Low light comparison of 10 scopes

[Formidilosus]

There are always constant threads of discussions about “glass”, low light use, etc of scopes here. The last couple of week I have gotten many more questions about it (due I believe to SWFA being back in stock), so while working with a couple of scopes on other things, I brought out 10 different ones (6x day, 10x low light) to see what difference there is.

Eval #1 was daylight:

1). Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x44mm- 2 years old, more than 5,000 rounds of use.

2). Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44mm- 1.5 years old, more then 3,000 rounds of use

3). SWFA SS 6x- two years old, 2,000+ rounds through it

4). SWFA 3-9x- 11’ish years old, more than 150,000 rounds on it. The lenses are noticeably worn.

5). SWFA 10x- 1 years old, more than 2,000 rounds on it

6). SWFA 3-15x- 1 year old, more than 2,000 rounds on it


The first task was getting each focused to my eye correctly. Then, focusing them on a specific scaly barked tree at approx 90 yards, through the timber and in the shade. Once that was done, they were setup side by side on a box without me touching them. I went back and forth and compared each to the others- but primarily used the Trijicon Tenmile as the standard that the others were compared against.

All scope were first set on 9x when comparing against the 3-9x SWFA, with the parallax removed, except that the SWFA 3-9x is parralax free where set at between 130-150 yards. Otherwise they were compared at 10x to match the fixed 10x SWFA. The obvious exception to this is the fixed 6x, and the scopes were set to 6x when compared against it.

The main impetuous for this is the oft repeated trope about how “bad” the glass is in SWFA’s. The general notes of how they compare to the Trijicon Tenmile are below. These were written in the moment as I went.



SWFA10x42mm Side focus Versus Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x44: “Trijicon ever so slightly sharper in center, every item- twig, or small (less than 1/2”) of bark that can be seen with one, can be seen with the other, but the Tenmile is ever so slightly crisper. The Tenmile has noticeably smaller FOV at 10x, and slightly more critical head position”.




SWFA 3-15x versus Trijicon 3-18x = “SWFA slightly less color pop, a bit softer image. Every item than can been seen with the Tenmile can be seen with the SWFA regardless of how small”



SWFA 3-9x versus Trijicon 3-18x on 9x- “SWFA 3-9x is softer/less contrast overall. Tiny twigs and small pieces (less than 1/2”) of bark scale can be seen, but in the SWFA it is just softer on the edges”.



Maven RS1.2 versus Trijicon 3-18x = “RS1.2 slightly brighter, slightly sharper overall. However, depending on what was looked at, sometimes the Trijicon would produce slightly more definition”. Overall, these two were near the same and differences are probably sample to sample variations.


SWFA 6x versus the Trijicon 3-18x set on 6x- “nearly indistinguishable. The SWFA has better FOV and eyebox, and if anything the SWFA may be better all around the image- though it could be because of the better eyebox and FOV”.



Then I redid each scope, but with parralax set to 150 yards to match the SWFA 3-9x


My note at the bottom of this portion: “All are at 9x or 10x with parallax removed. With all parallax set at 150 yards- they are nearly the same- all exhibit bit of softness to the image; the only noticeable real difference is mostly FOV and eyebox. When set to 6x the SWFA 6x was the most pleasing overall to use- FOV, eyebox, reticle”.





Eval #2 was conducted in low light. Same setup, which is in a 30 yard opening, surrounded by tall timber. Facing east, into the timber at between 40-80 yards away. The sun sets behind a mountain at this location 35 minutes before legal sunset. At legal shooting light (sunset +30min), the sun has set 1 hour and 5 minutes before- it’s dark here.


Added a few scopes to the list. Scope list was now:

1). Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x44mm MRAD Precision Tree reticle- 2 years old, more than 5,000 rounds of use.

2). Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44mm SHR-Mil reticle- 1.5 years old and more then 3,000 rounds of use

3). SWFA SS 6x42mm MQ retcle- two years old, 2,000+ rounds through it

4). SWFA 3-9x42mm MQ reticle- 11’ish years old, more than 150,000 rounds on it. The lenses are noticeably worn.

5). SWFA 10x MQ reticle- 1 years old, more than 2,000 rounds on it

6). SWFA 3-15x MQ reticle- 1 year old, more than 2,000 rounds on it

7). Minox ZP5 5-25x56mm THLR reticle- 3 years old, well over 3,000 rounds of use

8). S&B 8x56mm A7 reticle- 6+ years old, unknown round count

9). Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x44mm SHR-Mil reticle- 1 year old and close to 3,000 rounds of use

10). ZCO 4-20x50mm MOCT1 reticle- 1 years old, less than 1,000 rounds of use.



Started at legal sunset. Light level when started was enough that with your naked eye you could see a deer in the timber at 40-60 yards, but not tell sex (buck or doe). For the people in the SE USA, think thick woods 15’ish minutes after legal sunset.

Note: the magnification listed is the lowest that allowed correct aiming to the center of a deers chest- this can be either by seeing the center of the reticle, or by bracketing with the thick outer posts. Think the ability to consistently hit a 6-8” target. Objects viewed were deer and goats.


SWFA 6x- “can tell sex, and aim without issue”

SWFA 3-9x- “can tell sex, and aim without issue from 3-9x”

SWFA 10x- “can tell sex, and aim without issue”

SWFA 3-15x - “can tell sex, and aim without issue from 3-15x”

Trijicon 3-18x Tenmile- “can tell sex from 3-18x, but need 6’ish X to aim without issue”

Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x (both)- can tell sex, and aim from 2.5-15x, though at 2.5x the reticle is a bit thin: at 4x and above- no issues at all”

S&B 8x56mm- “can tell sex, and aim without issue”

ZCO 4-20x- “can tell sex from 4-20x, cannot aim at all without illumination below 8x”

Minox ZP5 5-25x- “can tell sex, and aim without issue from 5-25x”



Conclusions at legal sunset: “glass” differences in the timber made no difference in ability to make a shot- none whatsoever with these scopes. Reticles however, made a very large difference. The worst performing scope was the ZCO 4-20x due the reticle. The second worst was the Trijicon 3-18x due the reticle. The Maven RS1.2 was perfectly functional, but the reticle was getting a bit thin at 2.5x. The SWFA’s and S&B were all the same functionally, that is- zero issues whatsoever. The “best” was the Minox ZP5 due the reticle- though functionally it wasn’t much different than the SWFA’s, S&B 8x, and Maven when at 4x.





Cont…..

 

[Formidilosus]

Eval #3, last legal light:
This one started at legal sunset +30min (the sun at this positions had set 1 hour and 5 min before)- it is very dark here. Unless a deer is moving in the lighter areas, you can not see it with your naked eye. For the people in the SE USA, think the deepest, darkest swamp at 30-60 minutes after legal sunset. It was just barley light enough to see anything at all.

Note: the magnification listed is the lowest that allowed correct aiming to the center of a deers chest- this can be either by seeing the center of the reticle, or by bracketing with the thick outer posts. Think the ability to consistently hit a 6-8” target. Objects viewed were deer and goats.


SWFA 6x- “can maybe tell sex, can aim”

SWFA 3-9x- “can maybe tell sex, can aim at just over 5x”

SWFA 10x- “cannot tell sex, but can aim, though barely able to see enough due to exit pupil at 10x ”

SWFA 3-15x - “can maybe tell sex, can aim at just over 5x”

Trijicon 3-18x Tenmile- “can maybe tell sex, need 9x to aim at all, though even at 9x without illumination it’s iffy. Also barely able to see well enough due to exit pupil at 9x. With illumination at lowest setting, can aim at 3x, though it’s getting iffy to see target due to all the red in the reticle washing out the background”

Maven RS1.2 2.5-15x (both)- can maybe tell sex, need 8x to aim without illumination. Image is getting dark due to exit pupil at 8x. With Illumination on lower setting, can aim at 2.5x and above”

S&B 8x56mm- “can tell sex, can aim with little issue”

ZCO 4-20x- “can tell sex from 5’ish x and above, cannot aim at all without illumination- 100% useless without illumination. Illumination control is good, and can aim from 4x and above when on lowest visible settings, though does wash the image out a bit”.

Minox ZP5 5-25x- “can tell sex, and aim without issue from 5x and above. Illumination is excellent due to just the center dot being a pin prick of barely visible light”.

Scopes with magnification set to where required to aim without illumination-




Conclusion: Reticles are the difference between any decent scope- glass differences played no part in being able to see an animal, and only a very tiny part in maybe being able to tell if if had antlers or not. Except for the Minox, ZCO, and S&B, none had a bright enough image to tell sex to a high enough confidence factor that I would take the shot if that mattered- but even with those three, 8x and 10x binos were better and easier to ID with.

As has happened every time it has been tested with people and actually shooting animal targets instead of looking through them at a piece of paper at a range; in all legal low light in the timber; there is very, very little difference in ability to aim due to glass from any but the absolute pennicle of scopes- that is scopes specifically made (in Germany mostly) for hunting animals at night without artificial light.
A poor reticle turns the greatest glass in the world into a paper weight. Conversely, a bold, good reticle where the thick outer posts come close together- turns decent, but not spectacular glass into a fully functional aiming device.


Between the SWFA’s, the Trijicon Tenmile, and the Maven RS1.2’s- if I had to bet my life on being able to make a shot in low light without illumination, it would be between the 6x and 3-9x SWFA’s. The cheapest two scopes….

The ZCO while have excellent image quality, is not at all a general purpose huntings scope, and I wouldn’t label it a huntings cope at all. The reticle is useless in lower light without illumination.

The S&B 8x56mm was specifically designed and made for shooting animals at night without artificial light in Europe… and it shows. This scope consistently beats out nearly everything in the lowest light, and as a eastern low light scope it may be the best currently available that isn’t $3,000. If I were a dedicated SE whitetail hunter again, I would chose this and get their BDC turret added.


The Minox ZP5 with THLR reticle again showed to be in a class completely by itself in ability to resolve enough information to make shots. The most common first statement that comes out of people’s mouth when they compare it with other scopes like this in lower light is something akin to- “ah what the fuc…”. I have not personably seen a better scope from anyone that is more able to make shots anytime of the day or nigh. Potentially Zeiss or S&B’s best large objectives may be as bright or possibly brighter- I haven’t used them recently. But no Swarovski including the Z5/6/8’s and X5’s, no S&B that I have seen, no Zeiss has topped it. Some scope for sure have comparable “glass”, but none I would choose over the ZP5 THLR if I had to make shots no matter what.

 

[Formidilosus]

Save.

 

[The Harbor Master]

@Formidilosus Thanks for taking the time to do these detailed evals and write ups for us, it is appreciated and helpful.

 

[Southern Lights]

The vast majority of FFP scope reticles are worthless for common hunting mag ranges in the 4-8X region, especially on dark backgrounds/areas. They are made for people shooting small groups at long ranges on clear days. The wider the mag range of the scope, the worse they get.

 

[Gstew1930]

i wish they would make a smaller ZP5. i've almost pulled the trigger on this a couple of times. 34oz is just more than i want to carry

 

[Long Cut]

As a Georgia deer hunter consistently plagued with low light encounters, I do appreciate this comparison. I have had great luck with my SWFA 3-9 so far and will be adding an S&B 2.5-10x56 in the near future.

I will add that my SWFA 5-20x50 does well but is bulky and heavy.

 

[HuntHarder]

Nice comparison, thanks. I think it could give you better results and maybe separate some scopes from each other at longer range. I know looking thru some of my scopes I see a pretty clear difference at low light. Does it stop me from making the shot? In some cases yes, in most no.

 

[kkp005]

Great comparison. Appreciate your time and effort

 

[Mike D Texas]

Very nice write up. Thanks for taking the time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[SDHNTR]

If you were a deep woods hunter wouldn’t you just buy an SFP scope? Or stick with a fixed power?

 

[Macintosh]

If you were a deep woods hunter wouldn’t you just buy an SFP scope? Or stick with a fixed power?

Yes, but.
I am one. I prefer a variable, but that may be more preference than objectivity. It certainly has been easier to find scopes that I feel are ideal for the use in 2fp. However, I think there’s a legit demand for “crossover” scopes that if not ideal for either situation, are COMFORTABLE (or better), both in dark woods and in open areas where longer shots are possible or even likely. For me thats because I travel to hunt in the west sometimes and I want That rifle to be more than just “passable” at home. For others it may be that they sometimes still-hunt and track in the woods, and sometimes sit on the edge of a cut corn field or a vly.

 

[stooxie]

Thank you for confirming that all these crazy reticles don't help at all. It's another effect of the market trying to increase sales by pushing everything long-distance. The Steiner scopes come to mind, the H (hunter) series-- they look like excellent scopes but not a single one has a "normal" reticle for hunting. It's a non-starter.

The German 4a reticle is the best one I've ever used, but it's like most scope manufacturers, certainly the American ones, won't touch it out of general principle. How can you market it as long distance if you don't have a Christmas tree reticle?

-Stooxie

 

[Article 4]

Save.

Nice test...it seems your tests shows during low light daylight hours, say magic hour in the AM and PM, the scopes all worked well with some varying differences, perhaps due to objective size, perhaps quality of materials, maybe optics coatings. To be expected in those hunting and shooting conditions. At what today we would consider mid range magnification.

The differences seem to be in:

• the optics coatings and how they affect the clarity and color - might make a difference in some varying backgrounds
• the ability to gather that last bit of light and the clarity of the reticle in that environment - bigger better scopes did better, generally
• Higher quality - like S&B had better results which it should for a scope that is 40-50% more expensive and in some cases 100% more expensive - as we should expect. Buy once, cry once.
• The higher the magnification of some of the scopes and you lose both reticle clarity and ability to see. Not an issue for close in shooting in open ground - perhaps an issue in dark timber or LR ranges
• surprised at your statement about making a shot at low light, the cheapest two scopes were best?
• wonder what would have taken place at full max magnification for all scopes. Some scopes lose a lot of ability when dialed that high

Its nice to see a decent test. We have all seen test using instruments and results that are hard to understand, which is great but at the end of the day, what we see with our eye in the real world is what matters.

 

[JGRaider]

Any decent $300+ scope will get you to legal shooting light nowadays. The difference has always been whether it's got a usable reticle or not.

 

[bbell]

Thanks Form, that is helpful. I am in the UK now where legal shooting light is an hour either side of sunrise/sunset. I’m applying for my firearms license and was considering bringing one of my SWFAs over when I get a rifle. But am not sure with the extra time past sunset. I can get a used 8x56 S&B or Ziess for about £300, but cannot dial them. Probably do both at some point

 

[stooxie]

Any decent $300+ scope will get you to legal shooting light nowadays. The difference has always been whether it's got a usable reticle or not.

I remember the late Chuck Hawks used to say that most scopes run out of reticle long before they run out of light.

It's kinda hilarious and sadly ironic that the $4,000 "Zero Compromise Optic" has the least usable reticle in low light. I guess they had to make a compromise, afterall....

-Stooxie

 

[JGRaider]

Agreed. A few years ago when we were knee deep into the guiding thing, S&B's fit the same description...amazing glass and reticles that sucked in low light, deep brush. NF was the same way. Nowadays my much maligned (by RS anyway) Arken EP4's will smack hogs on a full moonlit night.

 

[Glory]

I don’t have a legal shooting light. In my testing the 10x SWFA was horrible. You couldn’t see through the thing well before all other scopes.

6x’s were ok and you lost the reticle before you lost the ability to see through the scope.

Variable scopes let you dial the magnification down to keep seeing as light fades.

Nice thing about this kind of testing is anyone can do it at home on any particular evening with the scopes you have.

 

[Article 4]

I remember the late Chuck Hawks used to say that most scopes run out of reticle long before they run out of light.

It's kinda hilarious and sadly ironic that the $4,000 "Zero Compromise Optic" has the least usable reticle in low light. I guess they had to make a compromise, afterall....

-Stooxie

Yeah I guess how I think about that is what I use my high power scopes for...there is no such thing as the only scope for every need. But if a scope gives me 90% of what I need, ill take a small amount of reticle challenge at 4 power over anything else.

If I was back east hunting less than two or three hundred yards, 4 to 12 is probably fine. Probably stay in the 4-8x range a lot and being able to see a bigger SFP reticle or the like is important.

The S&B isnt really made to run at 4 power. Or maybe even 6 power.
Where I hunt 80% of the time out west here, I run high end FFP scopes - rarely do I run them at 4 or 5 or 6 where the reticle can be small to see, although the ocular adjustment makes a huge difference, and I don't feel like I have been limited at all. Where I consistently run them and take shots - 10+ power, IME it is ideal with a great size to the reticle and complete clarity - even up to full 24 or 25 power! I lose absolutely nothing and gain a lot of light, clarity, and reticle utilization over the entry level stuff - we have seen this first hand in guys that show up in camp with a 500 dollar scope. When compared side by side, the cannot see nearly as well unless it is at 11 am with the sun behind them at 12 power. Anything else and they are already losing.