Looking to put a scope on a Ruger Number 1 Stainless, 45/70 Govt. for Elk is dense cover.

Locally the set-up is 1 - 6x and 20 mm. And Leupold is much in demand because it's a local Oregon product.

Then I'm reading in here that Leupolds don't zero back with their reticle adjustments, and that the "clicks" are inconsistant.

I've been shopping Cabela's for Swarovski, Zeiss, and some others.

Price point aside, what's hot out there?

Swarovski 1.5-6 PH or 1.1-4 PH with a #24 reticle. Check it out the #24 is really cool for short range yet precise enough for long.................DJ

Never liked those straight tube objectives due to less light getting in.

I am into the Zeiss Conquests as of late. I have nine Leuopolds and wish they all were Zeiss.

Keep that scope for a backup and try a Conquest. I like the new 2.5-8 that they came out with.

If price is no object then there is the Diavari



Link

If price is no object IMHO the Schmidt & Bender Zenith is the best. I have Swarovski and Zeiss but the Zenith is just a little better.

quote:

Originally posted by LJS:
If price is no object IMHO the Schmidt & Bender Zenith is the best. I have Swarovski and Zeiss but the Zenith is just a little better.

Comperable scopes, the Swarovski offers a wider FOV. Their rail system mounting sounds inovative.

Zeiss is on the "wish list" too.

What's a "staight tube objective" ??? I'm new at this. My last scope was a Springfield Range Finder 4 -14x 40 mm on a 223 Ackley Rem 700 PSS.

I didn't choose it. Some LEO sniper set it up.

I liked the "level bubble" in the Springfield, but I don't see Springfield selling scopes.

1.25 to about 4/6x and 30mm objective seems the neighborhood. FOV on the Swarovski is 98 ft.

Leupold offers the big eye relief. We're out in the woods, dense cover, fast shots.

If money is no object - then a Schmidt & Bender Zenith, 1.5-6x42 ill Ret. Its flash-dot type ret is brilliant for daytime in heavy cover.

Or a similar Swarovski. Their new Red dot is fantastic.

Both are serious money, looks like $1,800.

I have and really like a Swarovski 1.5-6x42mm PH but it took me awhile to get used to the perspective of shooting at 1.5X caused bu focusing in the 1st focal-plane.

I second Brian's suggest of the S&B. It is very bright in low light conditions. Great scope!

If money is not a consideration, then I would buy a Leupold VX-II in 1-4X. However, if spending more money were important, then a similar scope in the VX-III would do as well.

I agree with Stonecreek...

for elk in dense cover you need a reticle you can find easily and quickly.

the german 3 post is a good one.

the new illuminated reticles are even better.

you don't need a lot of magnification - you need a scope you can quickly get on target, sometimes a moving target.

money no object - get the most expensive vmv that zeiss offers with illuminated reticle.

or for a couple hundred bucks get a red dot
for your needs it will work as well
good hunting !

NIGHTFORCE! if moneys no object nightforce would be my first choice!

leopold are all you need.If my zeiss diavari is brighter i still have not noticed.i like the thin reticle on the leopold.The big objective on my zeiss makes it easy to get on target.

I have the Swaro 1.5-6x42 ill. w/4A ret. on my .375 and the Swaro 2.5-10x42 ill. w/4A ret. on my .300. My backup is the S&B as close to the Swaros as possible. Works well for me.

Good Luck!

OK ! ! !

I have returned from the "Great Scope Quest In The Big City." (It's fuggin' Longview, WA, the closest "metroplex.")

Tons and tons of reading, research, comparison.

I want a low power, lightweight, durable scope for deep woods. Money don't matter none.

That said -- the zillion dollar "Space Laser" is not six times better at six times the money.

I looked as Swaro, Zeiss, Nikon, Leupold -- others too, but these seriously.

Ya gotta remember that Leupold is a local product, sort of like a cult here. Also, we're hunting Roosevelt elk, well under 100 yds, in dense woods.

Leupold VX III, 1.75 - 6x 32mm.

Leupold has the best eye relief 4" at low power.

Leupold has "up to 98% light trans." Nikon Monarch 95%. I'm betting I can't tell the diff.

Zeiss/Swaro are 3X the $$$ -- We're in the brush. If I were on open plains, 400 yd. shots, it'd be Zeizz/Swaro, circa 10X and 75mm if I could get one.

Leupold heavy duplex reticle. Good for woods.

Leupold low mount rings -- for a Ruger Number 1, stainliess, 45/70 Govt.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh . . . and "Bob's" in Longview has "Senior Cit. Discount, 10%" every Monday. Today is Monday.

-- But Bob's is like Disneyland for gun nutz. "20% Off" on all books, all knives. Butler Creek flip up scope caps are $2 off.

CRKT Powolski/Kasper knife, book on "The Elk Mystique" -- The boots I don't need at 1/2 price are no longer on sale, AND my size is gone.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh . . . but a pawn shop a block away, en route to the "main drag." Big sign in the window, "GUNS 20% OFF."

I stuck my head in the door. They have heaps of guns, mostly pawned junk with a jewel here and there.

Weatherby Vanguard, 85%, in 30-06, which I have been looking for. The Leupold VX-II, 3 - 9x 40mm scope closed that deal. $367 out the door.

Bob's didn't have .458 cal. bullets, except some exotic Nosler stuff . . .

But Sporty's in Clatskanie -- Speer 350 gr.

And Sporty has a Marlin stainless 1895S in 45/70, w/ the longer bbl. -- New.

Am I gainin' ground or diggin' a hole???

I feel like I'm on top of the world. I like what I have, and I have a lot.



-- Ohhhhhh yeah! Thanks you guys/gals for the input. I learned a lot here about scopes.

That said, doesn't mean we can't beat this topic to death. Someone out there has a 50 cal, three miles away, targets in full daylight, not moving, no breeze, and no vegetation.

-- And more dollars than sense! *LMAO*

If you can find one and look through it, you should consider the Czech Meopta 1 to 4 with illuminated reticle. It has a 30mm tube and good optics. I think they sell in the $700 to $800 range in the US.

1.5-6X42 Schmidt & Bender with the #4 reticle, best big game scope, IMHO.
bigbull

Although with a .45-70 they likely will be close, anyone who knows sikem from sooey about scopes would NEVER choose to use a 20mm objective in potentially low light conditions. Don't even consider it.

The minimum is a 32mm and bigger, within wt limit and size consideration, is better for lowlight. Do get a German 4A or similar type reticle. Bigger reticles or some of the better designed mixes are ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL in poor lighting conditions. I've never used one but the low powered variable S&B or similar brand (you're the one who said "price is no object", if it is, then there are other nearly as good choices)with 42mm objectives sounds like the nuts to me.

BTW, if you want to use Leupold the 2-7x33mm is a helluva lot more scope than the 1-5x20mm. If money is an object, I'd at least consider the 1.75x6x32 as a minimum. I really like Weaver Grand Slams but their reticles take them out IMO.

Gatogordo, you are right on the lens size, to mention the Leupold 20mm in the same same paragraph as an S&B or Swaro for a low light application is a joke.

The Leupolds are a good scope for the money, maybe even good enough for most applications, but if you want the best low light scope it has to be S&B or Swarovski. The best costs a pile of cash, I have never heard of anyone taking a S&B of and putting a Leupold on.

quote:

anyone who knows sikem from sooey about scopes would NEVER choose to use a 20mm objective in potentially low light conditions. Don't even consider it.

Depends on the magnification. At 3X or below, the 20mm objective yields as large an exit pupil as the maximum of the human eye, so any larger objective with magnification of 3X or less is immaterial.

If your contention is that magnification higher than 3X is necessary and desirable for low light situtations, then it is true that the objective must be large enough to provide an exit pupil of 6mm or larger, meaning that a 5x scope would need about a 30mm or larger objective and an 8X or 9X would need about 50mm.

But then I've only learned the difference in "Come Here" and sickem.

I just looked at Saeed's "Rifle Collection" pages --

http://www.accuratereloading.com/gallery.html

20 pages with at least a half-dozen rifles on each page. I can't help but notice that all the scopes, or at least nearly all, are Leupold.

Locally, the scope to have is Leupold. It's a local product. I have two Leupolds now, thinking about more --

Stonecreek, the important issue on low light performance is actually not just the exit pupil - though this is important; but the "twilight factor". Twilight factor is calculated on the magnification and the objective lens size. It is no accident that the prefered size of scope in Europe for high seat work was traditionally the 8x56.

Go and check out the technicial stuff on the S&B or Swarovski websites.

I have long thought that the Leupold is a good scope for US conditions were I understand you can generally only hunt from sunrise to sunset. If you can hunt before sunrise, or after sunset, the bigger Euro scopes come into their own. This is what they were designed for.

"Twilight Factor" is an advertising term, not an optical term. It was invented to sell merchandise, not to objectively measure the ability of an optical instrument to present you with a usable image.

That said, it is certainly true that the most useful low-light image comes at the greatest magnification that allows a reasonable exit pupil (the Hubbell Telescope would be an extreme example of this). However, some low-light situations also call for quick shooting at close range (unlike European blind shooting in which the shooter has a substantial time to identify his target and aim-- the reason that the relatively high magnification 8x56 is popular there). In those low-light, quick-shot situations a 3x scope may be the best magnification, in which case its 20mm objective and relatively low "twilight factor" are immaterial.

BTW: Most U.S. jurisdictions allow hunting from 30 minutes prior to sunrise until 30 minutes after sunset (approximately corresponding to the times of "civil twilight" as measured by the angle of the sun below the horizon). Any 40mm scope of reasonable quality in the magnification ranges appropriate to game hunting (about 2-12X) provides adequate low-light resolving power during civil twilight except possibly under the heaviest of overcast conditions.

While that same 40mm variable would perform nicely under clear-sky full moon stand hunting in allowing you to accurately aim at your target, the specialized 8x56 is intended to allow you to count the points and critique the rack. While that's nice, I'm accustomed to doing that work with a binocular, anyway.

Wink: I was at a local dealer here who stocked Meopta scopes. His first order was for 25 and 7 came back to him with problems. No thanks! Man they are heavy also!!!

Stonecreek:

Do you own any 20mm objective scopes? I own at least 2 20mm Leupolds and they SUCK in low light. Anyone who thinks "twilight factor" is just an advertising term doesn't try to shoot in the dark. Anyone who thinks that the exit pupil diameter is the only qualification is flat wrong. My Minox 15x58 binos blow away Zeiss 10x40s in deep twilight as one example, even though they have essentially the same exit pupil diameter.

BTW, since you're in Texas, you should know that hogs are legal 24 hours a day on private property. Tell me about low light performance after you've hunted them under a quarter moon sometime. Until then, I KNOW what works and what doesn't and frigging 20mm objectives DON'T. I've tried it, have you?

quote:

Originally posted by 45/70 Govt.:
I just looked at Saeed's "Rifle Collection" pages --

http://www.accuratereloading.com/gallery.html

20 pages with at least a half-dozen rifles on each page. I can't help but notice that all the scopes, or at least nearly all, are Leupold.

Locally, the scope to have is Leupold. It's a local product. I have two Leupolds now, thinking about more --

.45-70:

If you want a Leupold, that's fine and they are very good scopes, but not the best.

If you expected this to be some kind of Leupold endorsement thread, and you were already convinced you wanted a Leupold, why bother to ask the question with "money no object"?

Yes, Gato, I own (let's see? . . .) about 5 20mm scopes -- several Leupolds, a couple of original Weavers, and maybe a Redfield deep in the recesses of the safe.

Either you didn't read very carefully what I wrote, or you chose to disregard it. Yes, greater magnification (with an adequate exit pupil and quality lenses) always provides better low-light resolution. That's why I gave the example of the Hubbell Telescope. When speaking of 20mm scopes, I was speaking of situations in which, due to conditions, you do not want any more magnification than about 3X. In those situations, 20mm objectives give you all of the "brightness" that your eye can use at THREE POWER MAGNIFICATION or less.

I pretty clearly stated the advantages of the 8x56 for the situations in which higher magnification is not a problem. Nothing in my post even remotely indicated that I felt the 3x-20mm scope was the equal of the larger, higher magnification scope for either Claret's high-seat shooting or your midnight pork fests. If you want to argue, argue with someone who disagrees with you.

This forum is presumed to be a discussion, not a debate. But if you wish to engage in debate, please don't set up a "straw man" position and attribute it to me in order to come out on top.

P.S. Gato, I think you're a pretty good guy and generally well-informed. Please don't take my sparring as ill-intentioned.

Stone

Stonecreek:

I'm going to say this one more time, if you think for one second that a 20mm Leupie at 3x will give you just as much "night" vision as a 3x9 Leupie (to use apples and apples) at 3x you obviously have never tried them at night.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Originally posted by 45/70 Govt.:
I just looked at Saeed's "Rifle Collection" pages --

http://www.accuratereloading.com/gallery.html

20 pages with at least a half-dozen rifles on each page. I can't help but notice that all the scopes, or at least nearly all, are Leupold.

Locally, the scope to have is Leupold. It's a local product. I have two Leupolds now, thinking about more --

.45-70:

If you want a Leupold, that's fine and they are very good scopes, but not the best.

If you expected this to be some kind of Leupold endorsement thread, and you were already convinced you wanted a Leupold, why bother to ask the question with "money no object"?

Nooooooooo

Not a Leupold endorsement. This is about cost/benefit. If I were doing 25X and a 75mm objective, I'd look at more $$$ and probably Swaro, or Zeiss.

But it's 1.75 - 6x and 32mm. heavy duplex reticle. Leupold works, and it's not "Tasco" or some other $50 scope.

I too thought it was "Money no Object" It certainly does make a difference. At one time I owned a Kahles 1-4X24 and a Leupold 1.5-5X20. I wanted the best scope of the two to go on my .375H&H. When I say best, basically I mean the easiest to get a sight picture quickly with and everything else comes in second. After mounting both scopes in Talley QD rings and taking them out to actually shoot them it was an easy choice. The Kahles now has a permanent home on top of the Whitworth. Quicker target acquisition, wider FOV, better clarity and I bet it's better after sunset simply because of it's reticle design. The bad part is it cost about $400 more than the Leupold. Is it twice as good? No, it's just better. Money no Object? Hmmmm I think best value for my money might have been a better title for this thread.

Terry

Over and over, I have considered the same thing and thought about S&B, Swarovski, etc. When it comes right down to it, I doubt there would ever be a head of game that you could shoot with one that couldn't be hammered with the same rifle and a Leupold, Nikon, Burris. I'd rather put the $1000 extra towards a hunting trip. They just plain are not worth the extra $$$.

quote:

Originally posted by jstevens:
Over and over, I have considered the same thing and thought about S&B, Swarovski, etc. When it comes right down to it, I doubt there would ever be a head of game that you could shoot with one that couldn't be hammered with the same rifle and a Leupold, Nikon, Burris. I'd rather put the $1000 extra towards a hunting trip. They just plain are not worth the extra $$$.

Same could be said about a lot of hunting equipment. A man could drop $350 on a Remington 710 and have a stellar hunting career. It's all a matter of the quality you want and the price you're willing to pay. Not worth it? Just opinion.

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by jstevens:
Over and over, I have considered the same thing and thought about S&B, Swarovski, etc. When it comes right down to it, I doubt there would ever be a head of game that you could shoot with one that couldn't be hammered with the same rifle and a Leupold, Nikon, Burris. I'd rather put the $1000 extra towards a hunting trip. They just plain are not worth the extra $$$.

My good buddy was hunting with another freind and looked through his Swaro at a awesome 10pt buck. The freind couldn't see anything in the murky low light conditions. My buddy said here look through this and handed him the rifle with the Swaro scope on it. The freind saw the huge buck and promptly shot it with my freinds rifle and Swaro scope. The buck is now on the ex-freinds wall and he now owns several Swaro's.
I've hunting in situations where I could see a deer with my naked eyes, my Swarovski binoculars but not through my 50mm Leupold Vari-X III scope.
You'll not be convincing me or my buddy that a top end scope won't let you see some things you can't in a lesser scope. I've hunted with both and there is a difference..................DJ

SCHMIDT&BENDER with NO4

Guys, there is nothing wrong with being proud of a company or product made in your home country, and supporting that company by buying it's products. But these Leupold v Euro scope debates drift toward irrationality with depressing regularity. Some of you guys are letting emotion cloud your mind.

TC1, your sign off could not be more appropriate:

" denial isn't just a river in Egypt "

IMO, I think this line sums it up even better.
"It's all a matter of the quality you want and the price you're willing to pay. Not worth it? Just opinion."


Terry

TC1, you are right of course. If a guy has 15 rifles, scoping them all with Schmidts and Swaro's is going to be financially prohibitive for most people. Because of the legalities around firearms ownership in Europe, few people have more than 4 or 5 rifles ( I live in Northern Ireland & I have only 3 rifles ). That being the case, it is easier to spend the extra cash for the best scope you can get for your needs.