New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Best options for lowlight
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Best options for lowlight

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/15/2009 at 20:01
Bboy623 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/21/2008
Location: NC
Status: Offline
Points: 370
I'm trying to refresh my memory as it's been awhile since I've been on here. As I remember from my research there's not much difference between 42 and 50mm objective for low light conditions. I've been told that a 30mm tube is what I need to gather all the possible light. Is it true that if I'm concerned with low light capability and optic quality that I need a 30 mm tube?? I though I'd narrowed down my scope choice to a Nikon Monarch 2.5-10X42 BDC for my Browning .270. Now I'm second guessing my choice. Help! The Monarch Golds are about twice as much to get the 30mm tube. Is it worth it?--Bboy623
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/15/2009 at 20:10
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 13882
What a 30mm tube gives you is more internal adjustment. The larger 50 mm objective makes the scope brighter on 7x where the 42mm maxed out brightness at 6x so 7X would not be as bright on the 42mm.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/15/2009 at 21:43
Obi Wan Kenobi View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/21/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 186
Originally posted by Bboy623 Bboy623 wrote:

I'm trying to refresh my memory as it's been awhile since I've been on here. As I remember from my research there's not much difference between 42 and 50mm objective for low light conditions. I've been told that a 30mm tube is what I need to gather all the possible light. Is it true that if I'm concerned with low light capability and optic quality that I need a 30 mm tube?? I though I'd narrowed down my scope choice to a Nikon Monarch 2.5-10X42 BDC for my Browning .270. Now I'm second guessing my choice. Help! The Monarch Golds are about twice as much to get the 30mm tube. Is it worth it?--Bboy623
 
If brightness is what you are after & you are serious I'd look at a bigger lens. 50, 52 or 56mm glass.
 
I'd also opt for a  Conquest scope if you are going to spend 400-600 on a Nikon. Nikon is a good scope but the Conquest glass is clearer & brighter in my book. Meoptas are another good choice.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/15/2009 at 22:04
Bboy623 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/21/2008
Location: NC
Status: Offline
Points: 370
yea...I looked through a Meopta today and it was WOW!!! To be honest though, I can't tell the difference between a Monarch and a Conquest. Both are really impressive...I just don't know i can tell the $200+ dollar difference for the Conquest. I was looking on SWFA and saw a Meopta 3-12X50 Artemis 2100 that has a illuminated reticle.....pricey...but I feel if its a lot better scope than Monarchs, Leupolds, etc at that price. Would the Illuminated reticle help in low light or hurt?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/16/2009 at 11:05
bugsNbows View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
bowsNbugs

Joined: March/10/2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 9300
In my humble opinion I'd rely on a Trijicon Accu-point for low light use (rather than a battery powered illuminated reticle).  Smile
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/16/2009 at 12:05
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7710
Originally posted by bugsNbows bugsNbows wrote:

In my humble opinion I'd rely on a Trijicon Accu-point for low light use (rather than a battery powered illuminated reticle).  Smile


I am a fan of Conquest and Meopta (Nikon, not so much - and Meopta needs a bit more eye relief before I put it on a kicker), but I am very, very impressed with the Trjicon Accupoint scopes for low light.
I shoot illuminated reticles, I hunt at night, I have very good low light scopes, and Accupoint deserves a place at this discussion.

For my purposes (hog hunting, shots as close as 50 yards, as far as 300 yards) I went with Accupoint for my last setup.  The prior setup was a Conquest and it was great, but having an illuminated reticle that draws your eye to the point of aim is all but priceless for a good low light rig.

Jut my opinion.  And the 3-9x40 has worked in the dark for me - literally.

Edited for terrible spelling


Edited by Rancid Coolaid - August/17/2009 at 09:43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/16/2009 at 22:26
tjtjwdad View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: December/11/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 365
To truly test the Nikon and Conquest (or any scopes for that matter) side by side you have to be outdoors with the opportunity to spend some time with each one.  My eyes have found the Conquest (6.5-20x50/4.5-14x50) far superior to the Nikon Monarch (6.5-20x44/6-24x50) in clarity/sharpness and light gathering capability in low light.  In broad daylight they brightness id pretty much the same.  The Zeiss reticles are very "black" and contrast very well in low light situations.
 
For the money though, Nikons are a good buy.  I'm not familiar with the Meopta brand but they get high reviews here.
 
HTH
 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/17/2009 at 16:16
Obi Wan Kenobi View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/21/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 186
Originally posted by Bboy623 Bboy623 wrote:

yea...I looked through a Meopta today and it was WOW!!! To be honest though, I can't tell the difference between a Monarch and a Conquest. Both are really impressive...I just don't know i can tell the $200+ dollar difference for the Conquest. I was looking on SWFA and saw a Meopta 3-12X50 Artemis 2100 that has a illuminated reticle.....pricey...but I feel if its a lot better scope than Monarchs, Leupolds, etc at that price. Would the Illuminated reticle help in low light or hurt?
 
Here is what I suggest. Go to your scope dealer at the latest time possible and ask them to let you look at these scopes outside. I'm not knocking the Nikons, I'm just saying that in that critical low light in the last 15 minutes of your hunt thats where you will see the difference.
 
I also forgot to thow Kahles in there also. They make one heck of a scope.
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Best options for lowlight"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
burris 2-7 ...good in lowlight? Robster80 Rifle Scopes 9
night hunting hogs lowlight best set up skydogIII Rifle Scopes 27
SS 10X HD Lowlight troweler Rifle Scopes 4
Best Lowlight Scope for WDH Narrow Gap Rifle Scopes 6 9/24/2007 7:32:29 PM
Pondering Exit Pupil, lowlight, parallax...discuss Parallaxed Rifle Scopes 6
Prostaff vs Monarch for lowlight newjack Rifle Scopes 12
Front Focal Plane and Scope Options dala1971 Rifle Scopes 7 7/31/2007 7:17:41 PM
Opti-Logic 800 Oilbliss Laser Rangefinders 9 10/26/2004 4:13:02 PM
Sako mounting options? samuel Rifle Scopes 15 2/16/2007 8:07:24 PM
WTK: Options for a stanag base RandyM Rings and bases 1 10/26/2005 12:10:23 PM


This page was generated in 0.375 seconds.