Low light comparison of 10 scopes

[Formidilosus]

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

Sure. But that really wasn’t the reason for this, or at least not the entire reason, and three of the five most useful scopes in this group were FFP- SWFA 3-9x, 3-15x, and ZP5. One does not have to suffer SFP to get a usable reticle on low power.

The main thing is- “does the difference from decent to good “glass”, to “really good glass” change what can be shot in low light? The answer is no- once decent brightness and clarity has been achieved, the failure is alsmit never due to “glass”. In one S2H class last year, guys were shooting over an hour after sunset (in the dark), and the determiner of who had trouble was reticle- not who was shooting the best “glass”.

Then the question becomes what is the failure? And that is primarily driven by reticle. SFP isn’t a cure all for this- there are lots of bad SFP reticles. Not many people complain about Leupold’s standard duplex in their scopes- yet the MQ reticle in the SWFA 3-9x is twice as thick on the outer bars, which is what centers you eye. The out bars on the SWFA 6x, 10x and 3-15x, are also as thick or thicker. The only real way to improve on the MQ reticle for low light, woods use is to bring the outer posts to 3 mils or so from center instead of 6.

 

[TxLite]

If I’m being honest, I just turn on my illumination if the light is low. Being able to tell buck/doe is important and where I hunt the bucks need to have a 13” spread or 1 unbranched antler. As long as the illumination doesn’t wash out the image the ability to make out my target is more important to me than focusing on some of the minutia between reticles w/o illumination.

That being said I’ve been very happy with my sfp 50mm tenmile for low light (with illumination set low).

 

[Mtndawger]

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

I have had my eye on the Steiner H6xi 2-12x42. I think that reticle is an attempt to do what the OP is pushing for. Those thick lines would most likely direct your eye toward center on low light at low power. My only issue with it is that the top of the vertical post should be more like 2or 3 moa from center not 1 moa. I hunted with a Trijicon that had a triangle on top of a post and hated how it distracted field of view. And the MIL version is a complete joke with those .1 mil hash marks. Other than that it is really well built and relatively light @ 23-24 oz. Don’t know if it will hold zero.

 

[FB Trout]

Thank you for taking the time and considerable effort to do this, it is much appreciated.

 

[prm]

Thanks for sharing. In my many comparisons, the conclusion I’ve come to is any scope with glass equal to or better than a Burris FFII or Leupold VX2, and a ~40mm obj or greater, is likely adequate for hunting +\-30 min. However, not many reticles will enable quick, easy aiming at last light. Even some illuminated reticles are mechanized such that quickly having proper illumination can be difficult (if not already on and set).

 

[bbell]

@Formidilosus my last post I didn’t pose my question very well.
If your normal hunting time was an hour after sunset instead of 30min do think the 8x56 would be the way to go over the smaller objectives?
Thanks for doing these reviews and comparisons.