New scope for woods rifle

[Alaska92]

Exit pupil is a thing. A large objective is not always useable. Something not considered here much. A human eye can only let so much light in.

 

[hibernation]

Doesn’t bother me when people recommend more expensive things. It gives me something to look for second hand. It also gives me an idea of “how much does exactly what I want cost?”

This is the hard part when people ask "what's your budget?" as the first step in picking out any piece of gear. You don't always know what you can get for a given price point, where the diminishing returns are, or if it's really worth stretching your budget for something better.

 

[Johnwell]

I hunt similar mature eastern hardwood forests to what you are talking about. The best scope I’ve found for my use is the 3-9x42 SWFA.

Keep in mind the exit pupil of a 3-9x42 at 3x is greater than your eye could ever use; so going to a x50 or x56 isn’t really going to help you much at low magnification.

In my experience, I can typically see deer well enough that I could shoot 10-15 minutes before or after legal light (depending on morning or evening) with that scope. The reticle is a little fine at the really low light, but by legal light it’s very visible.

If you want drastically better low light performance I think you’d really have to increase your budget to S&B levels

 

[Kauaihunter]

Exit pupil is a thing. A large objective is not always useable. Something not considered here much. A human eye can only let so much light in.

This

 

[left hunter]

I hunt similar mature eastern hardwood forests to what you are talking about. The best scope I’ve found for my use is the 3-9x42 SWFA.

Keep in mind the exit pupil of a 3-9x42 at 3x is greater than your eye could ever use; so going to a x50 or x56 isn’t really going to help you much at low magnification.

In my experience, I can typically see deer well enough that I could shoot 10-15 minutes before or after legal light (depending on morning or evening) with that scope. The reticle is a little fine at the really low light, but by legal light it’s very visible.

If you want drastically better low light performance I think you’d really have to increase your budget to S&B levels

I have had the exact same experience with my SWFA 3-9 which I didn’t expect. They easily take me past legal light even in thick woods in a holler in Kentucky which hasn’t been the case for a lot of other more expensive scopes I have.

 

[Kyguy]

I was going to suggest the 3-9 but you’ve already got it. But if light weight for a MBR gun to 300 hundred - not many better. The 1 mil dots reticle is still useable for wind or hold over at those ranges. Still you can have Kenton make a custom cap based on yardage not moa if I’d be used at one elevation ish.

Kenton doesn't do turrets for Trijicon scopes with dust caps

 

[RockAndSage]

Exit pupil is a thing. A large objective is not always useable. Something not considered here much. A human eye can only let so much light in.

6x42mm and 8x56mm both have a 7mm exit pupil.

The human pupil maxes out its diameter at about 7mm, give or take depending on the person. Exit pupil comes from dividing the objective diameter by the magnification. These two scopes are set up to be pretty optimal for a human pupil at full dilation.

 

[woods89]

I hunt similar mature eastern hardwood forests to what you are talking about. The best scope I’ve found for my use is the 3-9x42 SWFA.

Keep in mind the exit pupil of a 3-9x42 at 3x is greater than your eye could ever use; so going to a x50 or x56 isn’t really going to help you much at low magnification.

In my experience, I can typically see deer well enough that I could shoot 10-15 minutes before or after legal light (depending on morning or evening) with that scope. The reticle is a little fine at the really low light, but by legal light it’s very visible.

If you want drastically better low light performance I think you’d really have to increase your budget to S&B levels

Yup. I have an older Mil-dot version on my 223. Works like a charm, even in the timber!

 

[Quandary]

I just went through this same process for a 35 Whelen. Only difference is I wanted a dialing elevation turret. I looked hard at the Trijicon's but just don't like their reticles in those scopes. I ended up holding my nose and buying a Leupold Mark 4HD 2.5-10x42. Has all the feartures with the TMR reticle Ilum. in MIL. Plus I had a bunch of Cabelas points so cash out of pocket was minimal. (not to mention there is almost nothing worthwhile to use Cabelas' points on) Glass is great. Hopefully this purchase doesn't end up biting me.

 

[hibernation]

Yup. I have an older Mil-dot version on my 223. Works like a charm, even in the timber!

How's the older mil-dot compare to the mil-quad reticle?

 

[woods89]

How's the older mil-dot compare to the mil-quad reticle?

I don't have any experience with the mil-quad. On the mil-dot, the 4 heavy posts come in far enough on low power to make for very quick reticle aquisition.

 

[amassi]

How's the older mil-dot compare to the mil-quad reticle?

It’s nice
Has 4 solid posts instead of 3.
Might be superior in the wood scenario where you’re not holding wind. The milquad is better for wind holds


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[woods89]

It’s nice
Has 4 solid posts instead of 3.
Might be superior in the wood scenario where you’re not holding wind. The milquad is better for wind holds


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I bought mine off Ebay when the new ones were unobtainable. I think you may be right on them being a better timber reticle. Most of my shots with that rifle are at pretty moderate ranges so wind holds haven't been a big problem.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I’ll be using my SWFA 6x gen 2 for the first time this season [first time using the gen2 on a deer rifle - I have used SWFA gen1 for years]. Rifle opener is Saturday. If it works out for me this year, I will probably take the easy route and just get another one for the new rifle.

The info about exit pupil diameter was eye opening for me.

 

[nm.otter]

The human pupil maxes out its diameter at about 7mm, give or take depending on the person.

...for the average young, healthy individual.

 

[Alaska92]

The human pupil maxes out its diameter at about 7mm, give or take depending on the person. Exit pupil comes from dividing the objective diameter by the magnification. These two scopes are set up to be pretty optimal for a human pupil at full dilation.

Yes sir. That is correct. Here in Alaska, a lot of us own dedicated bear guns with LPVO’s. That type of optic is usually optimal for speed and efficiency for yardages in the 0-300 range. The OP stated that was his intended use range. Mature eastern hardwoods. 6x would plenty at the top end for those ranges imo. An optic that would have around 1x to 1.5x on the bottom end would be ideal, with somewhere around 6x at the top end. Like you stated, anything above a 42mm objective would not be necessarily useful at that power range. The discussion can then lean towards packability and speed/efficiency of use. For close range work in the 0-300 yd realm, a smaller overall optic is usually preferred, i.e. as small of an objective as possible while retaining the optimal light gathering capabilities of the human eye. In short, run the quick math on the exit pupil of any given optic when shopping to see if it makes sense for one’s intended use.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Yes sir. That is correct. Here in Alaska, a lot of us own dedicated bear guns with LPVO’s. That type of optic is usually optimal for speed and efficiency for yardages in the 0-300 range. The OP stated that was his intended use range. Mature eastern hardwoods. 6x would plenty at the top end for those ranges imo. An optic that would have around 1x to 1.5x on the bottom end would be ideal, with somewhere around 6x at the top end. Like you stated, anything above a 42mm objective would not be necessarily useful. The discussion can then lean towards packability and speed/efficiency of use. For close range work in the 0-300 yd realm, a smaller overall optic is usually preferred, i.e. as small of an objective as possible while retaining the optimal light gathering capabilities of the human eye. In short, run the quick math on the exit pupil of any given optic when shopping to see if it makes sense for one’s intended use.

Yes, I have thought hard about an LPVO. Some of the things I have read about them said, if I can paraphrase it correctly, that they aren’t really optimal for anything.

 

[Alaska92]

Yes, I have thought hard about an LPVO. Sone of the things I have read about them said, if I can paraphrase it correctly, that they aren’t really optimal for anything.

Like everything…….most topics are subjective. My challenge to that thought doesn’t come from reading. It comes from over 30 years of experience here in Alaska under many light conditions and adverse elements. It’s proven with countless hours in the field. Once again…..that’s my experience.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Like everything…….most topics are subjective. My challenge to that thought doesn’t come from reading. It comes from over 30 years of experience here in Alaska under many light conditions and adverse elements. It’s proven with countless hours in the field. Once again…..that’s my experience.

I get it. I’m here to learn.

What’s your preferred LPVO?

 

[nm.otter]

somewhere around 6x at the top end. Like you stated, anything above a 42mm objective would not be necessarily useful at that power range.

It's not entirely useless as you do get a wider eyebox, but with cost/weight/size penalty.