Thinking about trying one of these. Anyone have any experience with them or care to comment?

S&B seem to be well regarded these days, Gale, but I have some resolve about all modern scopes with enormous power multiples, esp. if you want to put them on rifles that kick a lot.

For many decades it was rare to see scopes with more than 3x multiples (eg 2-7x and 3-9x), so going beyond that obviously brings complications. Because those complications are housed in the erector set, almost always now articulated in a spring-suspended tube, any added mass will increase the punishment it receives when the rifle rises under recoil.

Gale-

I can't comment on the Exos specifically as I have not owned one. But I have owned and wrung out multiples of each of the Klassik, Zenith and Polar lineups and had a Stratos 2.5-13x56 as well. All have functioned perfectly. S&B scopes are built like a tank and utterly reliable.

I really like the idea of the CC function on a dangerous game rifle for follow up. They have a very nice sleek look also, would sit nicely upon any classic looking safari rifle

That CC thing is interesting. Leupold seem to think parallax is not very important in hunting scopes but one of the AR members thinks precise shots on charging animals certainly are.

I like the illumination turret not being on the ocular, though I think a 1x scope with a simple German #1 reticle is damned near as fast and won't blow your confidence the way a broken light or flat battery can.

quote:

I think a 1x scope with a simple German #1 reticle is damned near as fast and won't blow your confidence the way a broken light or flat battery can.

How could it blow your confidence? You still have a reticle to use if the battery goes out -- and the odds of that are slim to none. You really should get out and try some good illuminated optics. You've been commenting on them in negative fashion but have mentioned in the past you have no real-world, hands-on experience with them.

Well, Bobby, The reticle may be there but if you have slavishly used illumination for years and then it fails, you may have a momentary lapse long enough to let the trophy of a lifetime get away.

I'm a Luddite but I found a moment of mirth when deer hunting with techno-savvy younger buddies one day. These guys had all the mod cons: phones, radios, torch headsets, GPS, PLBs and a spaghetti of recharging equipment for much of it.

They also had near-new Leupold VX-R scopes but when they went to use them their batteries were flat and they'd forgotten to bring new ones.

Last time I heard, Leupold guaranteed their scopes for life but the illumination for only one or two years - there's a lesson there, too.

Multiple instances of batteries being "flat" at the very same time and on the same hunt is about as believable as the tooth fairy for an adult. If it did indeed happen, both qualify as morons for not being prepared.

But they STILL had good, solid and visible reticles available. Their hunt was NOT affected by the alleged incident.

I have numerous scopes with illumination, have had some for years and have NEVER, EVER picked up one to find it had a dead battery. But if it did happen, I'd just open the windage turret and extract a spare.

You also related a story a while back of looking at illuminated scopes in a store and not being able to turn ANY of them on, which I immediately found highly odd. Either they did not have batteries or you guys had no clue how to use them. You did later admit not being familiar with illuminated reticle scopes, but you really should preface any and all of your negative claims with that bit of info.

Anyway, good illuminated scopes have settings which are so dim that they can't be detected in average room lighting until you advance to a higher setting. Only those geared for high-noon shooting have illumination which glows like a house afire when you first turn it on -- and those, for me, are absolutely pointless for low-light hunting, though manufacturers still tout them for such and even offer them with 56mm objectives.

I used the Leica ERi to take 23 animals on two different safaris spanning 27 days hunting and haven't turned on the light to take an animal. Nice to know it was there if i needed it. Thanks for the replies

Once again, Bobby, you are right and you are wrong.

I take it you have been trawling my old posts or else have read the book: yes, on that occasion lack of the light did not stop them from taking deer, probably because the scopes were not that old and they had not developed habits of always using the illumination. Also, they discovered the batteries were flat the night before, so had a little time to get used to the reality.

But no, neither is a moron - quite the opposite. One is a middle manager in a respected government department, the other something similar in the administration of one of the world's best-regarded munitions makers, high enough in the pecking order to now reside in Paris. Their sins relate to something you and I may not understand, the stress of living in that world.

Without trawling those old posts, too, the one scope I recall as battery challenged at the local dealer's was a Delta (Titanium?). Was it was old stock? I don't know, but the battery had not survived life in the shop.

Yes, I have never owned an illuminated scope. Not only do they tempt the fickled finger of fate but I think they are a decadence that nudges into questions of fair chase.

Sporting ethics are complicated issues that really need be seen in broad terms, easy to explain. One place we can draw a line in the sand is to say, no, I will not use electrics in recreational hunting. I will not use a jack light, illuminated scopes, trail cams and GPS way points to give me an advantage over the game animals I hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Once again, Bobby, you are right and you a wrong.

I take it you have been trawling my old posts or else have read the book: yes, on that occasion lack of the light did not stop them from taking deer, probably because the scopes were not that old and they had not developed habits of always using the illumination. Also, they discovered the batteries were flat the night before, so had a little time to get used to the reality.

But no, neither is a moron - quite the opposite. One is a middle manager in a respected government department, the other something similar in the administration of one of the world's best-regarded munitions makers, high enough in the pecking order to now reside in Paris. Their sins relate to something you and I may not understand, the stress of living in that world.

Without trawling those old posts, too, the one scope I recall as battery challenged at the local dealer's was a Delta (Titanium?). Was it was old stock? I don't know, but the battery had not survived life in the shop.

Yes, I have never owned an illuminated scope. Not only do they tempt the fickled finger of fate but I think they are a decadence that nudges into questions of fair chase.

Sporting ethics are complicated issues that really need be seen in broad terms, easy to explain. One place we can draw a line in the sand is to say, no, I will not use electrics in recreational hunting. I will not use a jack light, illuminated scopes, trail cams and GPS way points to give me an advantage over the game animals I hunt.

Every modern high end scope is going towards illumination. All modern military scopes are illuminated.

The reality is pretty clear. Illumination is the future.

I am very careful buying illumination scopes cause technology on illumination and electronics is changing faster than anything in glass. I don’t want too much $$ invested in high end illuminated optics that loses value as technology changes.

I would by the s&b scope if I did not own a z6 gen 1.

I own a blaser and minox high end scope. I move scopes across guns and barrels. I love illuminated scopes.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Gale Johnson:
I really like the idea of the CC function on a dangerous game rifle for follow up. They have a very nice sleek look also, would sit nicely upon any classic looking safari rifle

The idea is certainly very clever, but I just wonder whether it's enough of a problem to make the extra complexity worth the cost and trouble?

Wondering about how bad parallax can get at short ranges yesterday, I put my Leupold 2-7 x 33 on a bench-rest at both ten and 20 yards. Now as far as I know that scope is set parallax-free at 150 yards, so it should be worse than the S&B (which is set at 100m), but the maximum parallax error I could pick up (from the one edge of the eye-box to the other at both minimum and maximum magnification) was about 40mm. Thus the maximum error due to parallax at those ranges would be 20mm.

I know I can't hold that accurately off-hand in the face of a charging lion...

Please, I am not saying the scope is bad, and I also don't know how the pricing of this scope compares to other 1-8 LPVO's with similar optical quality, I just wouldn't pay extra for that feature unless somebody could explain where I am missing the boat?

As for the discussion on illuminated reticles, here's a thought from somebody with not nearly enough personal experience: I have just one scope with an illuminated reticle. I hardly use the illumination. In fact, I have switched it on and off far more often just to see if it still works than to actually fire a shot. The black reticle is just fine for almost all the shooting I do.
However, specifically in terms of LPVO's (IE a telescope with a large magnification spread starting at almost nothing and ending at 6-8 power, and specefically set up with the reticle in the first focal plane as is currently very popular on "tactical" rifles), it seems to me that on something like this, if the reticle is thin enough to be usefully precise at maximum magnification, it's going to virtually disappear at low magnification, and thus on these reliable illumination is almost critical, and the illuminated section may have to be something different from the daylight reticle?

As I've said before, Mike, just because the military opt for something doesn't necessarily mean it is smart or morally correct.

- Some armies resisted repeaters and self-loaders because the bean counters knew they would result in more ammo being expended.

- Straight-pull Ross rifles were stronger and possibly faster than the SMLE, as long as you put them together properly.

- Agent orange and PFAS chemicals sounded like great ideas when first deployed.

In most situations illuminated tactical scopes probably work well - but troops who experience the downside may not live the tell the tale.

I even have doubts about the mounts commonly used on tactical scopes. Having a short-but-high scope on a mount two inches long or counterlevered sounds like a very unstable set-up to me.

The destruction of Earth is also the future but I don't see any reason we should look forward to it or enthusiastically help it happen.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Connan:
... As for the discussion on illuminated reticles, here's a thought from somebody with not nearly enough personal experience: I have just one scope with an illuminated reticle. I hardly use the illumination. In fact, I have switched it on and off far more often just to see if it still works than to actually fire a shot. The black reticle is just fine for almost all the shooting I do.
However, specifically in terms of LPVO's (IE a telescope with a large magnification spread starting at almost nothing and ending at 6-8 power, and specefically set up with the reticle in the first focal plane as is currently very popular on "tactical" rifles), it seems to me that on something like this, if the reticle is thin enough to be usefully precise at maximum magnification, it's going to virtually disappear at low magnification, and thus on these reliable illumination is almost critical, and the illuminated section may have to be something different from the daylight reticle?

Peter, yes, as you've observed and Leupold argues, parallax is not much of a problem in hunting - as long as the stock puts your eye in more-or-less the right place.

Having reticles in the first focal plane can produce the problems you mention but has the advantage of range-finding and not possibly changing bullet impact when the power is changed, even more secure when in a reticle-movement scope, a type rarely made now.

The trick with the shrinking crosswires is probably to select a reticle with side bars coming in so far that at the lowest powers you don't need anything else, at close range.

BTW, I've still got that book for you. It goes with me to the PO each week but they won't accept it until the planes fly to RSA again.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

I take it you have been trawling my old posts or else have read the book

Neither is the case. When I read some outlandish comment or claim, I tend to remember it.

As to both of those guys having "flat" batteries and both forgetting spares, their jobs or lifestyles are no excuse for simple packing and preparation. Actually, from your descriptions of their jobs, they absolutely should have known better. They made mistakes -- pure and simple. You can't blame the scope choices for that LOL.

For me, I trust illumination and have used it quite a bit. Not all are created equal, though, and some are better than others. But all of the moderate-to-upper end illuminated scopes I have used are head and shoulders above the decades-old Pecar, etc. you tend to recommend due to its internal construction. In fact, in terms of optical qualities, it's really no contest -- and none I tried have ever exhibited issues with internals.

All I am saying is this: You no doubt have a solid foundation of knowledge when it comes to the internals of older scopes. Do yourself a favor, try out some newer (and illuminated) scopes, get some experience with them and then formulate an opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Gale Johnson:
I used the Leica ERi to take 23 animals on two different safaris spanning 27 days hunting and haven't turned on the light to take an animal. Nice to know it was there if i needed it. Thanks for the replies

The ERi is a wonderful scope with superb optics. I've had two of the 3-12x50s and currently have the successor to that line -- the Visus 3-12x50 -- on my little 7mm Bullberry carbine.

Visus:




Here's the Eri 3-12x50 with a moonlight hog, one of the longest night shots I have made. This one was 190 yards in diffused moonlight.



This is the exit on the hog from the 120 grain Ballistic Tip (2651 fps MV) and a view that shows its size better (entry was through the shoulder). The Leica's illumination, which goes VERY dim, and high degree of resolution under poor lighting made the shot possible. These types of scopes allow a precise aiming point under the worst of lighting conditions. While a non-illuminated, heavy #4 possibly would have worked in this situation, it would not have allowed for this level of precision, and I'd have likely passed on the shot and never killed this bruiser.

The S&B 1-8x24, like other large range straight tubed scopes are all built on a 30mm tube and are really quite heavy and bulky and to some extent a compromise. I think they are really meant for battle rifles rather than sporting arms.

I think a much better compromise is to have a 2.5-10x42, 4-12x42 type scope, but on a detacheable mount with either open sights, or a 1-4x20 scope for close range stuff. Of these Leupold seem to be the only ones still making a 1" tube.

I have a Docter Comfort 1-4x20 on a 30mm tube which is OK, but its still a bit bulky and 450 or so grams in weight. The little Leupolds are 250g.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

I take it you have been trawling my old posts or else have read the book

Neither is the case. When I read some outlandish comment or claim, I tend to remember it.

As to both of those guys having "flat" batteries and both forgetting spares, their jobs or lifestyles are no excuse for simple packing and preparation. Actually, from your descriptions of their jobs, they absolutely should have known better. They made mistakes -- pure and simple. You can't blame the scope choices for that LOL.

For me, I trust illumination and have used it quite a bit. Not all are created equal, though, and some are better than others. But all of the moderate-to-upper end illuminated scopes I have used are head and shoulders above the decades-old Pecar, etc. you tend to recommend due to its internal construction. In fact, in terms of optical qualities, it's really no contest -- and none I tried have ever exhibited issues with internals.

All I am saying is this: You no doubt have a solid foundation of knowledge when it comes to the internals of older scopes. Do yourself a favor, try out some newer (and illuminated) scopes, get some experience with them and then formulate an opinion.

Well said Bobby, but I fear he will take no notice. He seems incapable of accepting (amongst other things) that if an illuminated reticle quits, it simply becomes an unilluminated reticle. NO downside, and no physiological handicap with using both.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

I take it you have been trawling my old posts or else have read the book

Neither is the case. When I read some outlandish comment or claim, I tend to remember it.

As to both of those guys having "flat" batteries and both forgetting spares, their jobs or lifestyles are no excuse for simple packing and preparation. Actually, from your descriptions of their jobs, they absolutely should have known better. They made mistakes -- pure and simple. You can't blame the scope choices for that LOL.

For me, I trust illumination and have used it quite a bit. Not all are created equal, though, and some are better than others. But all of the moderate-to-upper end illuminated scopes I have used are head and shoulders above the decades-old Pecar, etc. you tend to recommend due to its internal construction. In fact, in terms of optical qualities, it's really no contest -- and none I tried have ever exhibited issues with internals.

All I am saying is this: You no doubt have a solid foundation of knowledge when it comes to the internals of older scopes. Do yourself a favor, try out some newer (and illuminated) scopes, get some experience with them and then formulate an opinion.

We all make mistakes, Bobby, and I think your memory let you down as to the number of scopes with flat batteries in my local shop.

Of course modern optics and coatings should be better than those of 50 years ago (though some industry guys I've spoken to actually question it, suggesting some makers are cutting corners now).

Personally, I don't think the lenses or specifications of Pecar were particularly good, compared with the old Zeiss/Hensoldt, Swarovski and Nickel scopes, but Pecar and Kahles were very common in Australia and had great reputations for strength and reliability in the rough and tumble of outback usage.

We all learn as we go along, and I am still learning about how we got to where we are now.

I've recently discovered the beauties of the Burris Signature scope rings and, in writing a story about them, found new support on their website for the view of another AR member with professional experience in optics.

This related to why even with constantly centred reticles you should put scopes on straight, so the erector tube does not have to be wound to extremes.

One reason Burris stated was that erector tubes lying obliquely in the outer tube can create glare in the scope. This took me back to my AR buddy's thoughts on why early image-movement patents emphasised the need for intrusive field stops, such as Weaver's diaphragm to exclude "random and divergent light rays". These field stops cut field of view (Leupold's 4x came down from 35 to 30 feet without apparently extending eye relief) and created the tunnel vision we still see today.

What has this got to do with illuminated scopes? Nothing, but it is one more reason I have no interest in that modern decadence you want me to spend megabucks on.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

I take it you have been trawling my old posts or else have read the book

Neither is the case. When I read some outlandish comment or claim, I tend to remember it.

As to both of those guys having "flat" batteries and both forgetting spares, their jobs or lifestyles are no excuse for simple packing and preparation. Actually, from your descriptions of their jobs, they absolutely should have known better. They made mistakes -- pure and simple. You can't blame the scope choices for that LOL.

For me, I trust illumination and have used it quite a bit. Not all are created equal, though, and some are better than others. But all of the moderate-to-upper end illuminated scopes I have used are head and shoulders above the decades-old Pecar, etc. you tend to recommend due to its internal construction. In fact, in terms of optical qualities, it's really no contest -- and none I tried have ever exhibited issues with internals.

All I am saying is this: You no doubt have a solid foundation of knowledge when it comes to the internals of older scopes. Do yourself a favor, try out some newer (and illuminated) scopes, get some experience with them and then formulate an opinion.

We all make mistakes, Bobby, and I think your memory let you down as to the number of scopes with flat batteries in my local shop.

Of course modern optics and coatings should be better than those of 50 years ago (though some industry guys I've spoken to actually question it, suggesting some makers are cutting corners now).

Personally, I don't think the lenses or specifications of Pecar were particularly good, compared with the old Zeiss/Hensoldt, Swarovski and Nickel scopes, but Pecar and Kahles were very common in Australia and had great reputations for strength and reliability in the rough and tumble of outback usage.

We all learn as we go along, and I am still learning about how we got to where we are now.

I've recently discovered the beauties of the Burris Signature scope rings and, in writing a story about them, found new support on their website for the view of another AR member with professional experience in optics.

This related to why even with constantly centred reticles you should put scopes on straight, so the erector tube does not have to be wound to extremes.

One reason Burris stated was that erector tubes lying obliquely in the outer tube can create glare in the scope. This took me back to my AR buddy's thoughts on why early image-movement patents emphasised the need for intrusive field stops, such as Weaver's diaphragm to exclude "random and divergent light rays". These field stops cut field of view (Leupold's 4x came down from 35 to 30 feet without apparently extending eye relief) and created the tunnel vision we still see today.

What has this got to do with illuminated scopes? Nothing, but it is one more reason I have no interest in that modern decadence you want me to spend megabucks on.

And that is the problem. You don’t want to spend the money on modern optics but at the same time have strong opinions and advice on all modern optics.

This is beyond this particular thread. But I see it in all the gun experts a self claimed expertise also in optics.

Firearms are kind of simple tools - we have no shortage of garage tinkers on guns. Most good gunsmiths also in that same category.

Optics are very difficult and far more complicated. Why I don’t see 1000 experts on internet telling how they opened up and made a particular optic better or put their very own coating on glass.

Majority of scope class is cut by few guys. All these high end German optics have schott owned by Zeiss providing the glass.

So the best one can get on optics (cause most technical people won’t come on to English internet website) is experience and expertise from use. And if you want expertise from use be prepared to spend a lot of money buying expensive optics or listen to smart rational people who have done that.


Mike

I personally don’t see the issue with illumination on modern scopes.

The ones I use mostly (Swarovski Z6) I am unable to see much difference in the reticle when it is off vs. a Swaro scope that does not have illumination’s reticle.

I will try and turn it on, if I remember, but it makes no real difference hunting during reasonable daylight.

At low light times the illumination does help quite a bit, allowing one to see ones reticle clearly when it is otherwise mostly washed out.

Schmidt and Bender is probably the one brand I don’t have personal experience with-

I do have a number of Swarovski scopes, a kahles, a few nightforce ones, Ziess, Leupold, Nikon, and some cheaper and older ones.

I can’t say that all euro scopes are better, but you have to be going downscale to say that the new good German scopes are not quite a bit better than the stuff made even on the higher end 20-30 years ago.

Heck, my swaro 1-6 is worlds better glass than my grandfather’s old German binoculars that he brought when the US army commissioned him prior to WWII.

The illumination does have a minor down side- in value.

You are paying more money, adding a little weight, and improving things only during time frames that are very minimal.

Now, reflex sights are a different beast, there you have no reticle if your illumination isn’t working, but that’s not apples to apples.

But while I had the required optics classes in Med school and in prep for that, I wouldn’t call myself an expert- but I can clearly see better resolution with the top German stuff compared to the Leupold, and i think my swaro scopes are a bit better clarity wise than the nightforce ones. I don’t have the true top end ziess and can see the difference there also.

If you don’t buy and use something for a while, your opinions are likely more bias than evidence based.

Now, a desire for a lighter, smaller scope and willingness to accept other restrictions because of that is a preference. I can’t argue that a light weight fixed scope is handier to carry around, but quantifying it and weighing it towards your perceived improvement in shooting is an individual thing and will change based on your personal priorities.

If you get sick of that Visus, drop me a PM, I should have bought some of those when they where closing them out

Gale- I will certainly let you know if I do. I'm sure one day something will come along that I'll just have to try...and that will likely bump out the last acquisition of mine, which is the Leica.

I missed out on the closeouts as well. I picked this one up on 24HR campfire. It was mounted and has the slightest bit of evidence of having been in rings, but the glass remains pristine. In my setup, I use Warnes, so there will be no marks from those -- and I don't get out into the field with my rigs, so they aren't exposed to the elements.

The dot in the Visus is much smaller than in the ERi, and the crosshairs have substance, so even without illumination, they are easy to see at last light. It's truly a nice scope.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

... And that is the problem. You don’t want to spend the money on modern optics but at the same time have strong opinions and advice on all modern optics.

This is beyond this particular thread. But I see it in all the gun experts a self claimed expertise also in optics.

Firearms are kind of simple tools - we have no shortage of garage tinkers on guns. Most good gunsmiths also in that same category.

Optics are very difficult and far more complicated. Why I don’t see 1000 experts on internet telling how they opened up and made a particular optic better or put their very own coating on glass.

Majority of scope class is cut by few guys. All these high end German optics have schott owned by Zeiss providing the glass.

So the best one can get on optics (cause most technical people won’t come on to English internet website) is experience and expertise from use. And if you want expertise from use be prepared to spend a lot of money buying expensive optics or listen to smart rational people who have done that.

Mike

I would not be above spending serious money on modern scopes, Mike, if someone made a hunting scope now that I could take seriously. In 2008 I was about to buy a Swarovski Z6 1-6 to put on my new Heym .450/.400 but baulked at Heym's wanting an extra $2400 to mount the scope. With hindsight, the scope would have disappointed me, anyway.

As I said, we are all still learning. Snug in my satisfaction with the old Pecar and Kahles scopes I'd used most of my hunting life, I did't know the Europeans had completely abandoned reticle movement until I bought a Kahles Helia C 1.1-4x24 for my son later. Because opening up scopes is a risky business, my journey in finding how they developed after WWII has been gradual - I am still learning things since publishing the book, hence my updates as readers bring things to my attention.

However, rather than seeing the error of my ways, my informants have shown me things are even worse than I thought.

Since Zeiss is optics royalty, I don't doubt the quality of their glass or coatings. My knowledge is purely to do with mechanical aspects, mostly to do with how zero is affected, and it may be some brands manage to keep reticles constantly centred with some other smoke and mirrors. For instance, I only discovered a couple of years ago that Pecar did it simply by throwing a restrictive field stop around the FFP reticle, a way I had imagined as a kid 55 years ago but forgot about on discovering the conventional, articulated erector tube. (While the Pecar way is much more secure, it must cut the field of view and add some tunnel vision.)

Among stuff I've discovered since writing the book is just how seriously scope makers took mechanical integrity straight after the war (eg using screwed-in Oldham couplings to fix the reticle in the M84 scope for the M1 rifle; dovetailed reticles in some German scopes; and no movements at all in several respected American brands) before the age of Rock'n Roll and car fins blew it all away. Leupold, Bausch & Lomb and Unertl hung back, of course, but could not resist the tide of lazy buggers not bothered about doing things properly. It is my inclination that the Germans and Austrians didn't really buy the idea of image-movement (earlier, they'd only made double-turret scopes for the decadent ausländer) they just became desperate to break into the American market by the late-'70s.