Low light comparison of 17 scopes

[bigsky_hunter]

I much prefer the thicker reticle for hunting. I absolutely will not use a thin reticle unless it has a good illumination system.

Having used both I prefer the thinner. Good thing scope manufacturers make options for a variety people.

Posted those numbers so people are aware of the different thickness in reticles, specifically for Trijicon.
As a reference, standard leupold duplex is 0.3
Reticle thickness is subjective. Buy what you think works for you. If it doesn’t, sell it and buy what does.

 

[Formidilosus]

Update to post #3 with 7 more scopes- 17 total.





@pacoalcracker there’s your Leupold’s.

 

[Dobermann]

*The Minox ZP5 with THLR reticle was also compared. If going by its ability to see and aim… you’re committing crimes.

Thanks for the update / post 3.

This might be a cross-cultural thing, but does "you're committing crimes" in this context mean it's not a fair contest? Cheers.

 

[JimGa]

This is an older Zeis Conquest that has a really good #4 reticle. I've used it since 2011 i believe. I'm sure it's not a "tough" scope, but has held zero for normal deer hunting. I have ffp scopes, and like has been posted here, the reticle is the key and where many fail.

 

[Mike Islander]

SWFA 6x42 is definitely far better at last light than 10x42, especially if facing the already set sun (i.e. the bright western sky after the sun is below the horizon). Lots of flaring and poor contrast in the reticle, which makes dark areas in the scope nearly invisible due to the contrast of bright flare vs dark earth.

 

[KenLee]

This is an older Zeis Conquest that has a really good #4 reticle. I've used it since 2011 i believe. I'm sure it's not a "tough" scope, but has held zero for normal deer hunting. I have ffp scopes, and like has been posted here, the reticle is the key and where many fail.

Based on the ones I used, I'd bet they hold up fairly well. I was uncoordinated as heck before I had a stroke in the large vessel to my left ear. I'm a stumbling crash just waiting to happen now.

 

[Article 4]

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.

I wonder. Is the reticle material a factor in this? It seems to matter in telecopes and microscopes and I wonder how much it matters here?

I have been reading about etching a reticle versus using tungsten wire "spider silk." Swaro, Kahles, S&B and many of the other "premium" brands use etching. From what I can find (not I haven't looked up every brand) depending on the cost of the scope they may use some other way.

 

[Macintosh]

Conclusion: with the addition of common hunting scopes that are “supposed” to have reticles visible for lowlight, the actual capability of identifying and making a shot on a deer sized animal in the timber at very lowlight from muzzle to around 80 yards did not match common beliefs. The “better” hunting scopes and duplex reticles were lost significantly before the “terrible” FFP MQ and Mildot reticles.

As in the first go round (other than two scopes: Vortex Diamondback and Leupold VX-I) “glass” played no real part in determining when a scope was no longer useable- reticles did.
These FFP reticles are on the “good” side of FFP reticles for thickness and visibility; however the real reason that the FFP scopes lasted much longer is for the simple reason that when it gets dark, increasing the magnification increases your eye’s ability to resolve details. In a FFP scope that also increases the size (to your eye) of the reticle making it more visible. With a SFP reticle, the image gets larger and more defined as you increase magnification, but the reticle does not- if it is too fine to see at 3x in a certain light condition, it’s too fine to see at 9x in the same.

None of the “crosshairs” of the scopes could be used to aim past about sunset 20-30’ish minutes. All had to be bracketed by the bolder outer posts.

The old Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x FFP, new Mark 4HD 2.5-10x, SWFA 3-15x, and SWFA 6x noticeably easier to aim than the others. With both SWFA’s being noticeably better than the Leupold’s. The *SWFA 6x was the clear winner across the board.




*The Minox ZP5 with THLR reticle was also compared. If going by its ability to see and aim… you’re committing crimes.

It's interesting, but also kind of points to "once something is good enough, it's good enough"--I have owned 4 leupold vx-series scopes (three 3's and a 5) with duplex reticles, that all worked fine at pretty low light. Most of the ffp reticles they get compared to are on 5-25-ish magnification PRS tree reticles, so the duplex and more bold reticles are FAR easier to use at low light. Comparing among scopes with bolder reticles to begin with obviously the differences will be more nuanced. I've never been able to look thru many of the scopes in this test, and I dont know if the leupold scopes used are representative of the typical new VX3hd and vx5 hd that are so popular, but I have to admit I was very surprised to see the leupys drop so soon after legal sunset. Obviously depends on conditions, but there have been plenty of times where I am confident I could have used those duplex reticles on my scopes at least to 30minutes past sunset (ie legal light where I live), and not always under the easiest conditions.

For what it's worth, I posted a series of pictures looking thru side by side scopes up to and last legal light, comparing a vx3 and my S&b klasskik here--the really dark images arent really representative of what you see looking thru the scopes, but maybe thery are helpful for some. I think the edge went to the klassik, but not by that much, and both scopes were useable to 30 minutes past sunset: https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/ffp-reticle-image-thread.299649/post-3135823

 

[Formidilosus]

It's interesting, but also kind of points to "once something is good enough, it's good enough"--I have owned 4 leupold vx-series scopes (three 3's and a 5) with duplex reticles, that all worked fine at pretty low light. Most of the ffp reticles they get compared to are on 5-25-ish magnification PRS tree reticles, so the duplex and more bold reticles are FAR easier to use at low light. Comparing among scopes with bolder reticles to begin with obviously the differences will be more nuanced. I've never been able to look thru many of the scopes in this test, and I dont know if the leupold scopes used are representative of the typical new VX3hd and vx5 hd that are so popular, but I have to admit I was very surprised to see the leupys drop so soon after legal sunset. Obviously depends on conditions, but there have been plenty of times where I am confident I could have used those duplex reticles on my scopes at least to 30minutes past sunset (ie legal light where I live), and not always under the easiest conditions.

Keep in mind the conditions that I am doing it in from the OP- it is very dark 30min after sunset here.

The only scopes in this that I’ve not been able to take shots in legal light have been the VX-I 3-9x shown (reticle), the 6x fixed Mark 4 at long range (reticle), the Burris (losing the image), and the Trijicon (reticle) without illumination. The fixed power Mark 4 6x would have been right beside the SWFA if it had thicker outer posts- it’s shocking for most how much those 1 mil thick posts on the 6x SWFA show up.

For what it's worth, I posted a series of pictures looking thru side by side scopes up to and last legal light, comparing a vx3 and my S&b klasskik here--the really dark images arent really representative of what you see looking thru the scopes, but maybe thery are helpful for some. I think the edge went to the klassik, but not by that much, and both scopes were useable to 30 minutes past sunset: https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/ffp-reticle-image-thread.299649/post-3135823

People don’t like it, but a standard mildot reticle is a very, very functional allaround option.

 

[Fatcamp]

Keep in mind the conditions that I am doing it in from the OP- it is very dark 30min after sunset here.

The only scopes in this that I’ve not been able to take shots in legal light have been the VX-I 3-9x shown (reticle), the 6x fixed Mark 4 at long range (reticle), the Burris (losing the image), and the Trijicon (reticle) without illumination. The fixed power Mark 4 6x would have been right beside the SWFA if it had thicker outer posts- it’s shocking for most how much those 1 mil thick posts on the 6x SWFA show up.







People don’t like it, but a standard mildot reticle is a very, very functional allaround option.

My SWFA 3-9X42 is mildot. It's a great reticle as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Macintosh]

Mildot is by far my favorite ffp reticle I've found. Some thinner or thicker than others, but in general count me as a mildot fan.

 

[prm]

So, the real question is, how does the “would you buy this scope” that Ryan has mentioned compare?

 

[Formidilosus]

So, the real question is, how does the “would you buy this scope” that Ryan has mentioned compare?

 

[woods89]

My SWFA 3-9X42 is mildot. It's a great reticle as far as I'm concerned.

I have an SWFA 3-9 Mil-dot as well. I've hunted with it quite a bit in varying conditions, and found it to work quite well.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Man that SWFA fixed 6 MIL reticle really is just a dandy of a scope! No fuss, no “zoom” slowing folks down, just point and click and kill.

If somebody ever comes out with something nearly identical in fixed 8x50 I think I’ll buy 10.

 

[ETtikka]

Excellent write up , thanks Form, most low light comparisons focus on image quality/brightness, not enough on reticle usefulness.

Was the MQ reticle design part of the original “super sniper” decades ago or later; wonder who designed it?

 

[TxxAgg]

This may be a dumb question....I've only owned the SWFA 6x and 10x. Is there any reason you couldn't buy one of the new SWFA 3-15x and leave it at say 6x or 8x and never mess with the zoom? Would it work as well as the fixed 6x in these tests?

 

[Formidilosus]

This may be a dumb question....I've only owned the SWFA 6x and 10x. Is there any reason you couldn't buy one of the new SWFA 3-15x and leave it at say 6x or 8x and never mess with the zoom? Would it work as well as the fixed 6x in these tests?

A 3-15x was in the comparisons. The bold outer posts are thinner on the 3-15x than they are on the 6x- .6 mils compared to 1.2 mils.


: Edited to correct reticle dimension.

 

[JCMCUBIC]

I much prefer the thicker reticle for hunting. I absolutely will not use a thin reticle unless it has a good illumination system.

Having used both I prefer the thinner. Good thing scope manufacturers make options for a variety people.

Posted those numbers so people are aware of the different thickness in reticles, specifically for Trijicon.
As a reference, standard leupold duplex is 0.3
Reticle thickness is subjective. Buy what you think works for you. If it doesn’t, sell it and buy what does.

For my use, hunting being the end focus but a whole lot of shooting because I enjoy it, I desire thicker outer and thinner inner.

I've had thick inner plex cover limbs/twigs in cover. I've had thin outer posts get lost in low light/thick cover.

I dislike any wider spacing than 10 mil (5x5, basic mildot/milquad) from outer post to outer post. Perfection of outer post spacing is Tangent Theta's 7 mil post to post (3.5 mil per side). It leaves plenty of windage (for me) while helping to bracket.

I prefer 4 equally spaced outer posts. It's not an absolute...none of these are, but I've had a couple of low light opportunities using SWFA's milquad where deer stepped into an ag field with a dark background of cedar trees immediately behind them. A lower post would have been helpful showing up against the lighter colored field...but the shot could still be made in those cases.

A floating dot, like Maven's SHR Mil, with inner bracket starting at .5 mil is really nice.

Illumination should be very low and a minimal amount of the reticle should be illuminated. Perfection is only a floating dot.

This is just my opinion and preferences for use in any situation, light condition, background/cover, distance....and use on target/practice.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

This may be a dumb question....I've only owned the SWFA 6x and 10x. Is there any reason you couldn't buy one of the new SWFA 3-15x and leave it at say 6x or 8x and never mess with the zoom? Would it work as well as the fixed 6x in these tests?

This is how I hunt with my Maven RS1.2s. You give up some reticle boldness and a bit of FOV but it works well on that scope in particular for me. They almost never leave 6-8x and are treated like a fixed power scope while hunting.