Best low light scope for stalking?
- Thread starter Lukeamog
- Start date
norcan
Well-Known Member
And boots. Yes, it’s a lot to get over.
I’ve seen the video before and remember it being quite subjective and arbitrary. I suspect one of its main goals was to help them get some of their unpopular scopes sold.
And boots. Yes, it’s a lot to get over.
I’ve seen the video before and remember it being quite subjective and arbitrary. I suspect one of its main goals was to help them get some of their unpopular scopes sold.
I have one of the scopes in their top 3.
Cost over £3k and is rubbish in poor light.
JabaliHunter
Well-Known Member
.
JabaliHunter
Well-Known Member
.
norcan
Well-Known Member
Transmission loss isn’t due to glass thickness; it’s caused by light passing through the interface of two different materials (i.e. glass-to-gas) and being partially dissipated by reflection. Coatings can vastly reduce this loss, but not completely eliminate it.
JabaliHunter
Well-Known Member
there is loss inside the prism glass too because a prism isn’t a vacuum, so some light is reflected/scattered rather than transmitted. the thinner prism will therefore transmit more light than the thicker one, if everything else is the same. but I agree that it’s small compared to the transmission losses at the glass surface.
But actually the angle argument i was hypothesising above is incorrect - the angle of light passing from 56mm to a 34/30mm tube doesn’t doesn’t change. You quoted me before I had a chance to rethink my hypothesis!
Thinking off the top of my head, I think most surface to air transmission losses seem to occur at the edges of the prisms, correct? So presumably if the prism is 4mm bigger in a 34mm tube compared with a 30mm tube, then the overall proportion of light passing through the 56mm objective which goes on to hit the edges of the larger prism must be less, and therefore overall light transmission would be increased (but only if prism is bigger)?
But actually the angle argument i was hypothesising above is incorrect - the angle of light passing from 56mm to a 34/30mm tube doesn’t doesn’t change. You quoted me before I had a chance to rethink my hypothesis!
Thinking off the top of my head, I think most surface to air transmission losses seem to occur at the edges of the prisms, correct? So presumably if the prism is 4mm bigger in a 34mm tube compared with a 30mm tube, then the overall proportion of light passing through the 56mm objective which goes on to hit the edges of the larger prism must be less, and therefore overall light transmission would be increased (but only if prism is bigger)?
This costing me a sika stag in Scotland last week has spurred on a change in scope, a long day to be stalking in rain and hail to then shoot under a deer at last light. Wish I’d taken the swede with its zeiss diatal 8x56!
AndersGilton
Active Member
Really nice Scope!
If searching for a low light master, try to find a Zeiss FL 4-16x50 or FL 6-24.
Swarovskis Z6i 2,5-15x56 Gen2 HD are also impressing at dawn and night.
That’s one hell of a lot of rotation to be out. Was it dragging on your clothing when slung?
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
Have a look at what Germam hunters have been using for decades. They have not been allowed to any artificial light, image intensifiers and shooting aids. But a good proportion of their wild boar are shot after dark under the aid of natural moonlight.
The German 6x42, 7x50 and 8x56 with a 4A reticle were all designed for this job. The thick heavy outer reticle posts are particularly important. As described to me - stick one in its bum, one its nose and one up the foreleg and squeeze.
Non of the faffing with red dots, batteries etc etc.
And shooting deer at last last light. My big challenge with this is twofold.
1) can you see enough for you to be certain of backdrops etc etc. appreciate that in many instances you will have been watching the same area and know your safe fields of fire.
2) many deer can and do run after the shot. At last last light, by definition means that you will be doing all follow up and dragging etc in the dark.
For me the best low light scope is a S&B 6x42, followed very closely by a Zeiss 6x42.
The German 6x42, 7x50 and 8x56 with a 4A reticle were all designed for this job. The thick heavy outer reticle posts are particularly important. As described to me - stick one in its bum, one its nose and one up the foreleg and squeeze.
Non of the faffing with red dots, batteries etc etc.
And shooting deer at last last light. My big challenge with this is twofold.
1) can you see enough for you to be certain of backdrops etc etc. appreciate that in many instances you will have been watching the same area and know your safe fields of fire.
2) many deer can and do run after the shot. At last last light, by definition means that you will be doing all follow up and dragging etc in the dark.
For me the best low light scope is a S&B 6x42, followed very closely by a Zeiss 6x42.
Steff
Well-Known Member
.
That's good theory, but when you have a Fallow problem to deal with and the buggers disappear into the woods just before dawn and come out again just after dusk you need very good glass. Illumination, providing you can turn it right down, is also a big bonus, especially when you have your crosshairs on a melanistic one. Technology has moved on since the old fixed scoped and 4A reticles as it has in much of the kit we use these days. When they run back into the woods after the shot, as they invariably do, the GWP is the answer - the one exception to modern gear getting better. Saves a great deal of time searching with a head torch on - and no, thermal is not as good as a dog in heavy cover...
And @25 Sharps I feel for you on the Sika. About 10 years ago I learnt the same lesson on a Sika stag the hard way too. My Meopta scope with exposed turrets was the best thing since sliced bread. We got to the top of the track in the pick up and as we got out I noticed the turret had moved a few clicks where the rifle had been rested between my legs. I just moved it the 4 clicks back to zero. After a long stalk in the rain I took the shot on the Sika about 120 meters away and it collapsed at the front end but then took off on its back legs, stumbling at the front end as it went. Tracked and re stalked it to find that I had shot through both front legs above the knee. Back to the range the next morning and the turrets had done a full rotation, it was not just a few clicks. Never had a scope without a zero stop since.
Horrendous feeling, shot was 220 so 1-2 mm was about 20 cm low. Luckily a clean miss though. It gets worse, the Kahles is a zero stop but a mate he told me not to worry about setting it when setting up so I didn’t in the excitement to get the scope zeroed.
This should solve the issue
Horrendous feeling, shot was 220 so 1-2 mm was about 20 cm low. Luckily a clean miss though. It gets worse, the Kahles is a zero stop but a mate he told me not to worry about setting it when setting up so I didn’t in the excitement to get the scope zeroed.
View attachment 276714
This should solve the issue
It won’t unless there are locks on the turret. You will still have to rely on yourself to visible check it’s on the zero stop.
It has a positive 1/4 turn locking lever on the turret. I’m not a complete idiot (honest)
I think we’ve probably all been there at least once.No but I am
Kahles is being reassigned to a range rifle
And you may have just cost me a lot of money. The 3-12X50 model has just landed in the shopping list.
Similar threads
