Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Small objective vs Large for low light sh |
Post Reply |
Author | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AR15Hunter
Optics GrassHopper Joined: September/25/2007 Status: Offline Points: 7 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: September/25/2007 at 04:21 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Looking at buying another scope. Shooting deer, ranges out to 400yards.
I use it in low light, particularly evenings a lot of the time.
I was looking at a Nightforce 2.5-10x24 NXS. Very nice bit of kit. The only thing I was worried about was at low light. That last 20mins before night time. 24mm objective isn't that large. The other scope I was looking at was one of the new Leupy VXL scopes. I have heard their low light capabilities aren't as good as a Swaro/Khales etc. I have looked into a Swarovski 1.7-10x42 Z6i which I like a lot. If I could get the same light transmission out of the Nightforce at that critical last 20mins of light I would go with that choice. The only thing I have against large objective lenses is you have to mount them that much higher above the bore line which I dislike. I like illuminated reticles. Not for the low light feature but the quick target acquisition. The rifle is a BAR LongTrac .270. Thoughts? Edited by AR15Hunter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDrakeTaker
Optics Apprentice Joined: July/21/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 201 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
No brainer, the Swaro Z6 is going to out perform the others hands down. A Kahles would also be an excellent choice, much better optics than the luepy and nightforce. I have two Kahles scopes and couldn't be more pleased. Mounting the scope a little higher for a hunting rifle is not going to be a problem. I have the Kahles Cl 4-12X52 MZ and the C 3-12X56, both are ridiculously good. It's hard to be a Kahles, their illuminated reticles are top notch as well. You can't go wrong with either the Swaro or a Kahles. Hands down better than the others you listed. Oh and welcome to the OT!
Edited by TheDrakeTaker |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ND2000
Optics Journeyman Joined: January/29/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 308 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AR15 -
My personal opinion is the Swaro scope that you reference is the best scope on the market today, although I have not looked through Swaro's illuminated recticles as I'm generally not a fan of them.
Another really great scope at the high end is Zeiss Diavari. Having said this, I, like DrakeTaker, own a Kahles CL. They are absolutely wonderful. Other than the Z6, I think Kahles makes better scopes than its owner.
Finally, I'd encourage you to stay away from Leupold. Customer service is great, but glass is garbage for the price.
ND2000 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You either get what you pay for or what you deserve.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RONK
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: April/05/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3199 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Welcome Ar15Hunter! I know where you're coming from, regarding the low mounting issue. I need to get a good cheekweld in order to shoot well, and high rings always prevented me from being able to do that on several bolt guns.. The answer for me is a padded cheekrest of whatever thickness is needed to aquire a sight picture. There are various commercial ones available, or you could make your own without great tribulation. I can't answer your scope question as well as Drake Taker and ND2000 did though. While I can't use the words "Leupold" and "garbage" in the same sentence, I do agree they are currently a bit overpriced. BTW that .270 is a great cartridge for your needs. (Sorry. Inside joke.) Ron |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AR15Hunter
Optics GrassHopper Joined: September/25/2007 Status: Offline Points: 7 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yeah, the sight picture cheek weld thing is a biggy. The test is normally to close my eyes, shoulder the rifle and open my eyes again. If I am looking at some nice bright cross hairs then it is set up.
The new BAR LongTrac has a different stock setup to the old BARII I currently have. Almost identical drop at comb/heel etc but the new stock looks raised in the cheek/comb area indicating that maybe they have changed the design a bit these days to accommodate BIG scopes?. (Anyone know much about these new LongTracs btw??) I haven't heard many good things about the new Leupy. Anyone know what Zeiss scope come with ill reticles? Their web page is hard to follow http://www.zeiss.com/c1256bcf0020be5f/Contents-Frame/61947eb 1a86dcebf852570ae0069f9ac Cheers for the input. BTW. If the good folks at Browning would get their act together and make a semi in 7mm-08 then I would go that way. Edited by AR15Hunter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RONK
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: April/05/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3199 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sorry , I can't help with the Zeiss or Long Trac questions, but I'm sure somebody who does will weigh in pretty soon. I recently handled one of the new Leupolds ( VXL something ?) in a 4.5x14 x50, I think it was, with the crescent cutout.To be honest it was probably as clear and bright or better than any Leupold I have ever seen. The low mounting concept worked great to get the large objective down low over the bore, and it didn't look too bad, either. For the same or less money, though, you could get a conventional European scope with a smaller objective bell which would outperform it anyway. BTW, I wasn't being sarcastic with the .270 Win. wisecrack in my earlier post, and handloaded with 140 gr. Ballistic Tips it would probably handle a big, heavy whitetail at 400 yards better than anything you can run through a 7mm-08 ( at safe pressure levels, anyway.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Urimaginaryfrnd
MODERATOR Resident Redneck Joined: June/20/2005 Location: Iowa Status: Offline Points: 14964 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think for what you are doing these would be a nice scope in a reasonable price range. Now as far as useable brightness being able to see through a scope in the evening the exit eye pupil size is what makes the difference. Take the objective size 56 divided by 7mm exit eye pupil (what you want) and you have 8 power so at 8 power you will have mazimum useable brightness. now take a 42mm scope divide by 7 and you get 6x so a 6x42 scope is as bright as it gets or take a 3-9x42 and put it on 6x when it starts to get dark. Take a 24mm objective and divide that by 7 you get 3.42x so at 3.42x thats as bright as it gets if you can get by with about three and a half power for the distance you are working buy the nightforce and if you cant then get something with a larger objective.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do". Bobby Paul Doherty Texas Ranger |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
www.technika.nu
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/02/2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 611 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
AR15 hunter
For the chekweld i do doubth that you will get a 24mm objective lower than a 42mm. As the rings and mounts builds up under the scope anyway, you can probably as well have a 42mm objective. There is really noghting good exept from weight with such small objectives when you have high magnifications. On the bad side you have very little exit pupil, lower resolution, a scope slower to use due to it's little exit pupil. And as low light is you'r concern, 42mm is not on the high side, that is a small scope.......
Regards Technika |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Post Reply | |
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 |