Someone can correct me, but I understand that the objective is not as important as the tube diameter in transmitting light so a 30 mm tube will be "brighter" than a 1" tube. I have to strongly agree with the comments on the illuminated reticles.

Okay. So the Trijicon 2.5-10x56 has my interest piqued. I'm looking at the non-battery powered model called the Accupoint. Uses fiber optics and tritium. I'm also thinking the crosshairs with the green dot may work for me. Is this the model that most guys that like them are using? How about ring height - will highs work or are extra highs needed?

quote:

Originally posted by BC3:
Okay. So the Trijicon 2.5-10x56 has my interest piqued. I'm looking at the non-battery powered model called the Accupoint. Uses fiber optics and tritium. I'm also thinking the crosshairs with the green dot may work for me. Is this the model that most guys that like them are using? How about ring height - will highs work or are extra highs needed?

I don't have the model w/56mm Objective so will avoid the ring height part.

The green dot may be a problem if your PH uses a green light.

I've always used a 40-44mm objective. Any bigger, I'm afraid, would turn into a sore thumb...always bumping into things!

In the end, your eyes and quality of the glass become the limiting factors.

quote:

Originally posted by BC3:
Okay. So the Trijicon 2.5-10x56 has my interest piqued. I'm looking at the non-battery powered model called the Accupoint. Uses fiber optics and tritium. I'm also thinking the crosshairs with the green dot may work for me. Is this the model that most guys that like them are using? How about ring height - will highs work or are extra highs needed?

I have several of the Trijicon Accupoint 3x9x40 with the amber dot. I think the green dot would be even better but they are a little difficult to find, or at least they were when I was in the market. I've also got a 1.25x4 with the red triangle post. Works just as well. I think you'll find the illuminated reticle much more important than the objective size.

With the Trijicon, you never have to worry about batteries. Daylight, they are illuminated via fiber optics. Night, they are illuminated by a tritium chip.

quote:

Originally posted by shoulderman:
Someone can correct me, but I understand that the objective is not as important as the tube diameter in transmitting light so a 30 mm tube will be "brighter" than a 1" tube. I have to strongly agree with the comments on the illuminated reticles.

The tube diameter is meaningless with respect to light transmission through a scope. The quality of the lens coatings, and the objective lens size are the determining factors (assuming good optical design). The tube is just a holder for the lenses, erector tube, etc. 30mm tubes tend to be stronger, and can offer more adjustment range (depends on the size of the erector tube, big tube, less adjustment).

Here is how it works, take the objective lens diameter and divide it by the magnification to get the exit pupil. The exit pupil plus the actual transmission of the lenses equals how much light your eye ultimately gets. So, a 3-9X42 will have an exit pupil of 14mm at 3X and 4.66mm at 9X. A 3-9X56 will have 18.66mm at 3X and 6.22 at 9X. These are ideal numbers, scope design may change the exit pupil and it won't follow this formula exactly (the erector tube usually limits exit pupil), but suffice to say lower power will always have a larger exit pupil.

In practice, at 3X neither example will appear brighter since the exit pupil is WAY bigger than your eyes pupil (even at night). At 9X the 56mm will allow a lot more light to reach your eye and it will be noticeably brighter at 9X. Assuming similar light transmission values for the lenses.

Now light transmission through the lenses is more complex and could be a discussion on it's own. Suffice to say that scopes of decent quality will transmit 94-96% of the full spectrum of white light.

Jeremy

quote:

Originally posted by BC3:
Okay. So the Trijicon 2.5-10x56 has my interest piqued. I'm looking at the non-battery powered model called the Accupoint. Uses fiber optics and tritium. I'm also thinking the crosshairs with the green dot may work for me. Is this the model that most guys that like them are using? How about ring height - will highs work or are extra highs needed?

That is the scope I took. Mine is the amber dot crosshair. Trijicon lists it as model TR22-1 Accupoint.

It is on a Mauser actioned custom rifle, and fit with Burris medium height 30mm rings on Warne bases.

Jeremy

I second those who have said they like the Z6i. I like the illuminated reticle. That said, I have a 1-6 on my .416 and I've only shot two leopards and they were both in the morning. So my only experience in the evening on leopard is it was too dark to take the shot even with the illuminated reticle.

Jeremy,

Thank you for explanation. Excellent and concise

Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56 with ill. ret.
Probably the best low light scope imo.

Rgds,
Andy

Blowing a chance at a leopard trying to cheap out on a scope seems like one of those things one will remember a long time

Any decent variable scope that will do the job on other game will suffice for Leopard so no need to break the bank.

Bear in mind that the shooting distance to the Leopard is very rarely beyond 50 yards and if the conditions are going to be unfavorable, make sure you have the bait against a skyline where the sun sets; you will gain an extra few minutes.

Alternatively, if your PH is worth his salt, he will "educate" the cat to feed just before sunset or early morning.

I just don't understand why some people try to make a Leopard hunt so complicated as the only complication that may arise is a crappy shot, by courtesy of a jittery hunter.

I dislike battery operated scopes. My most favorite hunting is going after bushpigs at night. Limpopo province. I have shot many pigs, never used dogs, never artificial light. Just the moon was what I needed. Plus an excellent German Zeiss 2,5-10x52 with reticle no. 4. Whether bushpig or leopard, with my telescope I'm perfectly equipped.

Ah Fulvio...isn't the discussion and planning part of the fun? And to help me understand a bit better, what is the cutoff between a cheap scope and a decent variable? I have no doubt that a top line Swaro, Zeiss, or Leica in the 2.5K range will do the trick. While that may work for some I don't think I will going down that path. If this makes me cheap in some players eyes so be it. Others have suggested options that aren't quite as salty but will still provide adequate performance. What I have gained from this discussion is that an illuminated reticle tops everything. Personal brand preference and budget are more subjective with no features standing out head and shoulders above the rest. I definitely appreciate all of the help from everyone on this topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Blowing a chance at a leopard trying to cheap out on a scope seems like one of those things one will remember a long time.

"
Ah Fulvio...isn't the discussion and planning part of the fun? And to help me understand a bit better, what is the cutoff between a cheap scope and a decent variable? I have no doubt that a top line Swaro, Zeiss, or Leica in the 2.5K range will do the trick. While that may work for some I don't think I will going down that path. If this makes me cheap in some players eyes so be it. Others have suggested options that aren't quite as salty but will still provide adequate performance. What I have gained from this discussion is that an illuminated reticle tops everything. Personal brand preference and budget are more subjective with no features standing out head and shoulders above the rest. I definitely appreciate all of the help from everyone on this topic.
"

Pity you failed to recognize the original post.

Note also that I did not call you a cheapskate.

Other than saying there was no need to go off the deep end in purchasing a suitable scope which would suffice in shooting a Leopard off a bait at
under 50 yards there has been no negativity in my comment.

The need for an IR is of a personal choice and not one of mine other than the Aim Point on my DR which is used in a different ball game to shooting Leopards.

Cheers from someone who knows SFA about hunting Leopards.

My apologies fulvio. Without the original post quoted it looked like another less than helpful cheap scope comment. I appreciate what you are saying and realize that at expected shooting distances top of the line glass may not be required. I've never shot at night and was trying to get a handle on desirable low light scope characteristics. Many seem to favor the IR. Any downsides to this or more of a personal preference?

The only downside of an illuminated reticle is if it can't be dialed down enough. Too bright and it will be a detriment rather than an aid.

You'll be hard pressed to find an IR scope these days that won't dial down sufficiently.

If you go with a battery, which isn't a poor choice, go with a heavier reticle, just in case. If the battery fails, the heavy reticle will likely still allow night shooting. Something like a #4 illuminated would be great.

Jeremy

I WAS FACED WITH YOUR SITUATION WHEN I WENT ON MY LEOPARD HUNT. I PURCHASED A LEUPOLD VX-L 3.5-10 WITH AN ILLUMINATED BALISTIC PLEX RETICULE AND 30MM TUBE. IT WAS EXCELLENT. CROSSHAIRS ILUMININATED,NOT JUST A CENTER DOT, ILLUMINATION CONTINUOUSLY VARIABLE THROUGH A RANGE OF 10 SETTINGS.SLIGHT RING MARKS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SCOPE. I WAS ABOUT TO PUT IT UP ON GUNBROKER. I'LL TAKE $700 FOR IT. PM ME AND I'LL SEND PICTURES

Get the illuminated scope.

Having shot 3 with illumination (all Zeiss 2-10) and 2 without (Swaro 1.25-4 and 1.5-6), I can tell you there is a major difference in a low light scenario.

Thanks for all the comments and suggestions. I'm going to give one of the Trijicons a shot and see how I like.

quote:

LEUPOLD VX-L 3.5-10 WITH AN ILLUMINATED BALISTIC PLEX RETICULE AND 30MM TUBE. IT WAS EXCELLENT. CROSSHAIRS ILUMININATED,NOT JUST A CENTER DOT, ILLUMINATION CONTINUOUSLY VARIABLE THROUGH A RANGE OF 10 SETTINGS

I used the same scope but mine is 4.5x14 power. It has a small illuminated cross hair in the Center.In Low light the scope pulled in so much light I had to turn the illumination dial down to 5.I also will say it is much better than a Dot.

quote:

Originally posted by BC3:
Okay. So the Trijicon 2.5-10x56 has my interest piqued. I'm looking at the non-battery powered model called the Accupoint. Uses fiber optics and tritium. I'm also thinking the crosshairs with the green dot may work for me. Is this the model that most guys that like them are using? How about ring height - will highs work or are extra highs needed?

Exactly what my son used (leopard, croc - duplex ret with green dot) - you won't be disappointed. For the money, it's hard to go wrong with this model Trijicon. Did a low-light comparison between this scope, a 50mm and 24mm Z6 swaro, 44mm Ziess and a 56mm Nightforce. Very subjective - me going from scope to scope as the light faded one night trying to make out details on a distant target. The 24mm Swaro was quickly eliminated, not a significant difference between the 50mm Swaro and 44mm Ziess, but the two 56mm remained the clearest. I felt Nightforce was the best, but not significantly different than Trijicon, and the Trijicon had the illuminated reticle so it won.