Best low light scope in the world....Schmidt und Bender 1.5-6x42 Zeinth. I shot a beautiful leopard in near total darkness...(check out hunting reports under Zambezi Hunters)...and several deer at last light. I have tried them all, Leupold, Zeiss, Swarovski, Burris, Nikon, Bushnell, Tasco, Atm, and Redfield. Now I only buy S&B. They are more money, but well worth the investment!

TJB

Low light OR NO LIGHT!

I do own Leupold VariX-III 3.5-10x40 M3 LR with premier reticles custom reticle. I also own Kahles 1.5-6x42 among others.

IMO, there is no comparison. Kahles is way brighter and clearer with same magnification. In low light the difference is clearly visible without trying.

Leupold buys their lenses from companies in Japan and Korea. Even Leupold admits that their scopes are not in the same level with better european scopes (Swarovski, Zeiss, S&B, Kahles), they did but now they are bringing out the new series to compete with europeans. We'll see how it goes but don't hold your breath.

Have you seen the published prices in the states for the new Leupold VX7?

They better be bloody good, they are asking Swaro / S&B money for a scope made with parts sourced all over the world.

Interesting reading, and I must agree with the majority who recommend the top European Glass.

I'll stick with Swaro & S&B, Kahles is also mighty fine, as well as Zeiss. The further down the totem pole you go the better the price, but at a price that will sacrifice some of the qualities found in good low light scopes. You get what you pay for, and if you don't hunt at night you might be happy with a Leo . . . Waidmannsheil, Dom.

> They better be bloody good, they are asking Swaro / S&B money for a scope made with parts sourced all over the world.

Especially when Leupold claimed for many years that their VariX-III and VX-III series are as good as best europeans. Now suddenly they have superior series that puts VX-III to shame and it "is as good as europeans". WTF?? Did they lie earlier? If their VX7 does not beat europeanns in most independent mag tests they lose even more credibility among customers.

Don't get me wrong, I like my Leupold, it is a good scope for the purpose I use it for but it is no low light scope. I probably will not buy another Leupold, their lineup is no more so interesting to me. And has not been for few years, wasn't impressed about various VX-series and choose to go Kahles and S&B route - no regrets.

The simple answer for light gathering is that you have to compare side by side IN THE FIELD. This requires an understanding local gun shop with a good stock that you have done enough business with to allow you to take a selection on approval. You are unlikely to get the best price but you will get what is best for YOU By being willing to pay £100 more I saved my self a huge amount of money.

I took my Swaro PF6x42, a PF 8x5 and an S&B 8x56 from the shop as well as my own Zeiss 7x42s and a pair of zeiss 8x56s from the shop. I repeatedly swapped them and found absolutely no extended shooting/brightness whatsoever - a large amount of cash saved!

I finally managed to get a difference with the 3-12x50 Swaro PV but only by cranking it up to 12x - at that point a dim dark shape in the woodland became a brighter identifiable muntjacdeer that could be shot. This was so dark I decided I didn't need the extra brightness and again passed. The lesson I learnt was that twilight factor is required as well as light gathering from exit pupil diameter. Twilight factor is very dependant on power so if I get a large scope for night time use it will be a variable.

If you compare an early 1980s and a early 2000s Swaro 6x42 it will take about 10 minutes of viewing to work out that the 00s is just brighter. I would suspect that for the average stalker this would translate to a beast every 5years.... I would put the percentage difference at about 2-3% which coincidentaly is the amount of light transmission lost by having an illuminated reticle (have a look at the figures for identical Swaros with and without illuminated reticle) The fact that I use the older scope despite being so faintly dimmer because it has a more visible reticle at last light should show how important reticles are.

For precision shooting one needs a fine cross hair if this is allied with thick bars close together as in a #4 you have the best of both worlds. The 4a bars are too far apart in darkness which means you need a thicker cross hair. The #1 reticle is very good in low light for some but a nightmare for real precision shooting. An illuminated reticle must go down to the faintest glow to prevent blinding you, I wouldn't have thought some of the fancier illuminated mil dot recticles would be so good at last light because of the amount of reticle that was illuminated.

Difficult things low light scopes.

Well done 1894MK2, that last post sums it up very well.

I agree you have to compare a variety of scopes in poor light conditions side by side to see what suits the individual to get any comparison on what suits the user.

Years ago I tested a Leupold, a Swaro (cannot remember exact model, but somewhere at the 1.5-6x42 illuminated and a Bausch and Lomb Elite 4000 4-16x50) The Bausch and Lomb wons hands down, even with the Swaro turned down to 1.5 power - as already stated with the illuminated reticle turned on to a glow my night vision was actually reduced, in my opinion if you cannot see a heavy lowlight reticle on a target, then surely it is too late to be shooting that target??? (what happens if things go wrong or need a second shot, likely hood is that your night vision has gone to pot now due to the muzzle flash of your weapon)

For the record the Leopold failed for my eyesight a good 10 minutes before the others - also I find their eye relief a bit finicky for me (note for me!!!)

The upshot of this is that all our eyes are different, some people have better night vision than others, TRY BEFORE YOU BUY if you can.

Was happy with the old Bausch and Lomb for years before tip money made it feasable to buy a Swaro 6-24x50 (different league again - no illuminated reticle, no problem!, the results prove to me that though this piece of kit was expensive, it now owes me nothing - oh yes managed to get it at trade price also which helps!!

Ive just taken delivery of a 6-24x72 zeiss. Got it zeroed in today but not tried it at dusk yet.

I have other zeiss dvs in 56 objective and compared to the nf, leupolds and swaro, S&B i also own they are the best for low light performance. Just my choice.

I would put the zeiss, S&B and Swaro very close, the nf and leupold are significantly less good

You never said what the caliber of the new gun was.
Anything interesting ?

Oh and one other thing - the best aid to shooting in low light is a dog....... I wouldn't take half the shots I do at last light without one. Last night I shot 2 does on a large rape field very late indeed. Even the dog struggled - without it I would have had to drive back this morning.

PG, I believe it's another .264 built on a Savage action. Griff has some photos that I'm sure he won't be able to resist posting soon.

Regards,

Tim

OK shall start and end here

James Johnston
I would rather be an arrogant comedian than an ignorant fool.
B

quote:

Originally posted by bumscratcher:
OK shall start and end here

James Johnston
I would rather be an arrogant comedian than an ignorant fool.
B

No luck, your both!!!

Just re reading through this thread, and wondered how you get on with Border building your rifle Griff?
I had one built by them few years ago, and it is absolutley fabulous rifle,I wanted Heym sr30 in 22-250 and Heym said they weren`t going to build one, so I bought the action and sent it to Callum and he put a Schilling barrel on it.Amazing !! foxes don`t like it alot though

I had last week a chance to run a side by side comparison of a couple of scopes. I used a very non-technical set up, my ageing eyes, approaching dusk and a target pinned to a pine tree. The scopes were an elederly Pecar Berlin 4-10 X 45 (I think this scope is old enough to drink and then some) and a Leupold VAR - XII 4-12 AO. I have to say that the Pecar is just back from a binoccular repair company where it had gone for a wash and brush up.

I had just refitted both scopes to rifles and needed to get them sighted in, I did not go out with the specific intention of running a comparison test. This is something that I just happened to notice at the time, both were good and acceptable for lowlight shooting, but the Pecar was the better of the two, in the failing light and presented a clearer brighter target. That is according to my eyes of course, others would no doubt see it in an entirely different light. Wouldn't do for us, or scopes, to be the same.

BUMSCRATCHER
what you have to understand is that AMERICANS are biased towards leupold scopes, when i see people telling me that leupolds are better optically thann any of the big three euro scopes.... the writing is on the wall
JOHN BARNESS told me he felt the leupold 4x was a better scope than the zeiss 4x ...i compared them in broad day light and the zeiss was so much crisper it was not funny, would have hated to see the diffrence at low light
there is nothing wrong with leupold scopes...they are a middle of the line scope , with mega advertising $$$$ attached
the one thing that leupold could improve on is the reticles...they are FLIMSY , in low light it is difficult to aquire the target , on the other hand just look through the zeiss z plex reticle, target aqusition is so easy , due to the reticle being proportioned correctly
THE OTHER POINT WHICH IS OVER LOOKED with scopes is the internal construction....and the materials used
in think leupold need to spend more $ on R&D than on advertising and the results will speak for them selves
daniel

M98
The optics thing is a very funny business,i am aware of john Barsness and his writtings, i have also briefly looked through his book on optics, and he does have some very valid points, but we all have valid points, to a greater or lesser degree.
I believe Barsness to be about the most impartial writter out their so we will have to agree to disagree about his comment.
What i did find interesting about peoples thoughts on leupold scopes was that they referred to them as "make" only and not make and model, ONLY JAYB referanced the model he was refering to, but the comparison was unfair, as he was comparring a mid line scope ( VXii) with a top line scope, if he had been comparing the Pecar with the (VXiii) then i am absolutly positive the result would have been differant,is it fair to compare a Zeiss (conquest) with a Swarovski.
You are absolutly right about the reticules being "flimsy" i wouldn`t say they are flimsy just to fine for our general needs, thats why i have a premier reticules conversion on my scope and that is why it takes a further step up the ladder.If you looked through my scope you would have a totally differant view than the one you expected.
Somebody commented that the leupold didnt have very good eye relief, thats tosh my leupie has much better eye relief than any of my scopes.

As far as lowlight use, i have 1 each of Swaro/zeiss/S+B all 6x42 and my beloved leupie VX!!! (and 9 others of various makes and models) i carried out a semi controlled trial again of the above 4 scopes which is a follows, sat outside for 30 mins in total darkness (no lights in lane i live in) after eyes had got accustumed to darkness i positioned all scopes pointing towards a barn about 120yrds away and started looking into the shadows etc, 2 scopes immediatly were rejected, with the remaining 2 scopes it was a differant story. i still cannot split the 2. I firmly believe the custom reticule leap frogs the leupie up the ladder and allows it to compete at the top, the other scope is my also beloved S+B which the leupie replaced.

The other 1 of (many) things you have to consider is the type of shooting you do, i do not take trick shots or long shots or marginal shots or running shots or head shots etc i certainly do not crank up the power on a long shot at last light so i have a better chance of hitting the animal. If i get on an animal and i dont squeeze the trigger then theres always tommorrow, for me the walk in the woods is honour enough, i also like my rifles trim i dont want the balance of a custom rifle spoiled by having a hulking great moon scope on top of it so again the 36mm objective brings down the centre of gravity and the "feel" of the rifle.on 4x and the 36mm obj still lets in the same amount of light as a 8x56 and i get MUCH better f.o.v

Lets get back to optics.
On my shelf i have various Binoculars, Swaro,leica,swift,minox and a pair of pentax, Pentax!!!! you say S**T i say WRONG! i had read many people say they were this that and the other and that they are better than the others for the money etc etc well i was fortunate to win a pair when i was in the states last year, i looked through them they seemed bright enough, and felt good, but boy i didn`t know that they were THAT good, they are model PENTAX 10x43 DCF SP and they are spectacular, right up there with my Leicas, put it this way, if i had only had my Leica for a short time and then looked through these i would be WELL pi***d off they really are that good, so come on just because they dont have European names doesnt mean that they are crap take a look you may, if you are truthfull to your self, be very surprised and could even save some money if that is important to you.
Somthing else that we have been doing for a long time, if we are going to be up a seat as we get near to last light we get a torch and shine it down the scope (but dont look at what you are doing otherwise it will screw up your night vision) what we find is that the reticule seems to glow its almost non existant but try it and see what happens, we would be very interested to hear both good and bad and im sure there will be bad.

PS. I am looking for a Ruger NO:-1 in 257 roberts, if anybody could point me in the right direction i would be very gratefull.
looking forward to comments!!!

quote:

What i did find interesting about peoples thoughts on leupold scopes was that they referred to them as "make" only and not make and model, ONLY JAYB referanced the model he was refering to, but the comparison was unfair, as he was comparring a mid line scope ( VXii) with a top line scope, if he had been comparing the Pecar with the (VXiii) then i am absolutly positive the result would have been differant,is it fair to compare a Zeiss (conquest) with a Swarovski.

Well, I find it interesting that you ignored my comment where I clearly specified the Leupold model (with Premier Reticle). But, your right, even I did not specify the Kahles model accurately. Lets correct it here: Kahles C. So, I did compare high end Leupold (better than current VXIII-series) to low end Kahles. Fair? I dunno but the results are the same - Kahles is better. My test method was pretty much the same as yours, not scientific but its my eyes what I will hopefully be using in the future too so to me its what matters.

So, bottom line I guess is this: if you (whoever reading this) are in market for a scope go and look through them by yourself and make up your own mind. The results can be different than the ones others got.

I think, and this is only a personal view, that a great number of shooters are restricted by budget to the variety of scope that they buy. In the usual run of things as people get older they are in a better financial position and can upgrade their scopes. Of course their eyes are usually on the way out by then and in some cases, and I include myself in this, the better quality scope is compensating for the failng eyesight. I'm not saying that the cheap route is the best way to go, but, I am saying that sometimes a cheaper scope is not bad just because it is cheap. There is, of course, a difference in quality that can be appreciated by anybody, even with my less than perfect, read younger, eyes I can tell the difference between my Pecar and my S&B. I do have fitted on one of my rifles a Swift premier scope, expensive?, no, get the job? no problem at all.

So what's my point?, well as interesting as the discussion is on the merits of the difference glass, and with rifle scopes it does appear to be in general a case of "you get what you pay for". It is not always the case, if you are not shooting early morn or last thing at night, or in some exotic location where the elements can effect the glass, then maybe just maybe there may be a cheaper, not out of the top drawer scope to suit your particular eyes and type of shooting.

Now remebr gents, when taking pop shots at me over this please use a good scope. I don't want no nasty wounds from poor shot placement!

John

tonyCH
sorry missed your post

tonyCH
I`m of to Canada+Usa in May so will be picking up a Kahles whilst on my travels shall see how it compares.

Leupold, Nikon, and Bushnell are all superior to ANY European scope

Well if leupold and Bushnell are so great why can"t I get parts for my Bushnell binos, and why am I taking off the Leupold I bought and putting my Meopta back on?
My Leupy varmint hunter has been a big dissapointment. A Meopta at literally half the money would beat it into the ground.
good shooting

quote:

Originally posted by ScudRunner:
Leupold, Nikon, and Bushnell are all superior to ANY European scope

Phew! - and here was me, thinking this was gonna carry on without resolution! Thanks Scudrunner - I don't doubt you believe every word you post (I've read the signature - are you from Iraq? Allahu Akbar if so! )
- though I fancy from the weight of opinion, there may still be some debate on your point.

Rgds Ian

quote:

Originally posted by ScudRunner:
Leupold, Nikon, and Bushnell are all superior to ANY European scope

This would be laughable if he wasn't serious...

Superior how?

Brian,

quote:

his would be laughable if he wasn't serious...

I know...how could he have left out Simmons as well?? Oh, and Tasco...

Regards,

Pete

quote:

Originally posted by ScudRunner:
Leupold, Nikon, and Bushnell are all superior to ANY European scope

Dickhead!!!

Gents - calm down. Who cares if someone's choice is different. This forum has been one of the politer ones, blessedly free of name calling.

Griff - have you made a choice yet?

C'mon be fair, this is what I was talking about, he may have hit lucky and found a combination of scope and rifle that suit's his eye's and style of shooting and pocket.

He probably tried the Simmons and the Tasco and found they were not up to the job.

Lets hope he gets older wiser and wealthier

I would echo 1895 comments gents...A bit of good natured banter is one thing, but lets not drag things down into the gutters....

Awwwwwwwww Mom!!

How, would you rate Zeiss Conquest 3-12x56, with 30mm tube?
I am thinking to put this on 9.3x64 cal rifle and am afraid how that scope will handle the recoil?

What is your opinion on this scope in regards of light transmission and overall quality, also is this assembled in USA, or in Germany?

Greetings

not trying to be clever, but why would you want to put such a powerfull scope on what is a medium range caliber, maybe some further insight into what the rifle is going to be used for may help.
B

quote:

Originally posted by bumscratcher:
not trying to be clever, but why would you want to put such a powerfull scope on what is a medium range caliber, maybe some further insight into what the rifle is going to be used for may help.
B

You are absolutely right, it is too much power on that scope, however I can get a good deal and that is only why I am considering that scope.

Also, I am looking at Swarovski 2.5-10x42, but am afraid that Swarovski doesn’t make strong enough scopes for my type of hunting.

I am hunting Canada with this rifle, primary it is moose and black bear, also I am gearing up for grizzly.

Thanks for any comment

quote:

Originally posted by bumscratcher:
not trying to be clever, but why would you want to put such a powerfull scope on what is a medium range caliber, maybe some further insight into what the rifle is going to be used for may help.
B

3x too powerfull???

You dont have to shoot at 12x ALL the time.

James Johnson
You are a IDIOT.

PeterPan
If you are gearing up for grizz, you certainly have no shortage of money and therefore you would probably be better of buying a couple of scopes for the two hunting situations that you discribe.For the grizz hunt you will have to be guided so why not ring the outfitter and ask what he recommends, he will have a much better idea of the ground you will be hunting, (ask him what he uses and maybe do the same?) i would put money on it though that he will say a fixed 6.
the Moose you will not be shooting long on these so again maybe, maybe speak to the outfitter ( i know what i would go for).
as for the Swaro, if you can get a good deal on it just buy it anyways and then look for a rifle to match!!!!!.Sir you have done well in life to put yourself in this position (lucky git........)
I am very interested in your Black bear hunt and would be very gratefull if you would PM me.
many thanks

quote:

Originally posted by bumscratcher:
James Johnson
You are a IDIOT.

Is that the best you can come up with? Your words cut me so deep!

Peterpan, if you have the money, then have a look at a Schmidt & Bender Zenith 1.5-6 x 42 with an illuminated flashdot reticle. You could use the same rifle and scope for both the bear and moose. What caliber were you thinking of?

Dont know about you, but I like to keep things simple. Messing about with moose rifles that cant shoot bear and vise versa would be enough to make your piles itch (pun just for you bumscratcher)

A s for your other post, arse licker would be more apt than bumscratcher!