Looking for a good low light scope for a leopard hunt. I was thinking the S&B 1.5-6x42, but then wondered if the some of the higher power scopes with 50mm+ objectives would be better? Yes, shots are short.

Thoughts?

Hard to do better than that, reticle choice is important choose carefully.
BB

Larger objective helps is what I've been told, 8x max is all you need though. Illuminated reticle is a must.

I'm sure that 1.5-6x42 would be good enough. Even at 6x it should still give a 7mm exit pupil, as much as most older eyes can use.

Going bigger brings with it even more danger of a bump knocking the scope out of zero.

Still stand behind this post. Have several Trijicon 2.5 - 10 X 56 Accupoints now, my go-to scope.

posted 06 April 2019 22:19 Hide Post
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.

quote:

Originally posted by nhoro:
Still stand behind this post. Have several Trijicon 2.5 - 10 X 56 Accupoints now, my go-to scope.

posted 06 April 2019 22:19 Hide Post
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.

Most ring/mount manufactures will give you the height of ring/mount needed to achieve clearance on scope. I use that trijicon scope a lot for full moon shooting and I like it.

quote:

Originally posted by Austin Hunter:
Looking for a good low light scope for a leopard hunt. I was thinking the S&B 1.5-6x42, but then wondered if the some of the higher power scopes with 50mm+ objectives would be better? Yes, shots are short.

Thoughts?

My personal favourite for moonlight shooting is the S&B polar. However, speak to Bobby Tomek. Think he shoots more game in the dark than anyone else.

I respect Trijicon because their illumination does not use batteries, for both reliability and ethics reasons. I do wonder, though, if the light-source window might add to fragility in case of bumps.

It seems to me many modern alloy scopes are already vulnerable, esp. those still with one-inch bodies. I've got a small Burris variable that, despite the enlargements over the rear of the tube, crumpled its reticle when the previous owner dropped the rifle.

Great glass plus an illuminated reticle are what you need.

IMHO, Schmidt & Bender make the best of the bunch. I have several and have used them for many years.

Stick with the S&B illuminated reticle hunting scopes and skip their behemoth long range and “tactical” models.

I would emphasize that although great glass is obviously important, illumination is key.

Even with a large objective lens, in low light a non-illuminated reticle will completely disappear.

If that happens in a leopard blind you will not be happy.

Austin,

I think what you need for a scope is dependent on what type of leopard hunt you're going to be on. A daylight only hunt may be very close range. Any quality scope with a an illuminated reticle will do fine. These days a lot of leopards are taken on night hunts with night vision gear. It's brilliant! If you are not using night vision and the cats will be illuminated I think a good quality scope with illuminated reticle is also the way to go. It doesn't have to be a multi thousand dollar scope and you don't need magnification above about 6. I've shot five cats and been in on others. Ranges were from 35 to 70 yards.

Mark

The larger the objective the better the sight picture in low light conditions. Traditionally European glass has been superior to other offerings for these circumstances.
Zeiss made a scope a few years ago with a 72mm objective. You could nearly read a newspaper across the yard with it !
Schmidt&Bender, Zeiss, Kahles, Meopta, Swarovski.

quote:

Zeiss made a scope a few years ago with a 72mm objective. You could nearly read a newspaper across the yard with it !

All that a larger objective lens does is increase the exit pupil. The size of the exit pupil in millimeters is the (effective) diameter of the objective lens divided by the magnification of the instrument. For example a 50mm lens at 7X power yields an exit pupil of just over 7mm (50/7 = 7.14mm). The largest that the pupil of the eye of a young, healthy, non-smoker can effectively dialate in low light is about 7mm, so a scope that has an exit pupil larger than this appears no "brighter".

Enlarging the objective does allow an optimal exit pupil at a higher magnification.

A few years ago, my late friend Tom sent me both a Zeiss and Hensoldt with 72mm objectives to check out under the worst of lighting. I also ran them alongside scopes of similar quality with 50, 54 and 56mm objectives.

Give equal exit pupils and similar quality glass, the 72mm scopes do not appear any "brighter" to the eye than other scopes, but they do transmit more detail to the eye and thus provide what appears to be a sharper image, though certainly not enough to make a difference in the field.

They do, however, allow one to use a higher magnification when the light is all but gone. With that being said, you also get to the point of diminishing returns. I still use a few scopes with 56mm objectives and have no plans to ever incorporate one with a 72mm lens. That's because a good 50 will do everything I need -- and I place high demands on a scope for low-light usage.

By the way, when I evaluated those scopes for Tom, the model which appeared "brightest" in softly-diffused moonlight did not have a 72mm objective. Neither did it have a 56mm bell.

It was the SB Polar 2.5-10x50. The Polar 3-12x54 ranked right up there with it.

Over the years, I've been asked multiple versions of the same question: "If you could pick only one for low light, which scope would it be?"

Well, everyone's needs (and eyes) are different, but for me, it would be a Docter 2.5-10x50 with either the 4LP, 0 or 4-0 reticle. The later Noblex N4 Vario 2.5-10x50, of which only a few were put into production, is just more of a good thing.

I've probably taken more hogs and coyotes in moonlight with the Docter 2.5-10x50/0 reticle than with all others combined. Here are just a few of them:

My own experience of claims of low light performance has been all negative!

Bobby: Please reduce your photos to no wider than 1080. This will fit on the computer screen and make reading your posts much easier.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Bobby: Please reduce your photos to no wider than 1080. This will fit on the computer screen and make reading your posts much easier.

I thought they all were, but I see one slipped through without being resized. Sorry about that. I will fix it shortly.

Let me know if that's better (currently 1024x798).