Should i upgrade my 20 year old S&B 3-12x50 for a 2.5-10x56 illuminated

[billy_boyle_2010]

Hi guys

Im new to stalking and- due to a lack of experience- still not totally comfortable with taking the quick shots in very low light that red deer often require.

Whilst I know I should be patient and learn with experience- I wonder if I can make things a little easier for myself and upgrade my scope to give myself a bit more confidence and competence ?

I'm running a 2002 S&B 3-12x50. I really like it. Wonderfully robust and seems good in low light- but I wonder if I can get a bit of an upgrade in light transmission with a 2.5-10x56 ?

I will add the IR feature too- nice to have- and hopefully make pinpointing the target easier.

So- will a brand new Zenith (£1100or so) offer me improved light transmission over an 18 year old model ?

I would like the IR but won't upgrade without an improvement in low light performance.

Any advice would be great thanks.

Greg

PS- I don't think I have a particularly good eye for optical quality. Anything reasonable looks ok to me during the day so I'm not sure if lots of tests will help me ?

 

[Utectok]

I’d say the difference in glass between the two scopes will be difficult to notice. The illuminated reticle gives you 15-20mins of effective shooting time in my experience. Not quite a game changer but useful when you need it

 

[Heym SR20]

Nope. Going up to a 56mm will give you very marginal additional light, but higher mounts and cheek weld etc. Red dot in middle, I now have it on my Leica. Minimal additional utilty and third turret makes it a pain to put in cabinet.

i like a thick No4 cross hair - vertical goes up forleg. Horizontal goes across base of neck and out the back end - bullet goes in middle of kill zone.

A new S&B scope will only be very slightly better. Give yours a good clean and you will be surprised how good it is.

I think in many ways the older scopes were better built. I use a mid 1970s Zeiss 6x42, a 4-12x50 Swaro Habicht, a 3-9x36 swaro and a 6x42 S&B. They will all allow me to shoot long after I can see with natural light.

keep your money in your pocket And go stalking

 

[Malxwal]

I think you'll love a Zenith, as long as the financial outlay isnt a burden.

 

[big ears]

Have a 2.5-10x56 and it’s no better than my Z3 3-9x42. Never used the illumination. Save your money and don’t worry. Shout if you can see it let it go if you cannot.

 

[User00040]

DON'T DO IT!

More likely than not such a change will be regretted!

 

[Overlay]

The Zenith 2.5 - 10 x 56 I’ve found the reticule ( FD7) is slightly finer Than the 3-12 x 50 Zenith ( I use one on the 222) but the dusk time gives you a little longer, the dot on the zenith is superb and on par with The V6 zeiss It gives you the edge at a critical time and The variable mag helps a great deal

 

[billy_boyle_2010]

Really interesting thanks guys

It sounds like the glass will be much the same but the IR is very subjective- with some loving it others not.

I do like a low fitting scope- so the cheek weld is a consideration.

Will give the lenses a good polish for sure!

 

[Bugsy]

The only gain would be the illuminated reticle , I also have a 15 year old 3-12x50 and have recently fitted it to my 270 for night shooting because I don't want to be fuffing about with parallax at night but its a pity it doesn't have an IR . A couple of years back in Ireland stalking I waited till near dark to shoot a big stag who walked past me at 50 yards , I just managed to see the reticule on his shoulder and luckily down he went but a IR for that time of night would have made a big difference .The IR just gives you that minute more for a placement shot. Stick with the scope you've got and eat mer carrots

 

[Pedro]

Depends on your shooting of course, but one way to achieve better light transmission is to forego the variable scope and go for a suitable fixed one. For similar money, you can get better quality. Just a thought.

 

[norma 308]

the zenith with fd7 ill dot was one of the best purchases I made I use the dot During the day and First and last light

 

[Olaf]

You will get more light transmission from a fixed power scope than a vari power scope because it has less lenses.
Personally I prefer a 1970s or 1980s Zeiss Diavari or Swarovski Habicht in 3-12x56 or 2.5-10 x52 I know of a few people who own those older scopes as well as the silly expensive new scopes like the Swarovski z8 scopes etc and they find their older ones to be better in low light. Personally I think the reason for that is simply that the z8 type scopes have even more lenses in them to loose you light.
i use my 2.5-10x 52 diavari in the dark on pigs with no problem whatsoever. The choice of reticle is important, not too fine as then you can’t see the cross hairs in the dark.
kindest regards, Olaf

 

[Ronin]

I’d suggest going to a dealer with the scope your considering and looking through your scope and the new one side by side

Only your eyes will tell you which is clearer under low light conditions

An illuminated reticule is very useful at first and last light especially in woodland conditions where one can see the animal but not the non illuminated cross hair

 

[billy_boyle_2010]

Hmmmm interesting point guys. I guess I could try a 8x56 for example.

The reason I liked the idea of variable is it gives me the option of dropping the mag down to 4x- which should give me a bit more light?

Sounds like I need to decide if the IR is worth it!

 

[Utectok]

Personally I’ve been on fixed mag for ages then went variable and wouldn’t go back. It does makes those longer shots easier and the tight woodland stalking at low mag is good to

 

[1894]

Devon = West Country reds?

Its perfectly possible to use 'normal' scopes but the locals use x56 and illuminated.

I travel 200miles for my ground in that area. From 2006 - 2015 I used 6x42, 3-9x42. The limiting factor was not glass but knowledge of the ground. From 2015 I have used a Zeiss 3-12x56 HT with illuminated reticle. My success has increased quite a lot and I do use it in very low light indeed which is a big help.

I wouldn't do it without a dog and you have to realise it carries more risk. Angle and unseen obstructions are those that vome to mind

If you are going to upgrade I'd suggest the highest light transmission and checking the dot goes dim enough. I think this means zeiss HT (my favourite) or s&b polar (no knowledge).

Finally like many threads this has a lot of general comments of varying accuracy and use. I'd only listen to true practical experience in the environment you're operating in.

 

[Steff]

Let me clean up some old myths here.

Variable scopes do NOT have more lenses than fixed power ones. In the early days of variables the fixed power scopes did indeed deliver more light transmission, but this is long gone. Moreover a 30 year old fixed scope will be worse in light transmission than a new variable one (same model series, maker etc.). The coatings have improved considerably over the past 30 years. Plus optics tend to loose some clarity over the years.

The fact that many poeple find their old scopes to be better in low light than the current models has to do with the zoom ratios on the new top notch models. On 6- or even 8-zoom models you will find the exit pupil being artificially limited in order to reduce abberation (stray light).

If you want maximum light transmission go with a 4-zoom scope and look for the best coatings. A new S&B Klassik is better than a 20 year old one (coatings have changed), and a Zenith is better than any Klassik. Any if you want really top performance go to the Polar line or a Zeiss HT.

 

[Olaf]

Let me clean up some old myths here.

Variable scopes do NOT have more lenses than fixed power ones. In the early days of variables the fixed power scopes did indeed deliver more light transmission, but this is long gone. Moreover a 30 year old fixed scope will be worse in light transmission than a new variable one (same model series, maker etc.). The coatings have improved considerably over the past 30 years. Plus optics tend to loose some clarity over the years.

The fact that many poeple find their old scopes to be better in low light than the current models has to do with the zoom ratios on the new top notch models. On 6- or even 8-zoom models you will find the exit pupil being artificially limited in order to reduce abberation (stray light).

If you want maximum light transmission go with a 4-zoom scope and look for the best coatings. A new S&B Klassik is better than a 20 year old one (coatings have changed), and a Zenith is better than any Klassik. Any if you want really top performance go to the Polar line or a Zeiss HT.

That’s a very interesting post, thank you for clearing that up.
Could you possibly expand/ explain the “artificially Limited Exit eye pupil “ scenario that you mentioned in your second to last paragraph? Is it that the 6 or 8 zoom scopes just don’t suit some people’s eyes or is it that they genuinely don’t let as much light through than the standard magnifying vari power scopes?
kindest regards, Olaf

 

[VSS]

Whether you go for a scope with illumination or not, fixed mag or not, don't bother going higher than 50mm objective, mounted as low as it will go without touching the barrel. The increased height required to mount a 56mm scope is nothing but a hindrance to good shooting technique. Sure, you can learn to work with it, use comb raisers etc, but it will never be so comfortable. The more comfortable you are the more accurate you will be.

 

[Klenchblaize]

You won’t regret the addition of an illuminated reticle.

K