For my blaser set up I want one scope for low light shooting. A lot of my North American hunting requires low light shooting.


I hunted red deer in Europe (Romania) with a borrowed high end Swarovski scope. I was very impressed with the scope and it’s light gathering ability in low light/moon light.


Any recommendations ?

Should I get am illuminated reticle?

Thanks,

Mike

8x56 S&B. Assuming 8 x is not too much for your application.

A lighted reticle will make a huge difference. Just make sure it isn't too busy and can be turned down so it won't blind you if it is pitch dark.
The one on my Kahles looks like there is no illumination at all during daylight when it is turned down to the lower settings but you can see it fine at night.

I have been using Leupold illuminated scopes since the turn of the century. I have no complaints, have experienced no issues and am very happy with them, especially the VX-6. I have used them on the Big 5 as well as many different PG species.

Marketing demands new and better widgets all the time but the difference between the newest scope with best coatings and illumination and what the Germans were making 45 years ago is so small that it probably doesn't matter for any fair-chase purpose.

That is to say, if you can't see an old No.1 reticle in front of a critter, perhaps it's time to go home ... or get a jacklight.

If you get a Leupold or high-end scope with a good big objective and a No.4 or duplex reticle where the side bars come well into the centre, you should be able to imagine where the fine 'wires' cross, even if you can't see them.

The moral and reliability concerns regarding illumination could fill at least the chapter of a book...

Mike-Once you try a scope with a good illuminated reticle, you'll never want to go back. It allows precision at greater distances when the light is truly low. Just be sure to get one in which the illumination dims adequately and does not affect your vision and view of the target. This performance is particularly important to me as I am mobility-challenged and can't stalk closer, so most of my night-time shots on hogs fall into the 150-175 yard range.

There are a few high-dollar scopes that have good glass but fail in the illumination department when it comes to the poorest of lighting. Meopta is a perfect example. Their R1 3-12x56 features lots of performance for the $$, but the illuminated dot -- thanks to large surface area and too much intensity at the lowest setting -- makes moonlight shots in excess of 125 yards rather difficult and sometimes impossible. Shorter ranges or shots in strong moonlight are fine, but in soft moonlight, the farther away the target is, the more dim to your eyes it will appear, and it will be overpowered by the bright dot. I was excited when they introduced the R2 because it was reported they added an additional setting to the illumination dial. To my dismay, they added a BRIGHTER setting. Why I'll never understand as few folks who need a daylight-bright dot would be using a scope with a 56mm objective -- and one both touted and marketed primarily for its low-light ability.

Kahles and Leica are about the best in this regard. The Zeiss HT is very good, too. The dot is quite intense, but they can get by with it due to its small size -- app. 0.35 MOA at 10x/100 yards. The SB Polar is similar though slightly larger than the Zeiss dot. SB listened to those who thought the dot in their Klassik and Zenith series scopes are a bit too large, and in doing so have created what is the best pure low-light hunting scope I have ever used. (The Stratos, even with the larger dot, comes in a close second.)

I used to be a firm believer in FFP and a heavy #4 for moonlight/very low light shots on hogs. And if the ranges are rather short, such a setup still works wonderfully. But once I tried a scope with an illuminated dot in the center, well...I just don't see myself going back. And as far as bracketing an animal and taking a shot with a non-illuminated reticle, as samabrman mentioned, I prefer more precision, something that the small, illuminated dots (or the center "+") afford me the opportunity of doing.

As to sambarman's comments about 45 year-old scopes being just as good as today's, I beg to differ. As good as they are, even a 1990s-era Schmidt Bender comes up short in comparison to current production of the very same model -- and SB will even tell you as much. Ditto for Zeiss, Swarovski, etc. Take them out at last light and you will indeed see a difference.

Yes, the old ones work fine -- no arguments there. But I challenge you to put any 45 year-old scope up against the current crop of optics; you'll finally see what you've been missing, sambarman.

I made my longest moonlight shot on a hog using a Leica ERi 3-12x50 with 4-a reticle. The range was 190 yards. The Leica features some of the highest resolution and best contrast of you'll find in a hunting scope. Its twilight performance is very nice, too, and is bettered by only a handful of more expensive scopes.

I seriously doubt I'd have pulled the trigger on this one taken 2 weeks ago had I been using a non-illuminated reticle. The hog was very dark, and we only had app. 50 percent moonlight for the 9:30 p.m. opportunity. But with the precision of the FD7 dot in the 2.5-13x56 Stratos, I was able to lace the bullet though both shoulders and drop him on the spot.

The Polar is simply stellar. No, it's not perfect, but it does make the most difficult of shots possible.

I'll accept your word, Bobby, on ultimate optical issues. Science (I revere and trust science) does move on - and Zeiss approaches these things scientifically.

I accept, too, that physical disability would justify a 'free kick' in the sportsmanship argument, and am not against using electronic devices for bona fide pest destruction.

For others, who consider themselves Hunters, I think we need to draw a line in the sand on what is fair chase. These matters are complex but if we have to make simple rules, I'd say: do not use electrics in the taking of game. I sometimes use a GPS to save myself getting lost but have now decided not to mark stag wallows on it because that would break my own rules. I am not against using it to mark an animal you have shot, to ensure you don't lose the meat, however.

On the telescope question, I would get one that has eyepiece focus and be prepared to use it in poor light, as our focus really does change then.

I certainly understand and respect your thinking on the subject. My thinking mirrored yours on another subject a few years back.

When I could no longer use my bow without experiencing great pain, my best friend tried desperately to get me to use a crossbow. Partly because I was in denial of my medical issues and largely because I just didn't want to cross the bridge into crossbows (I preferred my recurve), I refused. Without fully understanding them, I erroneously felt crossbows gave one an unfair advantage over the game. She tried to convince me otherwise, but I was hard-headed. So was my best friend, though. She dropped the subject for a few days but had a plan up her sleeve.

Lo and behold, she showed up at our home the following week with a nice used PSE and all sorts of accessories and told me "Merry Christmas in July, and you will WILL be using this in October."

I am certainly glad I listened back then -- probably 2008 or 2009 if memory serves.. Otherwise, I never would have taken this buck in late October of this year. He's no bruiser, but for me, he represents quite the trophy as I had to lure him in to a very short distance of our house since I can no longer make the walk to our archery blind (150 yards).

I lost my best friend to cancer in 2014, but if she were here, I know she'd not only be more excited than myself over the buck but would likely say "I TOLD you that you'd like using the crossbow!"

Thanks for all the info.

I think illumination is key for me.

I right now have a vx6 with a firedot on a non hunting larue.

I may take that off and put it on a blaser barrel.

I have bought 2 Leica scopes recently but I want something illuminated.

Dsc and sci will be spend looking at scopes.

My deer hunting and recent trip out west for mule both required early/late light shooting.

I need one scope for it.

If vx6 can do it I am set or I need to shell out some $$$.

Thanks

Mike

Mike-

A VX-6 has very, very good optics and a nice illumination system as well. Glass-wise, it most closely compares with the Swarovski Z3 -- and from your description would likely do everything you would ask of it.

Sambarman,
I don't mean to get this thread off on a tangent but I'm having a hard time understanding your seeming disdain for illuminated reticles.

Congratulations Bobby! I went hunting whitetail on Stewart Island, NZ, 40 years ago - had I got one as good as that I would have been over the moon.

Blacktailer: well, I am a long-time member of the Australian Deer Association, which holds as its guiding light the philosophy of Aldo Leopold. Having bought the bag, I feel it is cowardly not to speak up.

My outlook has also grown in writing a book about what I see as the decadence of modern riflescopes. I could trot out all I have written there about illumination but feel I should keep at least the deep thought in reserve. As a potted explanation, my objections are from about four main angles such as actual need; the moral issue mentioned above; the reliability and consequences; and the weakening of our primaeval hunting skills by over-use of technology.

The book, hopefully, will be out soon. If you are interested in buying a copy, I'll try to get a signed one to you

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
...my objections are of...the weakening of our primaeval hunting skills by over-use of technology.

I get what you are saying, but one could make the same argument about using rifles instead of a spear or stick-and-string, so to speak. To me, our primary objective should be to make the cleanest and most ethical shot possible. We owe it to the game we hunt to do so. And if a small, illuminated dot within our scope can help that to happen, then I see nothing wrong with it. Just my two cents on the matter...

Yes, Bobby, every improvement in technology raises the question of ethics. As I've said, the greenies would say anything beyond throwing rocks poses a question. However, though deer may look the same as the cavemen saw them, they have evolved mentally and are becoming progressively more wary. So, I can accept rifles, used for hundreds of years, and telescopes, first used as sights by Isaac Newton. And these tools should make killing an animal more humane than even a modern bow and arrow.

I just see the use of electronics as a radical departure from the old ways, and an obvious step where we might stop and question the fair chase aspects.

As mentioned previously, I don't mind if people in your situation use illuminated scopes or if farmers use spotlights to shoot rabbits, kangaroos and foxes as pest control - it is only when the able-bodied claim the high ground of recreational hunting that it matters.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Yes, Bobby, every improvement in technology raises the question of ethics. As I've said, the greenies would say anything beyond throwing rocks poses a question. However, though deer may look the same as the cavemen saw them, they have evolved mentally and are becoming progressively more wary. So, I can accept rifles, used for hundreds of years, and telescopes, first used as sights by Isaac Newton. And these tools should make killing an animal more humane than even a modern bow and arrow.

I just see the use of electronics as a radical departure from the old ways, and an obvious step where we might stop and question the fair chase aspects.

As mentioned previously, I don't mind if people in your situation use illuminated scopes or if farmers use spotlights to shoot rabbits, kangaroos and foxes as pest control - it is only when the able-bodied claim the high ground of recreational hunting that it matters.

So you are saying that unless something has been around for 100 years or so it is unethical for a "recreational hunter" to use it? Better that game should be wounded and lost, or in the case of DG, possibly kill someone in the hunting party than use available technologies?
There are certainly some aspects of our passion with which I disagree like shooting game at ridiculously long ranges but if all aspects of a hunt are conducted within local laws it is not my place to judge.
You are welcome to your opinion but please don't think less of me because my idea of fair chase does not match yours.

No Blacktailer, it doesn't make me think less of you.

A couple of my best hunting mates use illuminated scopes. (I laughed at them, though, when they got to camp a couple of years back with all the electronic gadgetry you could imagine, and the stuff to charge it. Trouble was, they'd forgotten to check the batteries in their scopes - and both were flat.)

No, I just think that an Internet forum like this is a legitimate place to discuss such matters. There are many activities deemed by tradition as beyond the pale in hunting, yet new 'cheats' are constantly thought up. If recreational hunting is to continue to be sport in the ancient sense of the word, it is important that we uphold standards of sportsmanship and guard against things that tip the odds too far in favour of the hunter. These deliberations need to be done in broad terms that can be applied simply and I see electronics to get game as a simple concept that could be circumscribed.

That some jurisdictions in the world may already ban electronic aids to recreational game hunting does suggest illumination is in the zone of contention.

As to the beneficial situations you mention, I agree that it may be legitimate to use an infra-red scope to find a wounded animal - but not to hunt it before the shot.

I'm not sure what new or electronic technology safeguards against killing anyone in the hunting party. Blaze-orange garments may not be all that old but they have no batteries and I fully support using them.

One problem with illumination, in this regard, is that it may cause us to stay out too long and take shots in light that would otherwise be thought unsafe. If anything, bright dots may close down our pupils so that we see targets and surrounds less well than without them.

Not electronic, but a modern decadence all the same, is the new generation of high-magnification hunting scopes. The danger to human life with them is that not only can their fields of view be incredibly narrow but the magnification, image-movement field stops and massive rubber eye pieces can cover up acres of ground around the target, so that if there is anyone nearby, you may not see them until it is too late.

I will go with Bobby Tomek's comments on this issue.

Mike when you hunt with me I will bring all the scopes and let you look through them at last light.

Best you make the decisions for your own eyes and looking at the in well lit showrooms doesn't show up the differences you are interested in.

Over 95% of how an optical device (scope or binoculars) handle low light is determined by exit diameter. This is ratio of objective lens to power. For example 7x35 binos gives a 5mm exit. Once it is the size of the persons pupil, going even larger does no more.(Us older geezers have smaller pupils). This is to say you need 5 cubic feet of space to carry your families groceries and your sub compact car has a 5 cubic foot trunk, you'll not gain anything using your one ton dually or even an 18 wheeler. So you hear how great 7x50 binos are in low light. You have 5mm pupils. You wont notice any difference in the 7x35 with 5mm exit over the 7x50 with 7.1mm exit. Now a younger person with larger pupil might notice a slight change (and those young eyed folks don't need it). Go to a dark theater with a younger person and they will be spotting their friends while us older geezers are still trying to find the floor. All this new stuff, lens coatings etc makes a very slight difference that high tech measuring equipment detects, but us humans really don't. When my kids were young and couldn't go to sleep. I would take a small piece of bread and roll it up and tell them it was a sleeping pill. Would knock them right out until they caught on. I think folks spend $$$$ on a pair of binoculars and they just have to be better than the $$$ binoculars. They have to justify all that extra $$$, so they just have to be better. In truth probably not. This is not to say low end stuff will be as clear, but there is a point where the extra $$$ doesn't give much gain. I'm saying Leupolds for example are right there with high end German stuff and old B&L Rochester NY made stuff same same. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
I'm saying Leupolds for example are right there with high end German stuff and old B&L Rochester NY made stuff same same. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Well, I have to disagree entirely. For the past few years, I have been searching for the best low-light/moonlight scope for taking hogs. After having spent countless hours comparing and checking for resolution, contrast, edge-to-edge sharpness and perceived brightness -- and for what simply works best for me -- I can tell you that there isn't a single Leupold anywhere in my top 25. Sure, they are good, solid scopes -- no doubt about that. Sure, they can get the job done. And yes, I have used them with good success. But it's an apples-to-oranges comparison when you put any Leupold against the higher-end Euros.

No scope is perfect, and I find fault with them all. Even the Schmidt & Bender 3-12x54 Polar, which has the best low-light performance of any pure hunting scope out there, leaves me wanting in certain areas. The center wires of the crosshair are a bit thin for me, and the smooth, all-metal magnification ring, while a nice idea in theory if one is searching for a streamlined and yet rugged look, is going to be hard to use in cold weather, with gloves on or for someone like me with RA and neuropathy.

Right behind the Polar is the Schmidt & Bender Stratos 2.5-13x56. It renders an absolutely beautiful image, but the FlashDot 7 reticle would benefit not only from the use of a smaller dot but from slightly less intense illumination as well. (Simply going to a smaller dot would make it look less intense to the eyes.) The choose-your-light illumination system is a bit elementary in presentation and would be better served by the simple and standard rotary turret setup.

But back to my point: In the worst of lighting scenarios, there simply is no comparison between the top-tier scopes and others. Yes, the image from a a 56mm clam-shell-packaged scope may appear bright to one's eyes, but I can assure you that being able to see enough detail to make an ethical shot on a 175 yard hog in soft moonlight is out of the question.

Bobby Tomek hit the nail on the head!
Top end Zeiss, Zwaro, S&B and also Meopta and leica in the x56 mm objetive range with illuminated reticles are in a class of its own.

What might look pretty much alike on paper, can be a world apart in real life.
Even an old man like me can benefit from using a top end scope, even if figures on paper says that I should be just as well off with a x36 mm scope.

How do I know?
+ 40 years of low light hunting on roe deer, fallow and red deer ( legal where I live) have thought me a lesson or two.

Illuminated reticles also give an edge, especially when getting older.
For many years I hunted with Zeiss and Meoptas with #4 and #1 reticles and did well, but after I bought my first Zeiss Victory with ill. reticle, there was no way back.

That is why I like ar so much. Excellent informed advice.

I will shop around for a illuminated reticle high end European scope.

Short term the Vx6 will do just fine.

There are some great Leica 56 mm on sale but the reticle is not illuminated.

For me illuminated reticle for low light shooting is key.

Thanks,

Mike

I like carpetman's outlook but have to mention that, just on the objective size, there are other things to consider. One is that with bigger-and-bigger variable multiples, an objective would have to be enormous to give a five-or-seven-millimetre exit pupil at some top magnifications. There is, however, some benefit in using a power higher than gives the optimal exit pupil, in poor light. This benefit is expressed as twilight value or factor, which is the square root of the product of the objective diameter multiplied by the magnification.

Though hunters attest to its working, I suspect it is just rule-of-thumb comparison in the same way relative luminosity (the square of the exit pupil in millimetres) is. Why? Because lenses and the pupils in our eyes are round, not square.

Also, an exit pupil smaller than your pupil is harder to find than one that is larger.

Bobby, not to flame, I certainly enjoy differing opinions. Sometimes, an opposite opinion can change my mind. Of course there are lots of folks that disagree with me. The $$$$ scope companies are doing a thriving business. B&L no longer make binoculars in Rochester NY and in my opinion would have a monopoly on binos if they did. You had favorable things to say about Leupolds, yet they don't make your top 25. I didn't think there would be that many out there that someone would rate above them. Good example as to how opinions differ, go to the Trophy room section on this site and look at Saeed's room. Very expensively done. Two rows of rifles and if you look a large percentage wear the gold ring scopes. Hard to believe that they were his 26th pick and he couldn't afford those in the top 25. BTW is the Shiner beer any good? I seldom drink beer anymore and don't think I've tried it.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
The $$$$ scope companies are doing a thriving business.

Not all of them. Zeiss lost $15 million over the past 36 months and is not only moving much of its production but cutting jobs as well.

As to Saeed's scope choice, like I said, the Leupold scopes will work -- and work very well for the majority of applications. They've been doing just that for decades. I haven't looked at the trophy room photos in a while but have seen lots of his posts/videos, etc. over the years. Many of his gorgeous trophies were taken on safari and in good daylight. It's hard to beat a VX-3 2.5-8x for that. Again, though, it's an apples and oranges comparison because I rarely get a shot in daylight. If deer would be my only target, I'd need nothing more than a VX-2 3-9x40 as it will take you to and through legal shooting light (though I'd likely choose an out-of-production 3-9x40 Conquest just because I like them and prefer that Z-plex reticle over the Leupy duplex. )

I don't base my conclusions on what others do or what appears in some magazine (haven't subscribed to any in decades). My conclusions come from personal experience and -- as noted - work for very specific applications. If I would be mobile or could hunt over a feeder within 50 yards or so, a VX-R 3-9x50 FD duplex would work for hog hunting in good moonlight. It transmits ample light and provides a decently-bright sight picture, but it doesn't have the resolving power for those 150-175 yard shots that I am faced with. You may be able to tell it's a hog, but in soft moonlight you are not going to be able to tell heads from tails or whether the presentation is quartering, broadside, etc. It's hard to do with the best scopes, but at least they afford one more of an opportunity for a chance at an ethical shot. And when they don't, I don't pull the trigger.

Bobby--There was a time when a friend of mine (now dead) lived with a woman that had about 65 sections of scrub land just South of here. We would go out at night and shoot jackrabbits. Some nights we shot 100 or so. I used my 22 - 250 with cast bullets 58 grain bullet around 2000-2200 fps. With 3x-9x 40 scope could reach them to whatever distance we could spotlight them to. The cast bullets worked great in that they were cheap, lower velocity meant less blast inside the pickup and they did a number on jackrabbits.

That sounds like a blast! I have a KillZone light but prefer not to use it for hogs. Even with the green light, it occasionally spooks them. But yes, a 3-9x40 with a good duplex works great for such purposes. One of the last things I shot using that light was a bobcat -- and the scope was a B&L Elite 3000 3-9x40. I also used it last year to thin the 'coons at a protein feeder. They were getting bold and bluff-charging the deer to keep them at bay.

This hog bit the dust about the same time as that bobcat. For this I used a 7-30 Waters with a PV 3-12x50 (FFP) with plex reticle, which is very easy to pick up with the auxiliary lighting.

One thing that's a pain with the light is that BC flip-ups on the objective must be removed or turned sideways. And I really don't like attaching anything to my scopes. But it does work...no doubt about that.

Enjoyed reading this thread so far, I'm curious as to what your top 5 scope picks are. I own many alpha optics, but nothing over the $1500 price point.

quote:

Originally posted by
. I'm saying Leupolds for example are right there with high end German stuff and old B&L Rochester NY made stuff same same. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I can assure you that a Leupold will not hang anywhere close to S&B for lowlight Performance. BTDT

Here are my top 10 (11 total scopes). This is based specifically on what works best for my personal usage. I included 10 places because there is a chance the Minox ZE 5i 3-15x56 will sneak in there and change my list later on, and I wanted to show what it was competing with. I hope to spend more time with it after I get it back from Germany in 6 weeks or so. I sent it in to have a free upgrade to a darker illumination curve. Mine was just barely under the cutoff when they implemented this feature. My little bit of time with it so far has impressed me, though.

Also, there are none on my list that I haven't used. I won't list them if I have not spent time with them. And before anyone asks, I did get to try both a Zeiss and a Henny 72mm -- and no, they didn't make the cut. A friend (and forum member here) sent them to me to assess along with some of my optics. They do provide gorgeous views and amazing detail, but it takes more than that to kill a hog at 0-dark-thirty. The entire Henny reticle was illuminated, and a good portion of the Zeiss did as well. It was enough to negatively affect your view of the target.

Now one of these with a small, dim dot would be awesome if not verging on being gargantuan due to the 72mm objective. Even a non-illuminated Zeiss #4 would be great, but Zeiss has chosen to take that one out of circulation for some odd reason.


1. Schmidt & Bender Polar 3-12x54 D7
2. Schmidt & Bender Stratos 2.5-13x56 FD7
3. Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56 #60; Schmidt & Bender Klassik (2017 production) 2.5-10x56 L7
4. Kahles CSX 3-12x56 4-Dot
5. Leica ERi 3-12x50 4-a
6. Zeiss Victory VariPoint 3-12x56 #60
7. Swarovski PV 2.5-10x56 #4
8. Zeiss Victory 2.5-10x50 #4
9. Schmidt Bender Zenith (2015 production) 2.5-10x56 FD7
10. Zeiss Victory 3-12x56 #4

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
Here are my top 10 (11 total scopes). This is based specifically on what works best for my personal usage. I included 10 places because there is a chance the Minox ZE 5i 3-15x56 will sneak in there and change my list later on, and I wanted to show what it was competing with. I hope to spend more time with it after I get it back from Germany in 6 weeks or so. I sent it in to have a free upgrade to a darker illumination curve. Mine was just barely under the cutoff when they implemented this feature. My little bit of time with it so far has impressed me, though.

Also, there are none on my list that I haven't used. I won't list them if I have not spent time with them. And before anyone asks, I did get to try both a Zeiss and a Henny 72mm -- and no, they didn't make the cut. A friend (and forum member here) sent them to me to assess along with some of my optics. They do provide gorgeous views and amazing detail, but it takes more than that to kill a hog at 0-dark-thirty. The entire Henny reticle was illuminated, and a good portion of the Zeiss did as well. It was enough to negatively affect your view of the target.

Now one of these with a small, dim dot would be awesome if not verging on being gargantuan due to the 72mm objective. Even a non-illuminated Zeiss #4 would be great, but Zeiss has chosen to take that one out of circulation for some odd reason.


1. Schmidt & Bender Polar 3-12x54 D7
2. Schmidt & Bender Stratos 2.5-13x56 FD7
3. Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56 #60; Schmidt & Bender Klassik (2017 production) 2.5-10x56 L7
4. Kahles CSX 3-12x56 4-Dot
5. Leica ERi 3-12x50 4-a
6. Zeiss Victory VariPoint 3-12x56 #60
7. Swarovski PV 2.5-10x56 #4
8. Zeiss Victory 2.5-10x50 #4
9. Schmidt Bender Zenith (2015 production) 2.5-10x56 FD7
10. Zeiss Victory 3-12x56 #4

This is why I love ar. Real experience and assessment from real hunters and consumers.

Thanks for the info.

Mike

I mentioned shooting jacks( much smaller target than a hog) with a friend. He was using a .22 rimfire (Ruger 10-22) with one of my least favorite scopes a Bushnell 3x-9x 40 MM (Asian made). He was a very good shot and made plenty of shots that I thought would be out of his range. It would be a given that with my 22-250 I could make longer shots, but that had nothing to do with optics. Despite his scope not being to my liking, he didn't take much of a back seat to me except at the longer distances. Nothing close in optics to Bobby's top 10 list, but a truck load of jackrabbits would represent a fair amount of actual experience.

Well, I got an e-mail with no name on it pointing out that "nobody tries out that many scopes. Quit trying to BS people with this stuff." I'm not sure why someone would send an anonymous e-mail and just not post their thoughts here, but to each his own, I guess. I didn't mean to offend anyone and apologize if I did. I was just trying to share my experiences with optics. I decided a few years ago to sell off most of my rifles and upgrade and try out scopes -- and have done so trying to find the non-existent perfect optic. But I am glad I did as I'd rather have a few guns with great glass than a bunch with optics that cost me shot opportunities as those are rare for me nowadays.

Anyway...with photo bucket no longer being an option (and where I've uploaded 99 percent of my images), there's no way to go through all of my pictures, but just on my 7mm Bullberry alone, here are a few of the scopes it has worn. It currently wears a Leica ER5 2-10x50 with 4-a reticle, the re-designed version that Leica added for this series. The center wires subtend 0.5" at 10x at 100 yards and has only 36" between the heavy portions of the posts. But the 3-12x54 Polar will likely go back on it once it returns from Germany. I am hoping it will be soon as it was received by SB-USA back in September.

Bobby--Even though we disagree, you sure didn't offend me. Thanks for all the pictures. Really though did you kill all those?

BTW you didn't respond about Shiner beer.

Sorry about that! I simply forgot. I haven't had a Shiner beer for over 30 years. It was OK, but since then, they have added all sorts of varieties -- some that likely would have appealed to me. Any type of alcohol gives me migraines, so I don't get to partake in any sampling. But lots of folks rave about it, especially some of their seasonal varieties.

BTW-I knew that e-mail wasn't from you. It looks to have come from the east coast. (Thee's no such thing as real anonymity anymore )

Hi Bobby:

I see you mainly shoot a Thompson single shot. I am looking at that platform for a muzzle loader.

Have you ever used a muzzle loader on that frame.

Thanks

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
Sorry about that! I simply forgot. I haven't had a Shiner beer for over 30 years. It was OK, but since then, they have added all sorts of varieties -- some that likely would have appealed to me. Any type of alcohol gives me migraines, so I don't get to partake in any sampling. But lots of folks rave about it, especially some of their seasonal varieties.

I feel your pain bro' (as they say in the classics).

I love beer but can't drink the good stuff now, since it was found I'm allergic to gluten.

At least my affliction only manifests itself at the other end.