Low light comparison of 17 scopes

[bigsky_hunter]

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.

That TT, LRH MRAD reticle looks nice. Good spacing, bold outer posts. Price tag is a bit much though.

For my budget the Trijicon Huron BDC works. I could do without the useless windage hashes, and make outer posts bolder and closer together.

I guess there is a reason manufacturers are still making German #4 reticles.

 

[Tl15]

The solution to lowlight is illumination and really good binoculars. I’m counting points and guessing age through my binos to find my animal. The rifle just needs a dim dot and the ability to present me a good view of the chest profile so I can park my bullet where it needs to go.
That said, I buy a lot of upper mid tier glass because I enjoy getting new stuff and I’m fortunate enough to be able to do it, not because I think it really makes the difference between success and failure. Looking through good coatings is just nicer.

 

[JCMCUBIC]

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?

If the objective size, parallax adj/no adj, lens quality, lens coatings, reticle dimensions, eye relief, and FOV were exactly the same between 2 scopes - one fixed, one adjustable - all while on the same x...then the fixed power scope will have a brighter image. A % of light is lost on every lens. A fixed power scope has fewer lenses. Less light lost through lenses results in a brighter image.

This isn't a statement for/against either type of scope. It's just an answer to the "as well" question. There's "as well" and "well enough".

 

[cole96]

If budget was no option. What scope would yall go with?

 

[Dobermann]

If budget was no option. What scope would yall go with?

This one: https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/would-you-buy-this-scope.373983/



But you might want to look in this other thread, rather than clutter the current one: https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/the-perfect-hunting-scope.367740/page-6

Just beware that thread contains some not great recommendations, such as Zeiss, Leupold, and Vortex.

As I said in that thread, between the following, there's nothing you can't really do - and all are 1) reliable and 2) have good reticles for hunting:

• SWFA 3-9 x 42 (19.84 oz / 562 g stated weight)
• Maven RS1.2 2.5-15 x 44, SHR-MIL reticle (26.4 oz / 748 g stated weight)
• Minox ZP5 5-25 x 56, THLR reticle (32 oz / 907 g stated weight)

 

[Ajsomp]

If budget was no option. What scope would yall go with?

Minox zp5 thlr. It’s not the lightest, and certainly not cheap. But seems to be the best short to long range option out there.

 

[bombhunter]

This is great. Thanks for doing this!