Low light comparison of 10 scopes

[pacoalcracker]

Thanks for taking the time, however it would have been nice if a few Leupolds were in the line-up as most know their glass is quite good. Most think Leupold could do better in the reliability segment, but perhaps the others could also learn a few things about superior optical quality and reticle design from Leupold. You have to see it to be able to hit it. Maybe next time be a bit fairer in that line-up for everyone's benefit, including those that like Leupold. I'm betting a dollar to a donut Leupold would have shined quite well in comparison....but RS could never give any credit to a manufacturer they absolutely hate. They wouldn't want to have to send a note along to SWFA to up their game in optical quality. It might raise the price of a SWFA to over 300 bucks...LOL.

 

[Tod osier]

Thanks for taking the time, however it would have been nice if a few Leupolds were in the line-up as most know their glass is quite good. Most think Leupold could do better in the reliability segment, but perhaps the others could also learn a few things about superior optical quality and reticle design from Leupold. You have to see it to be able to hit it. Maybe next time be a bit fairer in that line-up for everyone's benefit, including those that like Leupold. I'm betting a dollar to a donut Leupold would have shined quite well in comparison....but RS could never give any credit to a manufacturer they absolutely hate. They wouldn't want to have to send a note along to SWFA to up their game in optical quality. It might raise the price of a SWFA to over 300 bucks...LOL.

Thais is a test anyone can do, why don't you have at it?!?!

 

[fwafwow]

Thais is a test anyone can do, why don't you have at it?!?!

Exactly. Or he can send one of his in for comparison.

 

[Johnwell]

…They wouldn't want to have to send a note along to SWFA to up their game in optical quality…

If you’ve never looked through an HD, just say so buddy.

 

[Skydog]

Rookie question here...and also a question from someone who has never owned a scope with an illuminated reticle, but who is about to purchase a Trijicon Credo with illumination...

For someone who anticipates taking shots at deer during low light scenarios, why wouldn't an illuminated reticle be the best option? Wouldn't this be a huge advantage in low light scenarios? And even if the illumination wasn't working (dead battery/malfunction), wouldn't it still be as good as hunting with a non-illuminated scope, i.e. you'd still have a reticle, just not an illuminated one, right?

 

[Macintosh]

Rookie question here...and also a question from someone who has never owned a scope with an illuminated reticle, but who is about to purchase a Trijicon Credo with illumination...

For someone who anticipates taking shots at deer during low light scenarios, why wouldn't an illuminated reticle be the best option? Wouldn't this be a huge advantage in low light scenarios? And even if the illumination wasn't working (dead battery/malfunction), wouldn't it still be as good as hunting with a non-illuminated scope, i.e. you'd still have a reticle, just not an illuminated one, right?

It probably is, its just highly dependent on the illumination and the reticle. If the illumination is too bright—and it takes extremely little illumination to be too bright, many dont go low enough—then it will wash out the image, and you cant see what youre trying to shoot at. Also if there is any bleed on the illumination it does the same. Its difficult to get the illumination set correctly beforehand as the light is rapidly fading, so its often on too-bright of a setting when you need it unless you already know what setting you need or you start from setting 1.

Yes, if the illumination fails then you simply have a (heavier, more expensive) non-illuminated scope.

To me most illuminated reticles that Ive actually used in the field are good for very busy backgrounds where the reticle is amidst clutter, more so than for extremely dark conditions. Either that or they make a FFP reticle thats too fine to use at lower magnifications more visible.

 

[Skydog]

Yes, if the illumination fails then you simply have a (heavier, more expensive) non-illuminated scope.

Actually, I'm looking at the Trijicon Credo 3-9X40 Standard Duplex (illuminated) in comparison to the Trijicon Huron Standard Duplex 3-9X40 (non-illuminated), and even though they both supposedly have the Standard Duplex reticles... the reticles are not the same. The thin, center cross hair section on the Credo looks much larger than the one on the Huron. So, would the Huron be better in low light compared to the Credo (if the illumination is turned off/not working)? And would the Huron be better during normal daylight scenarios?

 

[Macintosh]

I havent used a duplex huron so I cant really compare, sorry. I had a credo, the thin center section of that reticle is wider than any other duplex Im aware of, I just cant say if huron is different. I got rid of the credo in favor of a different trijicon scope in part for this reason, although I think most people will be fine with it. I used it in the woods for a year, it works. It has pretty good illumination for busy conditions, the entire center-section of the crosshair illuminates and at lower settings there was little to no bleed. Indidnt really use the illumination much so cant give really detailed feedback on it beyond the above. Id buy one again if I was looking for a 3-9ish scope.

 

[N2TRKYS]

The Maven RS1.2 reticle is useless at low light without the illumination on. Until they fix that terrible reticle and actually make the crosshairs cross, it will stay that way. The SWFA 6x and 3-9x42 are good enough at low light, with the edge going to the 3-9x42.
A ffp reticle is completely useless to me below about 6x. They just ain’t as good as a sfp scope in that regard.
I’ve only hunted with the Maven RS1.2, SWFA 6x, 10x, and the 3-9x42, but none of them have held up in low light conditions to my Leupold VX3s.
Folks can have their on opinions based off of their experiences, but these are mine based off of my experiences.

 

[Skydog]

I havent used a duplex huron so I cant really compare, sorry. I had a credo, the thin center section of that reticle is wider than any other duplex Im aware of, I just cant say if huron is different. I got rid of the credo in favor of a different trijicon scope in part for this reason, although I think most people will be fine with it. I used it in the woods for a year, it works. It has pretty good illumination for busy conditions, the entire center-section of the crosshair illuminates and at lower settings there was little to no bleed. Indidnt really use the illumination much so cant give really detailed feedback on it beyond the above. Id buy one again if I was looking for a 3-9ish scope.

Good to know. Thank you! What I don't want to do is go with a scope that is great for low light, but that will handicap me in some way during normal shooting light. I want one that will do both well.

 

[nooch]

thank you for taking the time to do this. Its very helpful

 

[Johnwell]

…The thin, center cross hair section on the Credo looks much larger than the one on the Huron. So, would the Huron be better in low light compared to the Credo (if the illumination is turned off/not working)? And would the Huron be better during normal daylight scenarios?

I was curious so I looked up the spec sheets for each. The credo has 20 moa of center crosshairs (10 per side) and the Huron has 8 moa (4 per side). The credo’s crosshairs are .125 moa, the Huron’s are .25 moa. It probably doesn’t matter much since they’re both second focal plane; but I was surprised at the difference.

 

[Skydog]

I was curious so I looked up the spec sheets for each. The credo has 20 moa of center crosshairs (10 per side) and the Huron has 8 moa (4 per side). The credo’s crosshairs are .125 moa, the Huron’s are .25 moa. It probably doesn’t matter much since they’re both second focal plane; but I was surprised at the difference.

Yes, that's what I was looking at as well. That's why I'm wondering if the Huron reticle would actually be easier to see in low light/heavy cover than a Credo reticle (when not illuminated). Is the Huron the more versatile, fail proof option...obviously things can go wrong with battery powered illumination.

 

[prm]

Actually, I'm looking at the Trijicon Credo 3-9X40 Standard Duplex (illuminated) in comparison to the Trijicon Huron Standard Duplex 3-9X40 (non-illuminated), and even though they both supposedly have the Standard Duplex reticles... the reticles are not the same. The thin, center cross hair section on the Credo looks much larger than the one on the Huron. So, would the Huron be better in low light compared to the Credo (if the illumination is turned off/not working)? And would the Huron be better during normal daylight scenarios?

I have the Credo 3-9 with the Mil reticle. A cross in the center lights up and it can be dim enough to be useful. The challenge with all illuminated scopes I have tried (which isn’t very many) is having the dial in a position such that one click on has you at the proper illumination. I won’t say its hard, but I have not been good about keeping it set properly. Really only need illumination at very first or very last light so keeping in the off detent between the lowest and next lowest setting should suffice.