Low Light on deer Test Results

[LampLighter]

This evening, I conducted a test. It was :

Redfield 3x9-50mm Golden 5 Star from Denver, an ultra clear scope in daylight

and

Nikon Buckmasters 3x9-40mm

View- my foam 8 point standing in a semi-dark thicket
distance of test- 50 yards


with still a decent amount of light left, the Redfield was obviously much clearer due to it's superior glass. But as it got darker ( about the time that last squirrel quits barking) the 50mm Redfield lost any edge over the Nikon. Both stayed neck-in-neck. Both required 6 to 7 power to see the deer clearly, other than the antlers and the white throat. Contrary to what I always believed, 3 power is not the best. 6 seems to be the best for me. At my age, research shows my exit pupil at low light is approx 6mm.

It eventually got dangerous to take the shot. You could see the antlers and throat, but could not tell if it was another person carrying antlers for rattling.

I conclude that the 50mm did not have any added benefit under these conditions.

Tonite, I am ordering the 40mm Elite 3200 from Natchez. I'll give the firefly reticle a try. Leupold DD base & rings.

[Bushman]

What surprised me in low light was the ability to see the cross hair in low light, not the image. A couple years back on an overcast morning I had a shot at a meat doe at first legal light. 2.5-8x36 Leupold Vari-X III and I had to hold the rifle up high into the sky to see the cross hairs, then bring it back down and shoot the deer. Since then I ordered a 1.5-5x20 Leupold Vari-X III to go on my son's .300 Savage and small as that front objective is, the optional heavy cross hair that I ordered shows up surprisingly well. For really dark stuff, it is hard to beat the first plane reticle in my 30mm tube European scopes. Cranked up to 6x, those cross hairs look really thick against a target. I had a bad experience with a Bushnell lighted cross hair, but I've read better things about the Fire Fly.

[Chuck S]

Here's a bit i wrote for my Blog. Although I put together for Binos but it applies to scopes also. Twilight factor can override the exit pupil, and RBI as long as you're at a low enough power to hold steady.

"Binoculars and Light Transmission



Exit Pupil (EP) is the power divided into the objective and gives a relative number that tells us how much light will be transmitted through. The EP of 7x50s are about as good as it gets with nearly 7.1 while 7x35s give us an EP of 5. The young human eye can dilate to between 7 and 8 while older ones do good to get 5.


RBI endeavors to measure image brightness. It is computed by squaring the exit pupil. For example, 7x35 binoculars have a 5mm exit pupil (35/7=5). So their RBI is 25 (5x5=25).

A RBI of 25 or greater is considered good for use in dim light. Since you already have learned (above) how to compute the actual exit pupil size, and what it means, RBI is largely redundant.


Twilight Factor (TF) - power x Objective lens for instance an 8x32 set of binoculars gives us
256. Taking the square root of this we get 16 for a TF.

Common Binos:
PxO TF EP RBI
6x30 13.41 5 25
7x35 15.65 5 25
7x50 18.70 7.1 50.4
8x21 12.96 2.63 6.9
8x30 15.49 3.8 14.4
8x40 17.89 5 25
8x42 18.33 5.2 27.0
10x25 15.81 2.5 6.25
10x42 20.5 4.2 17.6
10x50 22.36 5 25
12x42 22.45 3.5 12.3
12x50 24.50 4.1 16.8

The twilight factor gives a better idea of what can be seen where the magnification can make up for loss of light and if you look, the EP of most of the higher powers are about all older eyes fan handle.

Coatings and quality glass can over ride the above somewhat while power becomes a huge factor in dim light viewing as you have to be able to stabilize the binoculars and 8 power is about the max that can be stabilized without a rest or tripod. 7 for years has been rated tops all around with the 7x35s for lightweight carrying and good light gathering and the 7x50s for supreme light gathering while a bit heavier. With or without coating the advice of Jack O’Conner and may gun writers of days past still ring true as a 7x35 still reigns supreme as a carry along, general purpose binoculars when still hunting or stalking. Additionally looking around on board the many large and small vessels I’ve been aboard and seeing the dozens of pairs of 7x50s with respect to other powered binoculars it reinforces what the numbers say in that 7x50 is hard to beat for marine use, where peering through your binoculars into the fog or twilight trying to spot a channel buoy or oncoming vessel is all too common place. "

[Sabre]

I've found you'll lose the ability to see the reticle before you lose the ability to see the deer through most scopes. The one exception to this in my collection is my old Weaver V-3 {3x20mm} with post and crosshair reticle. I've compared that scope with every other scope I own and while several will still show an image of the deer in nearly complete darkness that old Weaver with it's thick, black post is the only one that still shows me something to aim with.

[ncboman]

The best low light scope I have (and have ever looked thru) is a Tasco 4x40 air rifle scope.

You'd stop laughing if you looked thru it. It ain't a toy. ;)

[Greybeard]

I figured out that 6X is best for low light conditions several years ago. I also figured out that I do not need a variable power scope. Fixed power are simpler, lighter and more reliable. Now all I use are 6 X 42 fixed power with heavy duplex cross hairs. I use mostly 2 rifles and one has a Leupold and the other a Sightron. Both are very good low light scopes and I see little difference between them. The Sightron was a bit of an experiment as it was less expensive than the Leupy. It worked as well and I never took it off the rifle.

Many moons ago a couple of friends had problems with TASCOs and I have shied away from them, mostly used Leupys over the years. TASCO is a marketing company aimed at the lower budget scope buyers. They buy as cheap as they can and that usually means lower quality and especially reliability. I will not laugh at your TASCO but there will be a day when it will fail you. In the mean time good is good. Greybeard/

[Bushman]

One of my all time most pleasant surprises was seeing what happened to the apparent size of the reticle in my three European first plane reticle scopes in low light. Admittedly I think that it is too much of a good thing in my 2.5-10x42 Swarovski PH because that cross hair looks huge against the target at 10x. The 1.5-6x42 Zeiss scopes are better at 6x for a large, but not huge appearing cross hair. Now for those of you that don't know what a first plane reticle is, it does not magnify the cross hair, only the target when the power is turned up on a variable. It still covers the exact same size on the target, it just looks like it gets larger as the power is increased. Just the opposite of what I see through my second plane scopes like my Leupolds.

Then something that I can't explain happens in very low light. My minds eye fills in the thinner center cross hair area with the same size as the thicker outside cross hair diameter!!! It is an optical illusion I know, but a guy could shoot in star light with that scope.

[DancesWithKnives]

I have a 1.5-6 x 42mm Swaro with the illuminated circle/dot inside of the crosshairs. I agree that a Euro of these dimensions works well in low light.

[Hi Ball]

One needs to compare Apples to Apples and not oranges to apples ok! Now to compare a 50mm lense to a 40mm lense is not apples to apples or am I just missing the whole point, you tell me OK.:rolleyes: :eek:

[Rich]

LampLighter,

When Leupold first came out with the 50mm I called to discover what advantage they gave. Customer service informed me there was only a 5% difference and that was only on the highest magnification.

ncboman,

I had way more failures with Burris Signature and Burris Fullfield than I have with Tasco. Everything I owned had a Burris on it. Tascos have shown themselves so reliable the .340 and the .375-.416 wore them when I went to Alaska for a three week moose and cariboo hunt. I am not surprised at your experience. The 2 1/2-10X Tasco on my .223 Savage is the only scope my daughter can see through.

Greybeard,

You mentioned the fixed 6X is more reliable. How many failures did you have prior to switching to fixed 6X? I am curious which brands.

I have a 2 1/2-8X Leupold on my Freedom Arms .454. It has lasted hundreds of shots. It took a fall with me and hit a rock. It ended the hunt so I went to the range. It was still sighted in.

[Sabre]

Years ago I bought and used a lot of Tasco scopes. I had several 3-9x40 Tasco world class scopes. A couple of early ones manufactured in Japan that never gave me a lick of trouble and some later models made in China that were problematic from the get go. None however, were anything great from the standpoint of optical clarity/resolution or light transmission. Had several from the cheaper "Silver Antler" and "Golden Antler" series. A couple in fixed 4x32 that never gave me any trouble but again were no great shakes optically, and a couple in 3-9x32 and 3-9x40 that were pretty much complete junk. {poor adjustment tracking and wide shifts in POI with power changes}. I ruined two of their wonderful "Bantam" series shotgun scopes in fewer than 20 rounds each out of my 12 gauge Ithaca Deerslayer.{complete failure to hold zero} I replaced the second one with a Weaver K-2.5 and wonder of wonders, no more problems in many years and several hundred rounds. I no longer own any Tasco scopes. All have been replaced over the years with Weaver, Nikon, Sightron, Bausch & Lomb and Bushnell Elite 3200 scopes. Haven't had any scope troubles since and don't intend to ever buy another Trashco. You might be able to convince somebody else that they're the best thing since canned beer but I've had enough personal experience to know better.

[Rich]

TASCO is a marketing company aimed at the lower budget scope buyers. They buy as cheap as they can and that usually means lower quality and especially reliability. I will not laugh at your TASCO but there will be a day when it will fail you. In the mean time good is good. Greybeard/


On the 24hourcampfire forum there was a thread about customer service by the different companies. All were braging about their companies service from Swaro down Simmons. Almost no one mentioned Tasco. My experience with Tasco is no need for service. I certainly can't say that about some of my higher dollar stuff.

[Hi Ball]

Rich you hit the nail right on the head...Smack!:eek::eek::eek: Very True hunters!!!;) :)

50mm scope are very large in general and only meant for stationary type shooting, such as P-dog shooting etc. You don't want to be walking the fields with a 12 pound rifle and a 2 pound scope on top the barrel.:eek: :rolleyes:

[Crockettnj]

HI BALL- A little thread derail: A few years ago I paritally filled my Slug-gun stock with lead shot while doing extensive buckshot and slug shooting at the range. I just wanted to see if I noticed a difference in recoil because I was contemplating getting one of those mercury inertia recoil reducers you put in your stock (I never got it).

I never took the lead shot out, and have hunted with the gun plenty since then. I cant imagine what it weighs. IMO light weight is largely over rated. I mean, dont get me wrong, I appreciate a lightweight gun, especially if walking a lot, but imo NOT having a light gun isnt a big deal. I am sure this is totally personal preference, but I dont hink you should NOT get a scope you like or can afford just becaue it isnt lightweight.

Back on topic-

I spent the last couple of hours of light yesterday glassing a field/riverbank with my binocs (vortex viper 8x42). I spied a couple doe, a large doe, and then from the edge stepped a VERY nice buck. I couldnt shoot where they were due to property line issues, so I took the moment to switch between no binocs, binocs, and my scope (bushnell entry level model shotgun scope).

WOW.

In clear light you could tell a difference between my binocs and my scope, but its not earth shattering. This little real-world test sealed it for me. If my scope were the quality of my binocs, I could have EASILY fired. With iron sights or even witgh my scope, not a chance, no way ,impossible.

It was very telling.

I want a scope with optics equivalent to my binocs. In-store or good conditions wouldnt have made this clear.

[swamp]

yeah i'd love for someone to send me a tasco to put on my beeman kodiac and see how many shots it would take to blow the recticle out LOL:deal:

[Bayrat]

Swamp,
Maybe because you haven't tried a Golden Antler ?

Apples to oranges.

My Tasco Bantum has had alot of pounding having been used for many years on both my 12 and 20ga slug guns (and once bounced down a tree, dropped out of a deer stand). Still works great.

However, since like many rifle scopes, it's not airgun rated, I doubt it would hold up to the unique double recoil of a magnum springer. But then, there are alot of 'good quality' scopes that your springer (and mine) would trash.

But, I didn't buy the Bantum to use on a springer, just slug guns and I know it works very well on them. And I bet the fpe of recoil from shooting 12 gauge slugs would wreck your beeman. Does that mean no one should buy a beeman?

Same for my Tasco World Class 2-7x32 that I use on my 22lr. Not airgun rated, but it has the widest fileld of view I've ever seen in that power range and it's wonderfully clear. Has held up through alot of squirrel hunts in rain and snow. It does what I need it to very well, and it didn't cost me an arm and a leg.

Both the Bantum and the World Class let me see better at just before and just after legal light, so what more is needed ?

Bayrat

[swamp]

My beeman kodiiac wears a leupold vari x III EFR 6-18x40 scope.. last time i checked all leupold scopes were air rifle rated

I've never heard of a "beeman scope" :hmmmm2:

[Bayrat]

I meant the gun. Your argument is not apples to oranges.

As I said, there are many good quality rifle scopes that are not designed to withstand a magnum springer airgun's double recoil. That doesn't make them bad scopes .... anymore than your beeman airgun is not designed to withstand the recoil of a 12ga shotgun slug that my Tasco Bantum scope can and has withstood for many years. If my Bantum can take 12ga slug gun recoil that your airgun can't, does that mean your airgun is junk? No ! It just means the airgun is not designed for it.

And I didn't have to spend $400.00, or more, to get a scope that is airgun rated that is never going to be used on an airgun.

BTW, Tasco does sell a line of airgun rated scopes.... and they are no where near as expensive as a Leupy. I have never used one, but I don't hear compliants on the airgun forums about them breaking like some other common airgun rated scopes do.

In short, expensive scopes are nice if you can afford them, but they are not the only scopes that can get the job done. When raising four daughters was also part of the equation, the price of a Tasco made it so I could pay bills and also get to hunt.

Bayrat

[Rich]

Swamp,

Since you would love for someone to send you a tasco to put on your beeman, call midway.

[swamp]

Swamp,

Since you would love for someone to send you a tasco to put on your beeman, call midway.

i'll give Mr Potterfield a call and see what he says.... the tasco scopes do get some good reviews... cabelas is a good place when wanting to see what customers think http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/product/standard-item.jsp?_DARGS=/cabelas/en/common/catalog/item-link.jsp_A&_DAV=MainCatcat602006-cat601558-cat601574&id=0018873711683a&navCount=10&podId=0018873711683&parentId=cat601574&masterpathid=&navAction=push&catalogCode=IK&rid=&parentType=index&indexId=cat601233&hasJS=true

[Chuck S]

http://www.beeman.com/scopes.htm

other than that, I've used many different scopes on heavy recoiling rifles and never had to return any of the Tascos I've owned.

[Hi Ball]

Crockett the difference was said to be by those experts in the field of optics, that you will receive about 3 to 5 minutes more shooting time with the high end optics, those that cost you over $800 to $1,200 dollars etc. I have never needed anything in a rifle scope that cost more than a Leupold but lately as stated prior, I have switched to Bushnell 4200 series and 3200 series rifle scopes. I let you know what he out come is in about 5 to 7 years from now ok.

I saved around $200 dollars a rifle scope on the last 4 Bushnell scopes I purchased at CABELA'S verses the Leupold scope costs! Now that figures up to a chunk of change in my pocket. I think Bushnell makes a great scope for the money simply put! Time will tell if these scopes meet my expectations and longevity in hunting etc.

[Crockettnj]

Hiball-

Oh yeah, I agree there. Lpold certainly has a following and a quality rep, but i am SURE that with tech advances that other companies are capable of the same , and for less.

I have bushnell and burris, and am happy with both but would like a step up on the next scope (as decribed by my experience recently with quality binocs vs entry level scopes)

[ncboman]

few things are as frustrating as having better binos than scope ... never hunt with 40mm+ binos and a 32mm scope, brands don't matter in that regard.