Mike-

My short-lived foray into black powder was with a TC product but not a Contender or Encore. The barrels are a little hard to find for the Contender but plenty out there for the Encore, and many folks rave about them. But I can't give you any specifics from personal experience. Sorry about that.

Bobby; Thanks a lot for your experiences with high end optics. I have also found myself the beneficiary of several of your scopes through the years.
I'm curious if you have found problems more with any brand on windage and elevation adjustments? I was surprised with a couple S&B scopes that elevation adjustment is much greater than windage adjustment. I have had similar experinces with 30MM Swarovskis as well. The one inch Swarovskis seem to use the same adjustment assembly in all one inch scopes
and it really shrinks as the magnification goes up. I'm coming to the conclusion the manufacturers have only a couple adjustment units and share them among different magnifications.
Keep hammering those piggies!
lou

I have no doubt that you tested that many scopes. I am still searching for "my perfect scopes" in various power ranges between 1-10.

I do believe that most any decent scope, or objective size, or magnification, or reticle works adequately in good lighting conditions for most game animals and most distances that they are shot. But, for me the differences become evident as that good lighting disappears.

I am not hung up on brand loyalty nor impressed by the price. Performance does impress me though. And that gain usually does cost. Some types of hunting that performance gain is not required and never noticed. My eyes notice it in very poor light.
The first 1.1-4x24mm Kahles Helia that I purchased began the opening of my eyes.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
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.

I know the conventional wisdom is a big objective, but I hate them. Have to mount too high. I do like good glass. My favorite is a Swaro Z6, 1-6 with an illuminated reticle. You could go to more power with a Z6 but I wouldn't go bigger than about 44mm on the objective or you have to mount it too high, unless you want to raise the comb significantly. Like the illuminated reticle.

I have the 1-6x24 Swarovski with a non-illuminated #4. I do like the scope, for my eyes the reticle gives out before the glass. The 1.7-10x42 with non-illuminated Plex reticle does extend usability a bit for me.

An attempt was made to change the reticle to a modified #4, tighter opening like the Plex or a Plex, but they offered only what they put in that series of scopes.

I prefer the simplicity of non-illumination. Though after purchasing a few illuminated scopes, I see their advantage in certain circumstances.

The Leupold #4 in the VX-111, 1.5-5x20 goes longer than the glass. That reticle I like. I wish my Swarovski had one very similar.
My other favorite #4's, of the scopes I have, are the 1st focal Zeiss and Schmidt & Bender.

I like the scope size of 42mm objectives better than the 50's. The 50's I consider more of specific purpose scopes. For those purposes I would even go 56mm, but have none presently.
Less than 40mm objectives were my largest until a few years ago. And I still like and use straight tubed scopes.

quote:

Originally posted by ldmay375:
...differences become evident as that good lighting disappears.

--

THAT perfectly sums up why many scopes just don't cut it for true low-light applications. There is no perfect scope; it's just that some do better than the others and allow opportunities that otherwise would have been lost.

Two nights ago, I took a coyote at 155 yards around 9:30. Last night, 90 minutes after legal sundown, I took a large boar hog at 170 yards. Even with good glass, the shots were anything but a piece of cake.

If there was a perfect scope (for me), though, it would have the transmission of the SB Polar, the contrast and resolution of the Leica ERi, the edge-to-edge sharpness of an upper-end Swarovski, the rugged durability of a Schmidt Bender, the forgiving eye box of the Kahles CSX, the Zeiss #4 reticle with the Zeiss illuminated #60 dot and the nice and dim illumination system of either the Leica ERi or Kahles CSX.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
I know the conventional wisdom is a big objective, but I hate them. Have to mount too high. I do like good glass. My favorite is a Swaro Z6, 1-6 with an illuminated reticle. You could go to more power with a Z6 but I wouldn't go bigger than about 44mm on the objective or you have to mount it too high, unless you want to raise the comb significantly. Like the illuminated reticle.

I guess it depends on your system. I use Warne medium rings with 56mm objectives and either a Revolution or High Plains buttstock. Eye-scope alignment is automatic in bringing up the rifle and -- more than anything -- is very comfortable.

I'm not mobile and have no objections to weight or being streamlined. Performance is all that counts for me, so I can overlook other factors.




Here's a 54mm scope in medium Warne rings. Honestly, I'd mount a 40mm in the same rings as I need the space to cock the hammer (I don't use extensions on my guns).

I would add, in my "perfect scope" it would also be the size and weight of a Leupold 1.5-5x20 and have the field of view of a Leica Magnus in 1-6.3x24, with all the attributes that you mentioned.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ldmay375:
...differences become evident as that good lighting disappears.

--

THAT perfectly sums up why many scopes just don't cut it for true low-light applications. There is no perfect scope; it's just that some do better than the others and allow opportunities that otherwise would have been lost.

Two nights ago, I took a coyote at 155 yards around 9:30. Last night, 90 minutes after legal sundown, I took a large boar hog at 170 yards. Even with good glass, the shots were anything but a piece of cake.

If there was a perfect scope (for me), though, it would have the transmission of the SB Polar, the contrast and resolution of the Leica ERi, the edge-to-edge sharpness of an upper-end Swarovski, the rugged durability of a Schmidt Bender, the forgiving eye box of the Kahles CSX, the Zeiss #4 reticle with the Zeiss illuminated #60 dot and the nice and dim illumination system of either the Leica ERi or Kahles CSX.

quote:

Originally posted by ldmay375:
I would add, in my "perfect scope" it would also be the size and weight of a Leupold 1.5-5x20 and have the field of view of a Leica Magnus in 1-6.3x24, with all the attributes that you mentioned.

... and no articulated erector tube

Ive found the 2.5 and 3X Leupold fixed as good as any of the high dollar scopes especiall that foreign stuff..I can't recall missing an animal over lighting in the first place, not saying it can't happen but a $1000 or $3000 scope to shoot coyotes, foxes and pigs or deer is over the top IMO..

quote:

Originally posted by ldmay375:
... The first 1.1-4x24mm Kahles Helia that I purchased began the opening of my eyes ...

Me too - but for different reasons. After using old Pecar and Helia Super scopes for decades, the Helia C was my realisation that Kahles had succumbed to the constantly centred decadance

As to the size of objectives, big ones might be fine if you have a smooth, swept path to your blind or high seat - not so good if you hunt over rough ground as we do. The bigger the scope and the closer together the mounts, the greater the chance that a fall or bump will knock things out of whack. Unertl* even said big scopes were a bad idea (think mountain hunting); warning that a gust of wind was more likely to move them and the rifle just as you fired.

*not Townsend Whelen as I initially wrote.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Ive found the 2.5 and 3X Leupold fixed as good as any of the high dollar scopes especiall that foreign stuff..I can't recall missing an animal over lighting in the first place, not saying it can't happen but a $1000 or $3000 scope to shoot coyotes, foxes and pigs or deer is over the top IMO..

With all due respect, Ray, I can assure you that the animals I posted in this thread, you likely COULD NOT have even found them in the scope -- let alone identified what they were -- because a 2.5 or 3x Leupold does not have the magnification necessary for a moonlight shot at those ranges. If you think otherwise, you are truly kidding yourself.

It not only takes a high degree of resolution and light transmission along with an appropriate level of contrast but MAGNIFICATiON to make an ethical night-time shot in the conditions I encounter. For my usage, 8x is an absolute minimum, and 10x or higher is preferred. It's a completely different game from shots in daylight.

Tell you what: Next time you are down here in TX, come on over around 10 p.m. during a half-moon phase. We'll put out a dark target in the shadows at 175 yards. If you can put a bullet in the bull with a 2.5 or 3x Leupold using only the illumination of the moon and I can't with my rig, you get my rifle and scope. But if you can't and I can, then your rig is mine. Deal? Trust me: If a Leupy 2.5x or 3x could handle it, I'd have them on my rifles. Bottom line is that they can't -- been there, done that and know what the results will be.

Keep fighting the good fight Bobby!

quote:

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

Does that not also apply to getting lost or remembering where the carcass is?

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I sometimes use a GPS to save myself getting lost [...] I am not against using it to mark an animal you have shot, to ensure you don't lose the meat

If it is ethical to use electronic technology to ensure you don't lose the meat, then it is surely also ethical to use an illuminated reticle to ensure a clean shot?

You should have quoted me further, JH, so I could remember the exact context of that ancient post you quote, but I suspect you are employing a tad of sophistry. I'll look your reference up later when I have more time.

As to the question of illumination ensuring a clean shot, OK, but I doubt whether it really gives you what you pay for. If you can't see a blunt old German #1 picket top, the ethical answer would be go home! Also, as Atkinson (or was it Stonecreek?) has pointed out, there is a chance with illumination that it might close up your pupil to a point where you can't see the critter behind it.

Don’t worry about it - just tongue in cheek.
My experience of an illuminated dot in a 4A type reticle on nighttime setting does nothing to reduce dark pupil adaptation. I definitely prefer it now to the old thick twilight reticles

quote:

...there is a chance with illumination that it might close up your pupil to a point where you can't see the critter behind it.

That's about as lame of an argument as I have heard in a while, sambarman338. GOOD optics adjust very dimly, and illumination makes a huge difference in being able to make an ethical shot. Take it from someone who's spent countless hours comparing the best illuminated scopes out there instead of basing an opinion on heresy. Bold reticles have their place, but they can't compare to good illumination for precision in the worst lighting scenarios.

quote:

quote:...there is a chance with illumination that it might close up your pupil to a point where you can't see the critter behind it.

That is a problem with crossbow scopes but nearly all of them are low priced

quote:

heresy

Stone the crows, Tommy!

It wasn't even hear say. That extra light makes our pupils contract is hardly a mystery. That scope technology gets more and more sophisticated cannot be denied, either, but to assume the smartest version applies to every brand and model is a bit much.

As said earlier, I'm willing to cut you some slack because of your disability, so perhaps you could allow us some lame arguments

Get out there and try them for yourself, sambarman, and then report back. You'll finally see what you have been missing...pardon the pun.

Bobby:

I spent dsc looking at a lot of high end optics.

I have more confidence in your opinion than what I could see in a brightly lit convention center.

I will do the same at sci.

Some good deals on scopes at dsc - bought a Swarovski Z3.

Mike

I'm sure there's something in what you say, Bobby, but I just don't have the use for it here. We are not allowed to hunt game more than half an hour before sun-up or after sun-down. If we want to shoot pests at night, we use a spotlight, in which case the need for smart reticles and high light-gathering capabilities is much reduced.

Were I to come across one of B. Nickel's post-war luminous-reticle scopes in good condition I'd I'd grab it with glee, just for my collection, though I know it would need a torch shone into it before use.

I took a very nice Keiler before christmas at 3am. It was a pretty full moon and I was in a highseat. The Keiler appeared and was silhouetted against the corn about 75 yards away. Scope is a Zeiss 6x42 with a German No 4 reticle. Worked put pointy end of the Kelier was the nose. Put the vertical part of crosshair just behind the foreleg and with the horizontal and 1/3 of the way up the body and squeezed trigger. An almighty squeal and charged into the wood at the edge of the field.

At dawn I picked him up just into the wood - he had run probably 30 yards with bullet straight through the vitals.

Yes a 50 or 56 objective lense and an illuminated reticle might have mad it a touch easier, but the the thick German No 4 comes into its own in low light.

quote:

Originally posted by LJS:
Bobby: I'm curious if you have found problems more with any brand on windage and elevation adjustments? I was surprised with a couple S&B scopes that elevation adjustment is much greater than windage adjustment. I have had similar experinces with 30MM Swarovskis as well. The one inch Swarovskis seem to use the same adjustment assembly in all one inch scopes
and it really shrinks as the magnification goes up. I'm coming to the conclusion the manufacturers have only a couple adjustment units and share them among different magnifications.
Keep hammering those piggies!
lou

Lou-Sorry...I somehow overlooked your question earlier. To be honest, since the majority of my shooting is with Contenders and rarely beyond 350 yards, I have never really wrung them out for the full adjustment range. Since the scopes mount directly onto the barrel, it seems I am almost never more than 8-10 clicks off center. I shoot the box with all of them to check for repeatability and precision, but that doesn't run them to the edges, either.

quote:

Originally posted by Heym SR20:
I took a very nice Keiler before christmas at 3am. It was a pretty full moon and I was in a highseat. The Keiler appeared and was silhouetted against the corn about 75 yards away. Scope is a Zeiss 6x42 with a German No 4 reticle. Worked put pointy end of the Kelier was the nose. Put the vertical part of crosshair just behind the foreleg and with the horizontal and 1/3 of the way up the body and squeezed trigger. An almighty squeal and charged into the wood at the edge of the field.

At dawn I picked him up just into the wood - he had run probably 30 yards with bullet straight through the vitals.

Yes a 50 or 56 objective lense and an illuminated reticle might have mad it a touch easier, but the the thick German No 4 comes into its own in low light.

Congrats! Yes, a heavy reticle works wonderfully for such a situation. The lighted reticles really come into their own and leave the others behind when you get to 100 yards and beyond. At the ranges I normally take game in moonlight (150-175 yards), there simply is no comparison.

But even at closer ranges, where you were able to make a precise shot with a non-illuminated reticle, a small, unobtrusive dot will immediately draw your eye in and likely result in even quicker alignment.

Bobby,
I was raised on a Texas ranch shooting bobcats and Coyotes when furs were high, and shot as many as 15 coyotes and 4 bobcats in a single night, and 3 Leopards with my 3X and 4X scopes, All I had to do was put the X on them and pull the trigger, clarity and magnification makes little difference to me as long as the results are the same, so I suppose we will have to disagree..an if we ever hunt together, I will bet you a five dollars a shot I can keep up..

I recall Abe Riggs, Texas who cleaned his weaver scope with a cleaning rod and took out the cross hairs, I told him I would take it to Bill Weaver and get new cross hairs in it..He said Ive been killing deer and coyotes with it for 20 years I know where the middle of the scope is!!

Ray-

I took this one Jan 30th around 1 a.m. at 170 yards. Even through the 8x Meopta binoculars, I was not quite 100 percent certain this was a coyote. Not until I got behind the 3-15x56 Minox ZE 5i near max power was I certain what I was looking at. As you can see, the coat of the coyote blends well with the winter grass, placing an even greater degree of difficulty into an already tough situation.

But with this scope, I was able to clearly define my target and place a 125 grain Accubond from the 24" 30-30 where it mattered most.

Through a 3 or 4x scope, all you'd have is a rather small blob. And if you were somehow able to hit it, you would not know if you shot a dog, deer, calf, etc. until you walked up on it. Those scopes simply can't provide enough detail for an ethical shot in that type of situation and at those types of yardages.

We aren't talking about spotlighting here. We are talking about pure moonlight illumination and nothing else.

My only regret is that I didn't learn all of this long ago -- when I still had my health and was mobile. I can't get out and hunt anymore. My shot only shot opportunities are those I get from near the house.

My vote is for the Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56 Illuminated.

For low light scopes I have used to have a Swarovski Z4i 2.5-10x56 illuminated (still available in Europe from some sources), it was excellent but I foolishly sold it. I now use a Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56 with an illuminated #60 reticle

The Zeiss HT is simply outstanding in low light, I think it would be nearly impossible to get a better low light scope without switching to night vision.

The Victory HT is certainly one of the best. Only the S&B Stratos and Polar edge it out.

While the Stratos produces the most vibrant image, it is hampered a bit by an MOA-sized dot whereas the Polar is around half that size. The dot in the #60 Zeiss reticle is the smallest illuminated dot in the industry (among low-light hunting scopes)

All 3, however, are superb -- the proverbial cream of the crop -- and would serve one very well.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

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.

An Aussie who can't drink beer? Won't they take away your citizenship for that offense?

We have a few beers made from sorghum which contains no gluten. Have you run across any of those and tried them?

Yes, Stonecreek, it is a weighty burden to bear but luckily Australia now makes and drinks a lot of wine, too.

Most gluten-free beers are ho-hum but I'm always eager to try new ones. I think the only American one I've seen is called Omission.

It beats me why the makers don't load some up with aromatic hops (think Moosehead and Löwenbräu), which could cover some of the deficiencies.

My two low light scopes have become Leicas.

Leica ER5

This one goes on my Blaser 30/06 barrel

https://www.eurooptic.com/leic...a-reticle-51071.aspx

This one goes on my Blaser 6.5 creedmoor

https://www.eurooptic.com/leic...c-reticle-51074.aspx



Eventually I will get a illuminated one.

I saw a deer today and without these higher end scopes it’s tough to hit em in the last 2-5 min of shooting light.

Mike

Mike-

Awesome glass you have there. And you are right: good glass does indeed make a difference. It took me a few years to realize that, but once you try a high-end scope, there's no going back.

Bobby

Where do you set your scope magnification for low light shooting ?

Thanks

Mike

I use the highest magnification I can get by with and rarely use anything below 8x.

I have issues with target acquisition if magnification is set too high.

I am thinking of keeping it low and dialing it up as I settle into the shot.

Mike

That'll work. As you know, magnification in low-light or moonlight is your best asset. A shot from 175 yards in daylight at 4x is a piece of cake. But in moonlight, a target at 175 yards on 4x is not much more than an indistinct blob.

My longest moonlight shot to date is 190 yards on a big boar hog. That is stretching things in this type of terrain, but under the right conditions, it can be done. I hope you get to christen your new Leicas soon. Be sure and post pictures when you do!

The is the 190 yard moonlight hog. I used a Leica ERi 3-12x50 at 10x. This brute got to be this size by being nocturnal.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
That'll work. As you know, magnification in low-light or moonlight is your best asset. A shot from 175 yards in daylight at 4x is a piece of cake. But in moonlight, a target at 175 yards on 4x is not much more than an indistinct blob.

My longest moonlight shot to date is 190 yards on a big boar hog. That is stretching things in this type of terrain, but under the right conditions, it can be done. I hope you get to christen your new Leicas soon. Be sure and post pictures when you do!

Will try and shoot a deer this fall.

I am thinking of taking two rifles into the stand. A ruger number 1 in 300 H&H with a cheap zeiss conquest and a blaser with the Leica.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
The is the 190 yard moonlight hog. I used a Leica ERi 3-12x50 at 10x. This brute got to be this size by being nocturnal.

Wow

Mike