Best low light scope for stalking?

[25 Sharps]

There was a chap on here selling the best low light and all round stalking scope the other day, lockable zero stop elevation turret, illuminated ret etc. An S&B Stratos 2.5-13x56......

Did you sell it on the end? I was sorely tempted but wanted the extra mag on the polar for occasional range use.

 

[Hook'N'Bullet]

The big boys make some very good scopes, swaro, ziess, S&B etc but in my experience I have fallen in love with the Burris. I have 3-12x56 on my stalking rifles. No parallax to deck about with and I find the light gathering to be fantastic. Yes the big boys get you an extra 2-3 minutes (at most in my opinion) but I like the Burris for the fact if I knock it I am not bankrupt (400 compared to 1000+) and they have a lifetime warranty equal to Vortex’s.

Ultimately would chat to a few people and try theirs and see what suits you. Not all scopes suit all eyes.

What Burris are you running?

I've a Burris four X and it is pretty decent out to last light. However, I didn't initially like it due to German reticle and mushy turrets. Anyway, I did have an issue with the elevation turret. It's seized on me at the start of the season. So it triggered me to look for a new scope. Currently looking at a Vortex Razor LHT at the moment but not sure if it's too much scope for the amount of stalking I do

 

[Malxwal]

Then came to his senses and kept it???

He could be swayed his "friend" tells me

 

[Malxwal]

Did you sell it on the end? I was sorely tempted but wanted the extra mag on the polar for occasional range use.

I still have it. I will in all likelihood keep it, as I'm taking a big hit selling it, and for no real gains. Have another one piece Spuhr inbound, so I can switch between the Schmidt and the NF depending on what I'm up to.

 

[Bigstep]

Zeiss ht
Diavari fl
Swaro z6/z8

 

[topscots1]

Yeah we are discussing low light aren’t we? So surely the argument is that if you can’t see what the turrets are set at when they’re three inches from your face, is there enough light being transmitted through your scope to shoot the deer you’re looking at?
Potentially, potentially not. Just food for thought.
Just thought I’d make the point that it’s about knowing your gear. There’s a lot of talk about ‘I had a turret move on me during a stalk’ etc. They don’t move anywhere on their own. Would it not be prudent for those stalking with exposed turrets to always have that courtesy check to ensure they are correctly set before each shot? No offence intended. Merely making a point.

So just for clarity, are you saying that people would care more about animals they are shooting at over people?

There is no need to see the turrets in front of your face, the need is to know the correction for multiple ranges. Counting clicks up from zero stop Dosent require reading the clicks.

Yes people care more about the animals they are hunting than the people they are shooting at. Animals are being ethically culled for land management, food for the table. Generally if you are shooting at people it is because they are trying to kill you, ideally a clean ethical kill, or an alternate a wounded enemy who can then be tracked through the casevac chain pin pointing different logistical areas to allow targeting. Obviously not targeting medical professionals in uniform. However in the contemporary operating environment few enemies wear uniform.

 

[1894]

It’s perfectly possible to use an ASV in low light - for those of us of an age we can’t see the bloody hash marks in good light.
Know your drops and count from zero.
I’ve tested HT against Zeiss FL, V Diavari and Swaro 8x56 PF. HT wind hands down and is a major step up. If only they made a 4-16 and a 6-24.

 

[Muntybuck5803]

There is no need to see the turrets in front of your face, the need is to know the correction for multiple ranges. Counting clicks up from zero stop Dosent require reading the clicks.

To do that the people involved here would have to check that. I was merely pointing out its worth checking before a shot as I have always done.

Yes people care more about the animals they are hunting than the people they are shooting at. Animals are being ethically culled for land management, food for the table.

Interesting. Thanks for the lesson on why deer are shot. Regarding caring more about deer than the people you’re shooting at I disagree. If you get it wrong and miss when someone has the means to shoot back it’s a much bigger deal than having to track a wounded animal. Clearly not ideal in either scenario but I know which I’d prefer.

Generally if you are shooting at people it is because they are trying to kill you, ideally a clean ethical kill, or an alternate a wounded enemy who can then be tracked through the casevac chain pin pointing different logistical areas to allow targeting. Obviously not targeting medical professionals in uniform. However in the contemporary operating environment few enemies wear uniform.

Once again thanks for the lesson on the COE. Here’s another- just because someone asks for someone’s opinion on here, it may not be wise to assume they themselves have no knowledge of the topic.

 

[topscots1]

To do that the people involved here would have to check that. I was merely pointing out its worth checking before a shot as I have always done.

Interesting. Thanks for the lesson on why deer are shot. Regarding caring more about deer than the people you’re shooting at I disagree. If you get it wrong and miss when someone has the means to shoot back it’s a much bigger deal than having to track a wounded animal. Clearly not ideal in either scenario but I know which I’d prefer.

Once again thanks for the lesson on the COE. Here’s another- just because someone asks for someone’s opinion on here, it may not be wise to assume they themselves have no knowledge of the topic.

I’m sure the majority on here that choose to use a scope with turrets do indeed check.

Your statement was not related to the consequences post shot, or certainly did not appear that way. If you miss when shooting at something that may be shooting back then shoot again, or select a better firing point and you will remain unseen. The ethical choice is not tracking a wounded animal, well at least not to me. It is ensuring that I do all I can to ensure the animal does not get wounded in the first place . From selecting the most lethal calibre, closing to a range where a safe and accurate shot becomes a thing of ease, and should injure an animal being able to track and follow up efficiently.

Not so much when people are being shot at, whatever calibre is available and at ranges where attempting to harvest a deer would be idiotic and unethical. Certainly different weapons for different jobs.

No lesson was intended in any of the above, it was and still is an opinion on an online forum. if you feel that it was intended as a lesson, that is your perception.

I believe that many on here have some knowledge of most topics, no where was an assumption made on anyone’s knowledge. I tend not to assume, instead base my thoughts and beliefs on experience.
We all know what assumptions do.

However we are straying entirely off topic, I would still
Put the zeiss diavari at the top end of low light scopes.

However on my first and last light roe rifle sits an 8x56 Schmidt and bender, if you can find an illuminated one all the better.

 

[hogsnest]

I compared my Khales scopes with the different ones on friends rifles over the years and the only one that was as good for the low light was the Swaro.The Euro made scopes are leaps and bounds ahead of the Leupolds, Burris etc.I've got a new Zeiss on my varmint rifle but havn't used it enough yet to give a low light review.But 40 yrs of commercial and receational hunting I havn't seen a scope made outside of Europe that can compete with the fantastic low light abilities of these scopes and I've shot a huge number of deer right on dark.Accepted I havn't probably seen through every make but pretty close after 40 yrs.

 

[norcan]

Generally if you are shooting at people it is because they are trying to kill you, ideally a clean ethical kill, or an alternate a wounded enemy who can then be tracked through the casevac chain pin pointing different logistical areas to allow targeting. Obviously not targeting medical professionals in uniform. However in the contemporary operating environment few enemies wear uniform.

Don’t kid yourself; operator types do a fair bit of just straight-up murdering unarmed civilians, too.

 

[topscots1]

Don’t kid yourself; operator types do a fair bit of just straight-up murdering unarmed civilians, too.

I’m fairly sure in fact certain that the majority do not, don't take your knowledge from third rate journalists. Unless of course you are telling me you have directly witnessed war crimes ? In that case you would be in a clear minority. A rather bold statement to throw out in the world without any real evidence

However again we are diverting from the topic.

 

[JohnSmith]

It’s perfectly possible to use an ASV in low light - for those of us of an age we can’t see the bloody hash marks in good light.
Know your drops and count from zero.
I’ve tested HT against Zeiss FL, V Diavari and Swaro 8x56 PF. HT wind hands down and is a major step up. If only they made a 4-16 and a 6-24.

I've used the ASV and other turrets in the dark before, exactly as you said. Binos gave me amount of clicks and I counted them. No need to see the turret.

As for the topic of the post... I have Victory V8's and a Z8i, both do well past sunset. I'm sure others are great as well. This can be debated forever... light transmission vs weight vs tube size vs vs.

 

[Ratel]

Topscots and DTE you are getting way off piste here. Suffice it to say, if ever you are in the position to have to shoot someone, just make sure first time they don't shoot back. End of war stories.

 

[mak]

It’s perfectly possible to use an ASV in low light - for those of us of an age we can’t see the bloody hash marks in good light.
Know your drops and count from zero.
I’ve tested HT against Zeiss FL, V Diavari and Swaro 8x56 PF. HT wind hands down and is a major step up. If only they made a 4-16 and a 6-24.

The 4-16 x 50 and 6-24 x 56 was manufactured with the FL glass, which is glass containing fluorine ions and reduces the chromatic aberration which can be more visible with higher magnifications. There was a 6-24 without FL and the variance was small but noticeable under certain light conditions (in fact all glass has some CA) Sales of the 6-24 were pretty good and higher in volume than the 4-16 model. The HT 3-12x56 is in my view is good in low light conditions, the HT being a glass type which further reduces the amount of light lost whilst passing through the glass. Saying all this, each persons eyes can determine in their view which riflescope performs better in low light, even when the data shows a noticeable difference in light transmission. Saying that product X has 90, 92, 94 or 96% light transmission, so must be the best doesn’t always show which nanometre light spectrum measurement that transmission figure is relevant.

 

[disco_ike]

What Burris are you running?

I've a Burris four X and it is pretty decent out to last light. However, I didn't initially like it due to German reticle and mushy turrets. Anyway, I did have an issue with the elevation turret. It's seized on me at the start of the season. So it triggered me to look for a new scope. Currently looking at a Vortex Razor LHT at the moment but not sure if it's too much scope for the amount of stalking I do

It’s the four X 3-12x56. I really like it and find the light gathering enough for what I stalk. I don’t notice the loss of 5-10 mins compared to the swaro with my style of stalking and much happier with just a few hundred on the rifle instead of 1500+

 

[topscots1]

Topscots and DTE you are getting way off piste here. Suffice it to say, if ever you are in the position to have to shoot someone, just make sure first time they don't shoot back. End of war stories.

I believe I clarified we were going off topic. No war stories were involved. However thank for clarifying your opinion.

 

[Macaskill]

8x56 schmidt has always worked well for me low light. although i think i would prefer something with IR.

 

[User00040]

Answer was given in post #7.

All further answers wrong and redundant.

Anyone wondering about law/rule breaking, it's a visual aid to help check your target and backstop before firing.

Can be turned off once check is complete if you want to be sporting.

 

[User00053]

One that stands out for me was a Schmidt 12x 56, but reticle tad thin, managed ok though but so did Zeiss x4 power.
Will not part with old Zeiss 2.5-10 x52 for deer and fox’s under any circumstances or caliber at normal ranges, but can stretch if needs must on deer.