Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
What scope is better for night hunting |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | |
Hunter111
Optics GrassHopper Joined: March/29/2007 Location: Estonia Status: Offline Points: 8 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: April/10/2007 at 08:22 |
Hello,
In Estonia we can do night hunting. What kind of scopes are the best in low light conditions. Kind regards, |
|
Hunter111
Optics GrassHopper Joined: March/29/2007 Location: Estonia Status: Offline Points: 8 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Can you suggest some better products. Is there something like this, that i can put on night vision front to my scope. And please suggest some night vision scopes too. |
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
For a pure nighttime hunting scope, night vision optics won't reveal your true identity like the flare from illuminated scopes can... Edited by cyborg - August/29/2008 at 02:26 |
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
cheaptrick
MODERATOR Joined: September/27/2004 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 20844 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
www.technika.nu
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/02/2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 611 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
When it comes to conventional scopes I would say that the 3-12x56 on shorter to normal distances are the best solution and 6-24x72 is top when it comes to normal or long distances.
But if you can use NVG there is plenty of close to worthless sh*t out there, the majority of the items that is obtainable in europe is russian stuff and the quality is often very poor, many breaks due to recoil and they are stressing the eye a lot. IF not the money is an issue, you can buy a better NVG and mount behind the scope or thermal ( very costly) and mount alone. The thermal is probably top, but in my opinion it's not fair hunting. Regards Technika |
|
www.technika.nu
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/02/2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 611 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
If you want to get a high quality solution for low money i would recomend a better non illuminated 8x56.
Like Helia, Zeiss, Swarovski etc, German no1 reticle is best when the light is very poor. Regards Technika |
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Hunter, Sorry for the diversion. First, a couple of questions. What is your budget? When you say "night hunting," do you mean hunting in complete darkness, in the light of a full moon, or low light just before dusk? What are the typical shooting distances you will encounter for your type of hunting, both in good light and low light? If you can answer these questions, you will get more specific replies. |
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
In general, the following combination is optimal for low light shooting: 1. High end glass from any of the best quality brands such as Zeiss (Diavari), Swarovski (PH/PV), S&B, Kahles. These scopes typically provide superior twilight performance due to high quality lenses and optical designs with coatings that optimize light transmission in the blue spectrum, which is the most prevalent in low light. They typically feature total light transmission values (not to be confused with "per lens" values) of 90% or better. 2. An objective lens diameter & magnification combination that provides at least 4mm exit pupil diameter, with 7mm being optimal. An exit pupil larger than 7mm doesn't provide a noticeable difference to the human eye. Exit pupil is the diameter of the light beam exiting the ocular lens reaching the eye, and is determined by objective lens diameter divided by magnification (ex: 56mm obj / 8X = 7mm exit pupil). 3. Either a bold (thick), high contrast reticle or a well-designed illuminated reticle. A first focal plane reticle is easier to see in low light than a second focal plane reticle because as scope magnification is increased, the reticle increases in size in direct proportion to the target image. Illuminated reticles are useful provided they don't provide too much illumination, which is pretty common with many IR designs. If too much of the reticle is illuminated or the illumination is too bright, the flare will overpower the target making it difficult to see. My idea of the perfect illuminated reticle for night or low light hunting would be a simple, small dot with a brightness control that allows the dot to be just dim enough to see in low light, no brighter. The above applies to low light, dusk, or moonlit nights. No matter how well a scope performs in low light, not even the highest quality conventional scope will allow you to see in complete darkness. For this, you will need night vision optics, of which I know next to nothing about. |
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
Hunter111
Optics GrassHopper Joined: March/29/2007 Location: Estonia Status: Offline Points: 8 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Hello again,
My budget is max about 3000-3500 USD. I need to hunt on moonlight (we can´t use lamps on hunt) My shooting range is 80-120m. Is there any test tables for low-light scopes. Thank you... Kind Regads |
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
With that budget, conditions and distances, I would get the best low light scopes available -- either the Zeiss Diavari 1.5-6X42 or 2.5-10X50 with #4 or similar reticle or the S&B Zenith 1.5-6X42 or 2.5-10X56 with their #7 or #9 reticles. I might even opt for the Varipoint illuminated version of the Zeiss or the Flashdot version of the S&B for even greater versatility. If you do go with an illuminated reticle, it is best to just get a simple dot or small illumination in the center of the reticle only so you don't have too much illumination flare overpowering the target. You won't go wrong with either scope. I don't know of any test data that conclusively proves the low light performance of any particular group of scopes that doesn't involve some subjectivity. |
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
www.technika.nu
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/02/2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 611 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
My choises would be. 1. The absolutely best choise would be zeiss 6-24x72 in tests i did cuople of years ago in twilight i could see 15-30 minutes longer one evening with that than i could with zeiss 3-12x56 och 6-24x56 on distances from 150-300 meters.
2. Zeiss 3-12x56 illuminated with the smallest possible dot. 3. eiss 3-12x56 non illuminated with reticle no 11 or 1. 4. or with lower costs the better 8x56 scopes with no 1 reticle.
I would not take the 42mm as it's limits you to much.
Regards Technika Edited by www.technika.nu |
|
Dale Clifford
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: July/04/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5087 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
80 to 120 yds is a long pistol shot-- off the end of the gun--- do you even need magnification??? Have you considered just a dot or something like an aimpoint???
|
|
www.technika.nu
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/02/2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 611 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Dale
ITs must be wonderfull for you to have built in night vision tubes in your head.
But for the rest of us that doesent have that a very good scope is the choise. We are talking about night hunting, I am not able to see anything with my bare eyes on 50 yds. When using a 10X scope on 100 yards the eyes are seeing this as 10 yards and I am able to see the animal, not very well but well enough for shooting it.
Aimpoints and a other red dot sights are wonderfull for close range work and daylight, but they are for normal eyes very difficult in twilight and useless at night (unless combined with NVG).
Regards Technika |
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Unless you're using a scope topping out at 6X. This will still provide a 7mm exit pupil, which is as much light as your eye can use anyway. For the short distances mentioned, you don't need more magnification than that, and a low powered scope will provide much wider FOV and be shorter and lighter, all else being equal. |
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
Dale Clifford
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: July/04/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5087 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
OHHHH touchy touchy-- just wonderin-- we hunt rabbits at night in the west (from 8:00 pm to 1-2 a.m pretty nighty) sometimes spots and sometimes not, but the terrain is more open (sounds like it) and sometimes small dots and green circles with no magnification work great at distances up to 100 yds around. Other times when dog hunting against a snowy backround especially, we use regular scopes. Also have hunted elk and deer in deep timber in "the dark" and found little difference in the supposed advantage of optics over iron sites (can't see either) and work off the silhouttes. Because of the "no shoot after certain hours" we just sneak and spot just to see if the scopes etc will work. (after 10 pm. westerm mountain standard time). Sometimes when the moon is full the amimals can be spotted 3-400 yds. bedded down on a beautiful moonlit slope of the rockies.Sometimes when viewing into a darker area the optics will help "pull out" the target. Perhaps the area you hunt is thicker. In either case, the poster had not specifically ruled out none magnification devices.
|
|
www.technika.nu
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/02/2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 611 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Rifledude
8x56 gives a 7mm exit pupil just as the 6x42 do, but the 8x56 gives the eye 80% more light. 10x72 would give the eye even more light. I agree that 6x42 is more than enough on shorter ranges like 30-50 yds, but out to 120 the extra light from a bigger scope might be the differance between seeing and no seeing.
Dale The majority of the nighthunting in europe is wild boar and foxes, sometimes out in the fields but very often in thick timber. But even out in the fields i cannot see the animals without a binocular. Many nights it's not even possible to hunt as the light is to low. Moon and snow doesent count, as it requires no special equipment and by the way, the bigger wild boars wouldent show up then, they wait until it's much darker...........
Regards Technika
|
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Yes, that's correct, but the apparent image brightness between the two is exactly the same. The additional light from the 56mm objective will not be noticeable in this case because your eye will already have as much light as it can use at its full dilation, which is around 7mm. Your eye will also not be able to detect any additional brightness with a 10X72, only more magnification. I'm not talking about the mathematical calculation of surface area of the larger lens, only practical useable light. I'm not a believer in the "twilight factor" number concept. If he wants additional magnification, then you are also correct that you will have to increase objective diameter to get the maximum image brightness, but 6X is more than enough magnification to see targets out to 150 yards or so on a moonlit night, using good quality optics. Shooting in the dark is not a long range proposition. Another important factor in being able to shoot in low light is being able to find the target in the scope, and having the additional FOV of the lower magnification scope will help you here. Plus, as you go larger on objective diameter, you have to use increasingly higher mounts, which handicaps you when you have to make a quick shot. I too hunt pigs at night frequently, and I've never been handicapped by not having enough magnification. I generally keep my scope set on 4X anyway and have never missed a shot opportunity on an animal I've spotted in my binoculars. Edited by RifleDude |
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
www.technika.nu
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/02/2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 611 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
If you have an animal in really poor ligth on 120 yards and look at it at 5X magnification, that gives you the impression that it's on 24 yards. If you have the same situation with 10X then you have the impression that the animal is on 12 yards. When it's really low light there is a huge differance betwen the two, but in rather good ligth like moon or twilight you will not really notice the differance.
On a test a september evening some years ago we tried Zeiss 3-12x56, 6-24x56 and ZF6-24x72 against each others at a hare at 150 meters and a fox at 300 meters. The 6-24x72 won the test with betwen 15-30 minutes over the others depending on the "shooter".
Regards Technika |
|
Dale Clifford
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: July/04/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5087 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
What's that S$B ad "I couldn't have made that shot without my..............Nikes" God I love testamonials.
|
|
www.technika.nu
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/02/2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 611 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Rifle dude
There is not an exact amount of light that can pass through the 7mm exitpupil. The bigger the fronlens and the bigger the magnification the more light will pass through it. Otherwise if the fact should have been the opposite and a 4x32 or a 6x42 or a 10x72 let through the same amount of light to the eye even a 1x7 or a 2x14 would allow the same amount of light to the eye. In such case there would be no need of optics for low light hunting, but there is, mostly times you cannot see the animal with your bare eyes but there is no problem to see them with a good scope or binocular.
That said the most important factor is of course the quality of the optical system. And also that the optical system is optimized for low light situations. All optical systems cannot be optimized for all situations, and such things as colour correctness even though its nice to have it's not the most important in a low ligth system as you cannot see the colours anyway. It's quite fun to see how the best of the classical optics that are made for night use are very close to the best systems today when compared at night. When comparing them daytime the classical systems fails to the modern systems because the have been optimized for military low light conditions 70 years ago, and not for perfect colours or edge sharpness.
So a 1,5-6x42 of good quality is far better than a low quality 8x56. But of the same quality the 8x56 wins on a low light situasion on 100 yards.
Regards Technika
|
|
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |