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 ight than 10x42, especially if facing the set sun. Lots of flaring and poor contrast in the reticle, which makes dark area 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.