I've got a 3-12x56 victory diavari that is incredibly bright and clear in low light. As far as actually getting a deer killed at dark though I think a trijicon accupoint or a Leupold VX-6 with that tiny little lighted dot in the center of the crosshairs is as good as it gets. My eyes aren't good enough to see the crosshairs otherwise.

Check him with good binos then throw that low power Leupold up with heavies and turn him a flip.

Typically a larger Field of View is what makes the difference on a european FFP scope. Also why I like a #4. It doesn't obstruct the entire sight picture.

I have a Leupold I am about to send back and get them to change to heavy duplex on a woods gun. Hard to beat.

My Diavari has a #8 reticle; no problems in low light at any magnification

A big ol spotlight will remedy this low light problem ya'll are dealing with.

That's why both low light scopes I suggested have illumination.

I've never seen that they have greater FOV compared to any other scope with the same magnification and eye relief. Typically when a scope has eye relief over 3.5" they have slightly narrower FOV. It's sort of a trade off in that area.


What I try to avoid for a scope used in Low light is the super zoom scopes with more than 3X zoom ratio. Your typical 3X zoom ratio 3X9, 4X12, 2X7 scopes have larger exit pupils than your super 5X and 6X zoom ratios, like the 2-12X 3-18X scopes. Just compare exit pupils sometimes in a 6X ratio scope to a 3X ratio scope. The exit pupil is what lets in the light,not the tube diameter or the objective diameter.

The exit pupil and the quality of glass and coatings is what determines how bright a scope is.

And; a fixed magnification scope has fewer elements

I could live with a high end fixed 4 power , of course it would have to have some sort of heavy reticle.

Something else I can't wrap my head around, fellers building light weight, short mountain rifles for these hard wood hills and mounting a Hubble Telescope/ boat anchor on top.

That's probably true on FOV even more so in recent years. I was thinking about my Swaro scopes for instance z6 2-12x50 is 63-21ft. Can't get that with a Leupold.

That Z6 is a fine scope indeed with a versatility few can compete with.Look at the exit pupil though and you will find it smaller than a 2X scope with a 3x magnification range with the same objective size. I think they stop it down for the 6X erector for some reason. The Swaro however makes up for it's somewhat smaller exit pupil with superior glass quality and coatings.

A Leopold VX2 2-7 has 44.6' FOV at 2X which is narrower because of it's longer eye relief and the fact that it's actually a bit over 2X on low power.


A 1.5-5 VX3 has 68' FOV on low power


My new Vortex Razor HD LH 1.5-8X32 has a whopping 72.2' FOV on low power and only weighs 13 ounces.

There's so much to consider in a scope choice,there really isn't any one that is "best". You just have to pick a scope that has the characteristics that makes it best for you depending on what you value the most.

I have an older steel tube Swarvo. 8x56 with a 7a reticle. It works very well in low light.

My "old Aetec Simmons" was bad ass and I own several high dollar scopes..

Y'all are right about those thin reticles. I just bought a Swaro x5i 5-25 x 56 and I'm dang glad I got the illuminated on that L Plex -1+ reticle. The reticle is fine for daytime, but when it gets toward end of legal light, my 55 year old eyes can't pick up those little crosshairs as easily.

I rest my case.

You're little 4x "I'm a woods hunter yada yada yada" won't do squat in the fields I'm hunting. Make fun of my "Hubble scopes" all you want but I find them handy on my heavy field rifles.

Ive got a zeiss now but it doesnt kill deer any better than any other scope ive ever had

I've owned all of the above scopes and to me right now the Leica and trijicon pull in more light and are clearer

Schmidt and Bender's T96 would be a top choice for the best low light scope.

Not in the $1000 or less category.