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).

The images look good now. Great hogs.

I love S&B scopes but they have gone through so many models in such a short time that it can be bewildering and confounding both.

And of late, instead of sanely dimensioned hunting scopes, all they seem to want to sell are US$5-8,000 34mm tubed “tactical” sewer pipes with astronomically high top end magnifications.

As an example, I loved the S&B Stratos scopes. In my view, they were perfect hunting scopes. But now they’re gone with the wind.

Still love the Zeniths, but their large objective lenses can make them unusable on normally proportioned hunting rifles.

Give me a mid-ranged variable powered, 30mm main tubed, 42-50mm objective lensed IR model (Stratos!) and I’d put one on every hunting rifle I own.

I’m a hunter not a sniper.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
The images look good now. Great hogs.

I love S&B scopes but they have gone through so many models in such a short time that it can be bewildering and confounding both.

And of late, instead of sanely dimensioned hunting scopes, all they seem to want to sell are US$5-8,000 34mm tubed “tactical” sewer pipes with astronomically high top end magnifications.

As an example, I loved the S&B Stratos scopes. In my view, they were perfect hunting scopes. But now they’re gone with the wind.

Still love the Zeniths, but their large objective lenses can make them unusable on normally proportioned hunting rifles.

Give me a mid-ranged variable powered, 30mm main tubed, 42-50mm objective lensed IR model (Stratos!) and I’d put one on every hunting rifle I own.

I’m a hunter not a sniper.

Michael, you are correct! I miss the summit and stratos. I do have one of those 34mm 6-36 on my 338 lapua competition gun but it’s solely for competition. I can’t see myself hunting with it.

The 3-18x42 meta has been outstanding!

I do like the S&B Meta.

Much better than the Swarovski semi-equivalent, and not just technically.

It may just be me, but I think the Swarovski illuminated reticle, variable powered scopes are as ugly as Joy Behar.

IMHO, that big switch sticking up above the ocular lens is just aesthetically wrong.

S&B Polar are great. I hear there is a Zeiss that performs about the same in light gathering. Don’t have one to have an opinion however.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:

... IMHO, that big switch sticking up above the ocular lens is just aesthetically wrong.

I'm a big believer in scopes without tunnel vision, particularly when hunting dangerous game - and it occurs to me that those with some Hagia Sophia dome on the ocular housing might obscure essential vision as you raise the rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
...it occurs to me that those with some Hagia Sophia dome on the ocular housing might obscure essential vision as you raise the rifle.

Well, the Swaro scope you are referencing does not have a huge dome above the ocular -- it's not dome-shaped at all -- and it's not even the height of the standard turret. Plus, the topic is a low-light leopard hunt, and not many folks need to see above their scopes for that -- unless, perhaps, you think hunters have sights glued to the tops of their riflescopes LOL...

I took the hog below two nights ago in minimal twilight. It all happened quickly, but believe it or not, I didn't need to see over the top of the scope to make the shot. I just put the illuminated dot where it needed to be and pulled the trigger.






Back to Swarovski illumination, here ya' go. I don't like the looks of it, but your reference to Αγία Σοφία and "huge dome" is laughable. Now you'll know what they actually look like.







With many brands, illumination control is simply a third turret and is not located on the ocular.


























But back to the Swaro: I've used multiple scopes with the illumination control on the ocular and never, ever had a single problem. I just don't care for how they look, but that has absolutely nothing to do with performance, either.

As I said in my post above, Bobby, I think the ocular mounted illumination turrets are ugly.

Not just the ones on the Swarovskis, but all of them.

I have many Swarovski scopes, and they all perform well, but not one of them has an illuminated reticle because their ocular mounted illumination excrescence is an abomination.

Call me shallow, but to me good engineering has an aesthetic component. Good design can and should be good looking.

As you have pointed out, more than a few high-end scope makers use the third middle turret location for their illumination mechanisms and that location is far more pleasing to my eye. So they get my illuminated reticle scope business.

I have read some positive reviews of the Czech-made Meopta MeoStar R2 scopes, and I like the 2-12x50mm illuminated 4C reticle model in particular.



It provides 98 to 95 mm of eye relief, which is nearly 4 inches maximum for the metrically challenged, and ticks all other high performance boxes as well. No S&B scope can match the MeoStar in the eye relief department.

I think I’m going to have to buy one.

Mike-

I ran the MeoStar 2-12x50 for a good while and liked it -- a lot. I went with the BDC-3 reticle because the dot is smaller than in the 4-C version. As to eye relief, while I don't shoot brutal kickers, I've never had an issue with eye relief on SB scopes. Also, you have to take the listed measurements with a grain of salt, much like the marketing graphics depicting reticles. Sometimes, those numbers (and graphics) just don't match reality.

Lastly, if you like Swaro optics, there are options for illumination which isn't located on the ocular. I've had three of them over the years, the most recent a PF 8x50. It's a neat setup. You simply add it atop the elevation turret, and these are interchangeable, so if you have an older analog version, you can easily switch to the newer digital. Swaro, however, no longer markets those in the US. CameraLand NY is where I bought a turret from last year, and they were one of the few remaining vendors to show any in stock back then.

I was not actually thinking of a Swaro, Bobby, but admit some of their oculars are ridiculously large. The scope that sticks in my mind is a Zeiss Duralyt I saw years ago. It also had all-round tunnel vision that would make a mole blush.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I was not actually thinking of a Swaro, Bobby, but admit some of their oculars are ridiculously large. The scope that sticks in my mind is a Zeiss Duralyt I saw years ago. It also had all-round tunnel vision that would make a mole blush.

So how long did you use the Duralyt? Which model did you have? Or did you just have a cursory glance and hand-hold one in a store? One can't assess much about a scope by doing so.

I've actually had three Duralyts, and none had tunnel vision. One of them -- the 2-8x version --is in one of the photos I posted above.

It was a cursery glance, Bobby, but since the scope was well focused, I'm not sure how mounting it would make the situation better.

In fact mounting scopes can sometimes increase tunnel vision at some magnifications if eye relief changes between them but the shooter's eye remains in the same place. At least in the shop I was able to hold it at the optimum eye relief.

Much of the problem came not from the image-movement field stop but the great, fat eyepiece to reduce scope cuts. This one was not even rubber, as many are these days.

The shop also had a high-end Zeiss 1.5-6× with tapering ocular housing and a narrow rubber eyepiece, and the field blending of that one was excellent. I don't suppose that rubber would have been much protection - but more at least than given by the old scopes I love.

I have invented an answer to these problems, of course, but having told my scope-making buddy in California he can have it, should not spread the word farther before he produces it.

Bobby, you have got my attention with that Swaro replacement turret.

Does it truly make a non-illuminated reticle into an illuminated one?

Seems like Cameraland does have BE 4s for sale.

But are they compatible with my Habicht PV scopes?

BTW, my Meopta MeoStar arrived today.

Wow!

I am very happy.

The optics are sweet.

Plus, the flexible mounting options it provides solved a wicked eye relief problem I had on a very tightly dimensioned rifle.

So far it’s a superstar.

It does with certain models, including PV-N, PV-I, PF-N and Z4i scopes. My most recent was was the PF-N in 8x50. With the standard turret, it had the traditional reticle. But when you took that turret off and replaced with the special illumination model...presto...you had a lighted dot in the center.

I'll see if I can find the old PDF that has more details since Swaro doesn't have it on their site anymore.

OK, here's one page for now. I'll see what else I can find tomorrow.

Illumination unit

One more thing: the newer digital versions are superior for two main reasons: the auto shut-off and the ability to turn it off manually as well. With the original, when it was installed, it was on and remained that way, so battery life suffered.

They are very simple to use and to switch out as well.

Thanks.

Mine are all old school PVs.

Three 1.25-4x24s with No. 24 reticles and a 1.5-6x42 with a No. 4, all IIRC.

Not looking good based on what I have seen, but I have asked Swarovski customer service.

I had to laugh when I saw this in the Swarovski brochure:



Looks like Swarovski agrees with me, or at least they used to.

Yep, they changed their tune...so to speak.

Well, Swarovski got back to me and told me that the BE 4 works with the “PV-1” and “PV-2” scopes, which are factory original illuminated reticle scopes right out of the box.

They could have been clearer about it, but since they did not say so, I concluded that the BE 4 does NOT work with the non-illuminated versions that are simply designated “PV” models.

It will work with the old school PV scopes as long as they have the "N" or "I" designation . But it's a no-go with the standard PV.

The same goes for the PF series. It needs to also have the "N" designation.

Also, I have seen a PV-I with only the standard-height turret. The owner had it sighted in by a 'smith and never realized it had the potential to be illuminated until it was mentioned to him. So about three years ago, he bought the BE-4 turret. He used to like the scope for hog hunting down in South Texas, but now he absolutely loves it. I've tried to talk him out of it a couple of times to no avail LOL.