Gentlemen
Which scope and illuminated reticle do you consider the best. I am wanting a scope for my 9,3x74R Chapuis double rifle to use on Leopard and Lion over bait and also for pigs. I am currently considering the Schmidt & Bender 2.5-10x56 or the 3-12x50 with the L9 reticle.

Do you really need for lion and leopard such big scope diameter?
They are normal used for night hunts.
I never hunted this game but what is the time and distance? In the night?
For small distances and daylight I would go to special scope for driven hunts and illuminated reticle.

I just got the new Zeiss VM 3-12x56 with illuminated reticle.
One good new issue is the pre adjustable brightness of the dot. You can adjust the brightness when arriving the stand and switch then off by pushing the cover of adjustment. When the game is coming you only have to pull the cover and you will have the same brightness again.
Schmidt und Bender is a bit different. Here you have to put the adjusment cover between two dimmer steps.
Svarovski does not have something like this, you always have to re-adjust as soon as switched off.
Gerhard Optics has also a switch on the cover like Zeiss.
The rest I don't know.


Best regards

450, I would personally not go for the L9 reticle. Why not?? It is no advantage to have a large part of the reticle lit in a low light situation. One of the biggest problems you have with lit reticles, is that the light emitted "covers" the target. I have the feeling the L9 is designed for people who think that if a little light is good, more must be better.



I would personally go with an L4. Why? Because the L4 reticle still has a crosshair - which I find is better than a dot on the range under normal light conditions (thus my preference for L4 as opposed to L3). Secondly, it could happen that your battery ran out, so it would be an advantage to select a reticle, which was as good as possible in low light situations, even without being lit. For that you want as thick outer arms as possible - making me prefer L4 over L7. L1 is a pain in the neck on the range, L2 is specifically made for running game. I guess that covers them all...



The input SauenJaeger provided above is not bad at all. It is important to be able to select your level of lighting with a single operation - as opposed to have to reset the strength of the illumination every time you turn on your reticle. A lot of the newer lighted reticle mechanisms therefore have "off" positions between each light level. Do I make sense?? Exactly how you reach the exact light intensity you want is less important, as long as it can be done with a minimum of hassle (one step), in the dark, and in absolute silence.



Finally, would I choose an S&B over other type of scopes?? S&Bs are certainly not bad scopes. Funnily enough, they are considered a slightly cheaper option here in Europe (behind Zeiss and Swarovski), whereas in the US, this does not seem to be the case. I think this has more to do with marketing and brand identity than actual quality, though. S&Bs have a good reputation for robustness.



For the application you suggested, my choice would be the 2.5-10x56, or rather it would be the scope that gave me the biggest field of view at the lowest setting - as opposed to the highest magnification - as well as the best low light performance. All things being equal (such as quality of coatings and glass), a 56mm objective will give you better low light performance than a 50mm. The difference between 50-56mm is probably not going to be enormous, but the difference between 42-56mm would definitely be noticeable. You essentially buy low light performance with increased size, weight and (mostly) price of the scope. Don't forget, you still have to be able to see your target, all the illuminated reticle does, is that it allows you to see the reticle as well - which is otherwise the first to disappear on a dark background.



I would compare scopes according to some of the following crieria: robustness, FOV, low light performance, eye-relief, weight, size, company service, prize - not necessarily in that order.

- mike

I used a Swarovski 1.5x6x42 with the #24 (Battue) reticle in Zimbabwe for everything .... buffalo, sable, leopard, kudu, zebra, warthog etc, etc and the only time I found it less than ideal was on a few bait impala I had to take shots at 200+ yards and then the dot in the center of the circle covered a lot of the impala's chest.



The #24 reticle is almost ideal for Africa...especially running shots.



With respect to leopard, I took the 1st shot on mine at twilight and a follow up shot about 20 minutes later ...the shot in the tree was at about 60 yards with scope set at 3X and the follow up was at about 10-15 yards set at 1.5X.



My personal preference would not be as much magnification as you mentioned + a 56mm objective would mean mounting the scope very high which I think would unbalance a double for me. I saw a very nice 1.5x4x20mm with "flash" dot on a double at SCI that didn't destroy the balance....the illuminted red dot seemed to float on air and looked like it would work very well on a double rifle in Africa.



I also don't think I would use a double on leopard while shooting from a blind where I would want the maximum accuracy possible for that first shot. The double would be nice, without a scope, for a follow up if needed.

N E 450 No 2,

My Chapuis came with a 1.5-6x42 30mm tubed Schmidt+Bender. Used it hog hunting this last weekend. Shot was at 6:55 on a very gray morning. Had on yellow glasses. Scope provided plenty of light for an easy shot.

Scope is on the high side of big for the Chapuis. I don't think I'd want one much larger or mounted much higher. Food for thought.

I can send you a jpeg of the rifle with scope if desired.

Gentlemen, thanks for the replies, good info from all.
The rifle has a 2.5x8 Leupold with the heavy duplex on it now. This larger scope will just be used for blind sitting, or in the event of the Leupolds breakage. I realize the 56mm lens makes for a big scope, however I have learned from the "experts" in low light shooting, The 8x56 scope is the best combination of everything you need for night use, which is why it is so popular in Europe. I have a Kahles 8x56 ans when compared with all other scopes is has proven itself superior. As a fixed 8 power is too much for all applications I also have a 2.5-10x58 S&B [nonilluminated]
That has proven to be an excellent scope. I have a set of 30mm rings for the Chapuis so I could mount this scope on the rifle. My PH said that an illuminated reticle would be a good idea. mho, I thought the l9 might be best because on low power the entire circle cross is vairly easy to pick up, but I asee what you mean with the L4. I will have to give it some thought. DB Bill, I have shot the Swarovske 1.5x6 with the illuminated #24 reticle an night. It was my first choice initally because of its size and weight, but it does not offer that much greater "light gathering" than the Leupold, I reasoned if I was going to spend the money might as well go "whole hog" and get a dedicated "night scope". Plus I want a scope that you can preset the brightness if the reticle. I have several European fixed 6x scopes and the 8x56 is superior for light gathering.
Probably the Leupold would be good enough and one of the 1.5x6's also, it would certainly be handier and could become the primary scope using the Leupold for the backup.
After all the leopard or lion [or pigs and black bear for that matter] should be no farther than 60 yards, maybe closer. Also for Brown Bear in Alaska the 1.5's wild field of view would be nice. Well the jury is still out, what do ya'll think. One thing is for sure it will have to be a 30mm scope to fit the extra rings I have.

I cannot speak to African uses but have spent many nights in a blind under moonlight. My Nightforce reticle was too bright even on the lowest setting. I kept getting blinded by the reticle; even in full moonlight. I changed the recommended 3.0 volt wafer battery for 1.5 volt of the same physical size and got a brightness level I could live with. You may want to experiment, too.

DB Bill
I can assure you that the first shot from my Chapuis is as precise from hunting positions as any rifle I have, and the immediate second shot could prove to be a definite advantage.

In checking over the specs of the various scopes the Ziess 2.5-10x50 might be the best combination of size, weight, light gathering and field of view. It is only .9 oz. and .2" more than the 1.5-6x42. mho what do you think about the number 80 reticle? It is just a small red dot in the center if the crosshair.

Ah, now we are talking. The Zeiss VM/V 2.5-10x50 is probably my all-around favourite scope - unless the rifle has to be really light. That scope has excellent FOV, is hardly any larger than a 1.5-6x42 (you sometimes have to look real close to see the difference), has excellent optics, good low light performance etc etc. I have wanted another couple of these scopes for a while, unfortunately they don't come for free...



Yes, either the 80 or the 88 reticle would be a good choice. These illuminated reticles will emit as little light as necessary to get the job done. Good choice.

- mike

In looking at the Zeiss catalog I see they offer the Varipoint reticle in the 2.5-10x50. I had previously seen this reticle in the 1.1-4x24 and liked it because at low power the red dot is still big enough to pick up in a hurry. [The dot is in the second image plane and thus does not get bigger or smaller [to your eye] as the magnification is raised or lowered. What is the opinion of this reticle? Zeiss seems to think this reticle is the best of all worlds. I think I like reticle 56 best.
Thanks again for all the info.

Just a tip, I have an illuminated Nightforce, (and yes, sometimes it is too bright on the lowest setting, but it gets to be good once the battery is half consuemed.)
It can easily turn itself on, especially when you put it into a guncase or bag, so put some tape around the dial when you don't want it to turn on