quote:

Originally posted by Pieter die 4de:

The most important aspect is the quality of coatings to minimize reflections.
Also, every lense reflect light by a certain percentage on both sides.

7mm is the maximum that the eye can utilize at night time and 3mm in broad daylight.

Pieter

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
I have top end Ziess, U.S. optics, Meopta and S&B I have also compared them to leupolds although not every leupold and I find that in good light there are a few that compare favorably with S&B but fall behind in low light, which is what the OP asked.

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
I have top end Ziess, U.S. optics, Meopta and S&B I have also compared them to leupolds although not every leupold and I find that in good light there are a few that compare favorably with S&B but fall behind in low light, which is what the OP asked.

John Barsness' optics reviews and ratings would tell a different story. There are several makers that scored just as well as S&B in his own tests. You'll never get a consensus tough, as individual eyeballs make the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:


I do my own tests and do the scopes together in low light outside at near 500. Just like I'd be doing if hunting. In trees overcast and shadows it makes a huge difference which scope one uses. The coatings need to enhance the blue light spectrum for best low light performance.

I believe my eyes much more than what someone else tells me. I suggest other do the same.

quote:

I've had the luxury to host many hunter over the past 13 years. Several of them have shown up with S&B's mounted. We always take our rifle with us as a back up and it wore a VXII for a while, and now a VX3. When hunting big mule deer bucks, there has never been a time when you could shoot a buck with the S&B that you couldn't also shoot with the Leupy, including last legal shooting light. Are the Leupy's optically as good, no, but they're plenty good enough. The Meopta, Monarch 3, and Conquest are too. I used to think I needed a high $$$ Euro to kill stuff, but experience has proven that theory wrong, at least to me.

I've also found it very interesting that out of these 120 or so hunters, probably 75% of them show up with a Swaro binocular of some sort, and Leupold scope. Most of them have the means to buy whatever they want.

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:
This is just my opinion, not held by many, but I think the truly responsible hunter should not shoot at game less than 1/2 hour before sunset.

Therefore, no need to buy real expensive scopes that let you shoot in the dark.

But each to his own.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Does anyone know how or why that stopping-down was done? Is it just a natural consequence of scrolling erector lenses back or was it engineered to save users from parallax and possible eye damage? Did the American makers do the same?

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
$1000 scopes are for suckers and those that choose all things based on price..I still buy used variX 2 Leupolds, old 3X Leupolds, and have never had a complaint.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:...$1000 scopes are for suckers and those that choose all things based on price..I still buy used variX 2 Leupolds, old 3X Leupolds, and have never had a complaint.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
I think back as a kid, when Bill Weaver was the king of the hill for scopes..None of us at the ranch had ever owned a scope and Bill and Jack O'Connor hunted on our ranch for the Coues and Mule deer..that Christmas we all got a 2.5X scope from Bill..I used that old 2.5X until it turned white from saddle carry and the cross hair was down in the lower quarter of the scope..

I never lost a deer because of it is lack of light gathering!, nor with the upgrades that followed..They were not the best scope in cold weather Idaho however and Leupold became my choice of scope..Again in my rather broad hunting carreer I never lost a deer for low light problems..

IMO, a scope is nothing more than a window with an X in it and if you put that X on the target, even blured or out of focus, your going to kill the animal if you can shoot and your gun is sighted in...

$1000 scopes are for suckers and those that choose all things based on price..I still buy used variX 2 Leupolds, old 3X Leupolds, and have never had a complaint.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

I believe my eyes much more than what someone else tells me. I suggest other do the same.

quote:

Originally posted by Goldeneye:
1. Swarovski
2. Zeiss
3. S & B
4. Who cares....

quote:

Originally posted by Goldeneye:
1. Swarovski
2. Zeiss
3. S & B
4. Who cares....

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
I bought my first riflescope for a centerfire rifle in 1965, a Leupold Vari-X 3-9. At that time no one in my part of the country knew anything about or used anything other than a Weaver. My Weaver-using friends were startled at the difference in "brightness" (clarity and resolution, actually) of my Leupold in comparison with their Weavers. Appropriately, it also cost about 1.5 times what their Weavers did. I still own and use that Leupold.

Fast forward fifty years. There are now scopes on the market which excellent eyes or sensitive light meters can demonstrate provide marginally better resolution than the run-of-the-mill Leupold. But the difference in resolution between those scopes and the Leupold is infinitesimal compared to that fifty years ago between the Leupold and the Weaver. However, the price differential to achieve that difference is often 3X, 4X, or even more that of the Leupold while the improvement in resolution you're buying is, in percentage, only fractional. And the physical (size, weight) and optical (eye placement) tradeoffs to achieve that tiny improvement in resolution exact costs in other very real and practical applications of the scope.

It's a bit like whether you shoot a whitetail with a .300 Winchester or a .300 Weatherby. It is only the owner of the gun (or scope) who perceives a difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
I bought my first riflescope for a centerfire rifle in 1965, a Leupold Vari-X 3-9. At that time no one in my part of the country knew anything about or used anything other than a Weaver. My Weaver-using friends were startled at the difference in "brightness" (clarity and resolution, actually) of my Leupold in comparison with their Weavers. Appropriately, it also cost about 1.5 times what their Weavers did. I still own and use that Leupold.

Fast forward fifty years. There are now scopes on the market which excellent eyes or sensitive light meters can demonstrate provide marginally better resolution than the run-of-the-mill Leupold. But the difference in resolution between those scopes and the Leupold is infinitesimal compared to that fifty years ago between the Leupold and the Weaver. However, the price differential to achieve that difference is often 3X, 4X, or even more that of the Leupold while the improvement in resolution you're buying is, in percentage, only fractional. And the physical (size, weight) and optical (eye placement) tradeoffs to achieve that tiny improvement in resolution exact costs in other very real and practical applications of the scope.

It's a bit like whether you shoot a whitetail with a .300 Winchester or a .300 Weatherby. It is only the owner of the gun (or scope) who perceives a difference.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
True, Magnumdood, but spare a thought for considerations of the law of diminishing returns and getting what we really need, rather than something that just feeds our egos.

As an analogy, a Mercedes Benz might be 10 per cent better than a Ford Falcon of the same size, yet cost twice as much. A Farari might go twice as fast but, when you have a 110kmh speed limit, all the sports car does is suggest to people you are a criminal who not only speeds but has access to ill-got gains.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
No, Magnumdood, I do not suggest the owners of Fararis are necessarily crooks, or even spivs, simply that people are likely to assume they are, whereby their efforts at self-aggrandisement may fail.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I don't think you should take my analogy too far, simply to the point that buying the absolute bee's knees in expensive products may not constitute good value unless you have specialised purposes.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I would not assume the hunter with a big-objective European scope had sinister intent unless I found him in a blind after dark, in a wildlife sanctuary.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnumdood:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
No, Magnumdood, I do not suggest the owners of Fararis are necessarily crooks, or even spivs, simply that people are likely to assume they are, whereby their efforts at self-aggrandisement may fail.

Your view of the world must be one of uncomfortable jealousy of those that possess more material things than you. But, you seek to salve the hurt by imagining that everyone else feels the same way you feel - people with some nice material possessions bought those possessions for the sole reason of showing off to their peers.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I don't think you should take my analogy too far, simply to the point that buying the absolute bee's knees in expensive products may not constitute good value unless you have specialised purposes.

Who cares why your neighbor, or my hunting partner decided to drop a large sum of cash on top tier optics? It's not any of your business why your fellow sportsmen use the equipment they use as long as they can take game humanely with it.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I would not assume the hunter with a big-objective European scope had sinister intent unless I found him in a blind after dark, in a wildlife sanctuary.

There's a group of specialized peace officers in the United States called Game Wardens, both State and Federal, whose job it is is to find and arrest those individuals breaking the game laws. As a deputy in Texas, I often found myself helping the Game Wardens execute their duties. The firearms the poachers used in the County in which I worked were utilitarian (cheap) rifles with, for the most part, cheap optics. To make up for the lack of optics they carried handheld spotlights to light up their prey so they could see them to shoot them. Out of the 50 (give or take a few either way) arrests I either made, or assisted the local Game Warden in making, I never saw a scope that was even close to an expensive European scope - in fact, they were all P.O.S..

A wildlife sanctuary would be the LAST place a poacher would shoot a game animal illegally. Wildlife sanctuaries not only are patrolled and protected by local law enforcement and Game Wardens, they also have their own security force whose sole job is to protect the animals in the sanctuary. No, poachers wouldn't need, or want, a wildlife sanctuary; they'd pick the darkest, least traveled area of the county to attempt to take game illegally. With regard to a poacher being in a blind...you must be kidding. A poacher voluntarily secluding himself in an enclosed blind indicates to me you're not familiar with poachers (which is good, unless you're a peace officer). They shoot from the road, retrieve their game quickly, and speed from the area in an attempt to elude law enforcement. People report shots after dark...especially shots that sound like they came from a hgh-powered rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by scubapro:
If You are talking on lowlight optics, You should think about Swarovski - nothing gives you such a brilliant and detailed Image on a scope, is reliable and has the best lowlight visibility of a classic scope (not night-Vision!)

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Well, Magnumdood, I guess you've proved it all with algebra, though by wildlife sanctuaries I mean them generically, to include certain national parks here that are anything but closely guarded.

The reason I don't spend megabucks on modern scopes is because I think the very concept of image-movement is rubbish, after which the Continental high ground was abandoned. I love German and Austrian scopes and have about two dozen, all bar two made before the decadence.

I was going to put a Swarovski Z6 1-6 on my Heym .450/.400 but begrudged paying them more to mount it than the scope cost.

quote:

I would not assume the hunter with a big-objective European scope had sinister intent unless I found him in a blind after dark, in a wildlife sanctuary.