes out weigh the few minutes you loose to the light gathering ability higher mag scopes. Now if you were shooting 3-400 yards with a flat shooting rifle than a 2-7 or 3-9 would definitely be a better choice. Rarely do you even need more than 4 power on deer sized critters.
I feel that what you gain in field of view and the ease of getting off a quicker shot that comes with lower power scopes out weigh the few minutes you loose to the light gathering ability higher mag scopes. Now if you were shooting 3-400 yards with a flat shooting rifle than a 2-7 or 3-9 would definitely be a better choice. Rarely do you even need more than 4 power on deer sized critters.
Last edited:
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,078
Odds are you would be served just as well with $150(MSRP) Nikon Pro-Staff, 2X7X32 as the $390(MSRP) Leupold VX2, 2X7X33. IMHO, you do not need anything bigger than 2X7 on a 150 yard deer rifle. Like skoghund I prefer lower power scopes for woods hunting. The Nikon boasts a lifetime warranty and up to 98% light transmission. Most good LGS's have both to compare. I have both Nikons and Leupolds on my guns and both are excellent scopes. A 2X7 Pro-Staff sits on top of my 77/44 and I've yet to wish I had better glass on it.
Captcurt
Member
On close shots in brush a low power works best. The only reason that I would turn up the magnification is to count points. We have a 3 point rule here in my area and the extra zoom helps. Seldom go over 4 power in the brush though.
langenc
Member
Low power w/ rather heavy reticle--something plex or dot for the late eve shots.
I can swing a vx2 for around $180 and a Nikon for about $100. Ill have to go to my range around dark with my Nikon and see how it is.
- Status
