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.

 

[ElPollo]

I’m 55 years old, have been hunting big game for about 40 years. I cannot recall ever being in a situation where I could not make a sub-100 yard shot on game without illumination during legal hunting hours with any scope I’ve ever owned. That said, have never and would never attempt a >100 yard low light shot after sunset. I also have never owned a scope with a tree reticle and all of my scopes have had fairly thick outer reticles that made sub-100 yard shots pretty doable, even in busy backgrounds and low light.

The one issue I’m actually starting to have now is that in busy backgrounds, my aging eyes have a harder time telling the difference between the mil and half mil hashes for wind holds on SWFA Mil-Quad reticles down at 6x. But that is not a a low-light shot situation.

 

[rookieforever33]

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-
View attachment 804468



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.

Thank you. The type of knowlwdge we all need

 

[KenLee]

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?

Without illumination, it depends on how bold the reticle is.
With illumination, usability depends on how low the illumination will adjust, preferably to me with a very small center dot. The "too bright" illumination on some scopes bleed out into the rest of your view and is a huge hindrance in low light.

 

[Formidilosus]

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.

Why do you believe there some angle to it? I wrote why I was doing it, and it had nothing to do with 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.

Is that so? “those terrible liars and haters of superior products. They know it’s better but will never use it!”.
I’m sure that’s exactly it. Or…. It could be precisely why I stated in the OP I was doing it.


Instead of insinuating and stating nonsense, if you want to know how a certain Leupold compares, you could just ask.

 

[KenLee]

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.

What's your scope budget?

 

[KenLee]

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.

Have you thought about an accupoint with illumination and no need for a battery. It uses self adjusting tritium.