JAL, Have you ever hunted Whitetail Deer in America? From your post it sounds like you haven't. People hunt them in different ways but one of the most productive strategy's is to hunt from stands. Most deer movement occurs at dawn and dusk and that is were the better optics will give you a far better chance at a trophy deer. Typically the Does will come out first and then the Bucks you want to shoot come out at very last light.....................DJ

quote:

Typically the Does will come out first and then the Bucks you want to shoot come out at very last light.....................DJ

Exactly.And the elk are usually headed back into the timber at first light.

quote:

Originally posted by stubblejumper:

It's called spotting your game beforehand so that you know where they usually are at first light.

So you can find your way quitely to this place in the pitch blackness?

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
then the Bucks you want to shoot come out at very last light.....................DJ

Got ya. You'd think they'd be a wake up by now and delay their "entrance" a few last minutes.?

quote:

Originally posted by stubblejumper:

Exactly.And the elk are usually headed back into the timber at first light.

Sure, but still, the DIFFERENCE between your average scope, and a shockingly expensive scope in "those last few minutes of shooting light",
would cut thoes "minutes" into about "a minute." So I still say you'd have to be damnd unlucky to have to fit your shooting into that tiny timescale.

But hey, I know the pressure in them Wapliti camps. " Old Smithy had a Doctor Optic scope and "sniffed" at my Leupold."
"And Jonesy, the bugger had a Schmitt und Benter,sic. and laughed at Ron's Weaver."

Then there's the missus. "Honey I just must have a new $1500 scope. Why if I see this set of antlers wandering around at dark and then I see it's only Ted comming back in with his trophy stuck up on his backpak, why I've saved a life." (or lost a trophy)

Never mind fellers, I'm only jealous I can't afford scopes dearer than my rifles.
Go for it I reckon.

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
I don’t recall anyone claiming that the most expensive scopes were always the brightest, or that brightness didn’t make any difference.

What several of of have tried to do is to correctly answer your original question as to whether or not there was a quick math formula that you could use to determine which scope was going to be brighter (to your eyes).

You are spot on US Optics claims as well as those that use them that a 44mm objective from US Optics will equally or surpass a Nightforce or S&B with a 56mm objective and if true that alone would shoot down the math aspect of figuring light gathering ability

I gave you the formula for exit pupil size and relative brightness but felt it would be helpful that you know up front that the formula does not (and cannot) include many of the variables that will determine the actual brightness that your individual eye will perceive.

spot on

You have to realize that low light scopes take many forms and like with custom rifles a variety of design options are available. Specialized coatings and careful manufacture of lenses can reduce internal reflections and light loss for increased efficiency. Custom scopes are there to fill the specialized needs of the few:



Shown here is the 3.8-22x80 scope with lit reticle and 40mm tube. 80mm objective allows 7mm exit pupil at 11+ magnification. Highly efficient lens design provides for low light loss where that is of critical concern.

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:

quote:

Originally posted by stubblejumper:

Exactly.And the elk are usually headed back into the timber at first light.

Never mind fellers, I'm only jealous I can't afford scopes dearer than my rifles.
Go for it I reckon.

As some of you may realise I only shoot paper. Funny thing, on my 243Win rifle I started with a Bushnell Scope Chief 3-9x40, then a Busnell Trophy 4-12x40 and now a Weaver 6-24x40; I've shot sub-MOA groups at 100 yds with all of them. Don't get me wrong, if I could afford a big name scope I would probably have one but I just wonder how much better it would be?
Even now I think the rifles and scopes I have will always be better than I can shoot them.

Sure mate, but these meat hunters are argueing that as black turns to blacker, a "good" scope will enable them to tell a deer's antlers from a nicely shaped bush.
I'm just not sure how much difference it makes over what time span and how many deer fit in there. But then I've never got near an expensive scope.

quote:

Sure, but still, the DIFFERENCE between your average scope, and a shockingly expensive scope in "those last few minutes of shooting light",
would cut thoes "minutes" into about "a minute." So I still say you'd have to be damnd unlucky to have to fit your shooting into that tiny timescale.

Of course you are guessing.I have compared several scopes at last light,and the difference has actually been between 5 and 10 minutes between the various scopes that I have owned.

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:
I'm just not sure how much difference it makes over what time span and how many deer fit in there. But then I've never got near an expensive scope.

Experience is the best teacher and in this you've had no education. So why are you agueing with and belittling those of us who have?................DJ

Because every post I read I'm learning something.
May be just someones opinion, but it's worth concidering.
And just keeping you night shooters honest.

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
and belittling those of us who have?................DJ

Djpaintles, I've just done a quick reread,esp.of your posts when I saw "und".
I appoligise if you think I was having a go at you, expecially if you are of German descent.

The fact is I thought I had used the word first, probably showing off that I had got up to lesson 12 on a Linguaphone course.

The "sic" was for the deliberate misspelling of Bender.

So back to critizim (sp) I thought you could have pointed out for us slow people that with your explanation of dividing the power into the objective dia. that esp. people with the cheaper scopes, one can then adjust the power (if possible) to suit. IE 7 into 40,about 6, therefore 6 power would be about best.

And while your on your toes, what in your experence is the brightest scope?
See, I AM paying attention.

Math or no math, common sense and our own life experience should confirm that the closer you are to something the better you can see it in both bright light and dim light.

Magnification is also a contributing factor in a scopes ability to “see into the shadows.â€

Resolving power, IMO, is the primary thing that you want to look for in a scope or any other optical device. A sharper image with clear distinctions in contrast will, most times, go farther in adding low light shooting capabilities to a scope than will relying totally on a “brighter†image.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
Math or no math, common sense and our own life experience should confirm that the closer you are to something the better you can see it in both bright light and dim light.

Magnification is also a contributing factor in a scopes ability to “see into the shadows.â€

Resolving power, IMO, is the primary thing that you want to look for in a scope or any other optical device. A sharper image with clear distinctions in contrast will, most times, go farther in adding low light shooting capabilities to a scope than will relying totally on a “brighter†image.

I agree with every detail of the above post. If you can't resolve it then it's a "bright unresloved blob" as Aicman says on 24hr.

I did not read every post 100% so if reticules are not mentioned they can fade before resolution. Heavy crosshairs, Euro type oculars and illuminated reticules are much better than the Leu system.

As for myself I just like to hunt and not into shooting in the dark and in particular after sunset. But to each his own.

If you are getting into really low light, as when the crosshairs are starting to go away, your eye loses resolving power. Eyes have less resolution at low light levels. So a scope with excellent coatings and high light transmission yet only mediocre glass with less than excellent resolution might be just as usable as one with more resolution in low light. Of course rarely would you see a low rez scope with cheap glass, and super coatings.

It is also true that with magnification above the theoretical max exit pupil you will see more in low light. For just the reason someone mentioned, the closer you are the more you can see. And a magnified image accomplishes this.

If you have a 4-12x 40mm scope you can prove it to yourself right at dark. 12x will probably show more in nearby shadow areas than 8x or 6x even though the lower powers have a larger exit pupil.

quote:

Originally posted by Esldude:
If you are getting into really low light, as when the crosshairs are starting to go away, your eye loses resolving power. Eyes have less resolution at low light levels. So a scope with excellent coatings and high light transmission yet only mediocre glass with less than excellent resolution might be just as usable as one with more resolution in low light. Of course rarely would you see a low rez scope with cheap glass, and super coatings.

It is also true that with magnification above the theoretical max exit pupil you will see more in low light. For just the reason someone mentioned, the closer you are the more you can see. And a magnified image accomplishes this.

If you have a 4-12x 40mm scope you can prove it to yourself right at dark. 12x will probably show more in nearby shadow areas than 8x or 6x even though the lower powers have a larger exit pupil.

Scopes with “excellent coatings and high light transmission“ will seldom have “mediocre glass†and low resolving power.

quote:

Scopes with “excellent coatings and high light transmission“ will seldom have “mediocre glass†and low resolving power.

Which is of course exactly what I said in the 4th sentence of my post.

I will however give an example. Early Burris Fullfields. Quality seemed to vary. Not sure, but many of them would be just a bit blurred looking, a bit soft looking, never quite fully sharp in focus at any range. Supposedly good glass, but definitely if not low rez, medium resolution at best. Yet, they were plenty bright, and good enough to hunt with near dark. But such were the reason many still refer to them as Blurris.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:

Resolving power, IMO, is the primary thing that you want to look for in a scope or any other optical device. A sharper image with clear distinctions in contrast will, most times, go farther in adding low light shooting capabilities to a scope than will relying totally on a “brighter†image.

That's hitting the nail on the head.
I had a hunting situation where resolving power showed it's importance to me. I was hunting out of a stand overlooking a thick brushy field of about 10 acres. It was heavily overcast and dark, misting rain. I found a nice 8pt buck with my Bino's and waited for a shot. I was using a popular brand of 3.5-10 scope with a 50mm objective. It's lack of resolution helped me to miss a branch between my bullet and the deer. I hit the deer but the branch had caused the bullet to go in sideways (there was a perfect bullet shaped intrace wound).
The deer ran off about 50 yds and stood there. I could see the deer with my naked eyes. I could see the deer even better with my Binoculars. But due to the slightly inferior optics of the scope I could not get the deer in my sights because of the confusing background! Again I could see the thing with my naked eyes and in my 10 power binoculars but the scope at differing powers from 3.5-10 couldn't resolve the deer. So instead of being able to make a finishing shot It took several minutes before the deer fell over.
I'm convinced if I'd had a better scope I'd of had a lot better chance of dodging the branch that deflected my bullet sideways, and I for sure would have been able to finish him off instead of having to sit there and watch him suffering with my bare eyes and binoculars.
This all happened about an hour to an hour and a 1/2 before sunset. Not all low-light situations are at night. Deep woods and overcast days can be just as optically challenging.
But again this points out that Optical quality does make a difference especially resolution. The scope I was using was plenty bright enough but couldn't resolve a deer 50yds away in the brush.
Not everyone can afford the very highest end scopes but everyone should try to buy the best glass they can afford. If you have an extra rifle you'd be better off as a hunter selling it and putting the extra money into better optics. If you have 2 extra rifles sell one for a good pair of Bino's and the other for a really good scope.........................DJ

quote:

Again I could see the thing with my naked eyes and in my 10 power binoculars but the scope at differing powers from 3.5-10 couldn't resolve the deer.

Are you sure that this is how it happened? You could see the deer with your eyes but not with a scope at any magnification?

What brand and model was that scope?

Savage99, It was a Leupold Vari-X III 3.5-10x50, the binoculars were Swarovski 10x42 EL's. I remember it vividly. I wanted to finish the poor thing off but couldn't get the crosshairs on him, I went back and forth between my bino's, eyes and gun and couldn't make him out in the brush with the scope. Changed the magnification up and down but never could see him in the scope................DJ

In Alberta you may not hunt later than 1/2 hour after sunset and the times are posted in the regulations.It is still light enough to see a deer through a 90%light transmission scope.Saskatchewan hunting stops at sunset, the times are also posted and you can still hunt with iron sights as there is enough light.

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
Changed the magnification up and down but never could see him in the scope................DJ

Unnoticed "mist" on the lense ? The Ocular is it? gets close to any breathing.

This picture was taken about a half hour before sunset and a buck came to the left edge past the low brushy spot about ten minutes later. I had to wait a long time for it to stick it's neck out to shoot it. I cranked the Vari-X 111 4.5-14X up and put one thru the twigs at 150 yds.

I would like to say that I could see every twig as the bullet did miss them but I tried to miss the big branches.

Even with snow on the ground it was not easy at all to see this deer and that was the point made earlier.

quote:

Saskatchewan hunting stops at sunset, the times are also posted and you can still hunt with iron sights as there is enough light.

B.S.The legal hours in Saskatchewan are 1/2 hour before sunrise to 1/2 hour after sunset.

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:
Unnoticed "mist" on the lense ? The Ocular is it? gets close to any breathing.

Uh no, none on my binoculars or eyeglasses at the time either....................DJ

djpaintles. OK, but with all your experence on these things you haven't mentioned a Brand or model, or a price cutoff point on what the average bad light shooter should aspire to.

But now we can wipe made in the U.S.A. Leupold Vari-X 111's ?
A lot of pro night shooters here swear by Kahles 8x50mm, but the blighters use spotlights.

quote:

Savage99, It was a Leupold Vari-X III 3.5-10x50, the binoculars were Swarovski 10x42 EL's.

The ability of the specific optics do matter a lot.

I was watching a field and scanning it with my usual binoculars a two year old set of Leu Wind River Pinnacle 8-42's and spotted a buck in velvet about 200 yds away eating the soy beans. It had been sleeping in the field and I was unable to see it before it stood up.

The buck was unusual for New England in that it had a high rack and it was a nice looking one at that but still in velvet. I tried to count the points but could not make them out with the binoculars. The old High Wall that I was using has a Lyman Supertargetspot on it with 10X magnification. I looked thru the old Lyman scope and the antlers were easy to see and count. It was a night and day comparison. When someone writes that the new lense coatings a so much better I will always remember counting the points with the old Lyman scope.

The buck is the light brown spot to the left of center. My little camera is not up to the Pinnacles even!

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:
djpaintles. OK, but with all your experence on these things you haven't mentioned a Brand or model, or a price cutoff point on what the average bad light shooter should aspire to.

The answer is simple. Buy the best you can afford. IMO there are some scopes that cost less than the Leupy's that are as good or better. The new VX-III's are an improvement over the Vari-X III's, the VX-II's are IIRC the same basic optics as the older Vari-X III's.
Many of the posters here have suggested the the Leupold 6x is a better low light scope than many of the more expensive models.
Obviously not everyone has the same means and isn't able to purchase the more expensive equipment, but hunters managed to bag all sorts of game for centuries without optics of any sort. But as with many of today's conveniences like computers, cell phones etc. you can live without them but do you want too?

Savage, I like that picture. Even in bright daylight one can see that a deer in the shadows of the trees in the middle left would be real tough to see without the right glass. One of these day's I need to loan you my Zeiss Classics so you can see how they compare to the Pinnacles................DJ

After calling coyotes for a while I walked towards the sleeping buck and got up quite close. I started taking to him saying to get up and run. He kept low and out of sight in the bean crop. Finally he broke and ran for it. I think that I could have got him on the run. The gun is faster than the camera.



I was out hunting today and saw something moving about 300 yds off. For some reason I could not resolve it with the 8X Pinnacles or the 14X Leu.

I got closer and it turned out to be a turkey.

Worlds apart, it seems. I'm starting to get dspaintles point of view and I don't disagree by any means, but here, if we saw a bloke up a tree we'd give him heaps and then start throwing stones at him probably.

I think here someone goes deer hunting they walk. And usually see the deer in broad daylight, but likely in deep shadow. And we don't have a tag system or seasons, and we don't have the population here to have other hunters claiming our downed deer etc etc.

Then the damn pros shoot'em like fish in a barrel on cockies crops with spotlights at night.
Anyway tonight I waved the Leupold 3-9 x 40 around and could only see about as well as eyesight. Powered up and down on dark bushes and I thought I could see more on low power, but certainly better than a magnified blob of featureless bush.

I got the impression that a lot of variables would come into play, eg I have a lot of trouble with glare inside my glasses. Was better off without them. Same problem with glare on the scope lense (light source from behind). A hat seems to help here. Then the possible position of the animal within bush... luck there I guess.

Anyway I usually don't shoot at last light or at night, so any extra money in a scope would go to precision and toughness, all else being equal.

Anyway, good points of view fellas.

Optics remains a case apart as your eyes or mine are part of the equation.

It does not happen often but once in awhile I can see something but cannot resolve or find it with the riflescope. That happened yesterday when I hoped that what was moving a little at 300 yds in the shadows was a coyote. I could have shot it as I had a well prepared rifle but had to get closer to identify it.

The particular scope on that rifle is a good one. Maybe it's not the best but I don't think that spending a lot more would make much of a difference.

Perhaps there is something else to it that has not been expressed here. You could hand someone a paint brush and get a Monet from one person and a mess from another. Perhaps we need to know how to search best?

I had a similar experience to dj's. Not dark but not bright, looking into brush I could see a descent buck. When I pulled the rifle to my shoulder and looked through the scope it seemed to disappear. Good glass gives not only brightens but offers definition as well, as was stated earlier. I was using a low end scope back then, but now insist on good optics. I too, would use a cheap rifle before using cheap glass.

One method that I use to determine the light transmission of a scope is to hold it out in front of you and look at the objective. If you can see your reflection, (like on a bushnell), then a lot of light is being reflected away from the scope. Now when you look through a Schmidt and Bender and its like looking into a black hole, almost zero reflection. FWIW.

Not having a go at anyone posting here, but i've usually anyway had the opposite effect with my scopes (before dark).
I usually see something in the bush that could be a pig etc. up with the scope, cheap nicko to better pecar, and no it's obviously a calf or burnt log or whatever.

Again NOT to posters but some people seem to have trouble lineing up rifle scopes, as I can have with power too high, and with spotting scopes especially.
Heck I'll take any lower powered scope that holds it's zero over any other sights anyday.

quote:

Originally posted by JAL:
Not having a go at anyone posting here, but i've usually anyway had the opposite effect with my scopes (before dark).
I usually see something in the bush that could be a pig etc. up with the scope, cheap nicko to better pecar, and no it's obviously a calf or burnt log or whatever.

Again NOT to posters but some people seem to have trouble lineing up rifle scopes, as I can have with power too high, and with spotting scopes especially.
Heck I'll take any lower powered scope that holds it's zero over any other sights anyday.

I agree with you. If I had any optics that couldn’t “see†things that I could see with my naked eyes I would throw the suckers away. Now, “finding†something you can see with your naked eyes through a higher magnification scope can sometimes be a bit tricky, but once you find it it should appear much brighter and more crisp than what you saw with your eyes.