low light scope $1500 and under

Well I knew it would eventually happen, I was hunting yesterday afternoon and saw a stud that I could see with my binoculars but could not see clear enough to feel comfortable to shoot with my now 17yo Nikon buckmaster scope. I want to know what is the best low light scope available for about $1500 or less. Ziess, Kahles, and Swaro make several that fall in my price zone, also Meopta and Vortex. I am hoping someone on here has some real world experience with some of these. I'm thinking 3-12x56 would best fit my needs, also what is the difference in the Meopta R1 and R2? I'm about to spend more on a scope than I normally spend on an entire rifle/scope setup and want to make sure I'm happy with my choice.

Thanks,

Schmidt and Bender makes a Klassik scope that I have found some demos that fall in my price range also.

3-12x56 Zeiss diavari. Best low light scope out there IMO

Last year I was in the market for a scope. At first I bought a Swarovski Z3, the first weekend I took it out I had a big buck step out in a situation similar to the one you described and couldn't see it to make the shot. I took it back and swapped it out for a Zeiss Victory HT 3x12x56. I am very happy with the Zeiss, there is a small distortion when at the lowest power for some reason but I never leave it on 3x power (this could be related to my scope only and needs to be repaired).

You can buy a top of the line used or demo Swaro, Zeiss or S&B for that much, I think. Any of those will more than do the job. BUT, I think you could buy 2 Meoptas for that and still kill any thing in legal light.

You can buy a top of the line used or demo Swaro, Zeiss or S&B for that much, I think. Any of those will more than do the job. BUT, I think you could buy 2 Meoptas for that and still kill any thing in legal light.

You can buy a top of the line used or demo Swaro, Zeiss or S&B for that much, I think. Any of those will more than do the job. BUT, I think you could buy 2 Meoptas for that and still kill any thing in legal light.

I'd get cheaper binoculars.

I don't buy S&B because of the warranty. It's something to consider when making a $1500 investment. Also think about the reticle. It will do no good to be able to see the deer and not be able to see the reticle. I suggest a #4 with the thick lines that come very close to center or a lit reticle with a very low setting. The very low part is crucial in low light.Too bright and you will only be able to see the dot.

Another suggestion is that you really need to see these scopes first hand in low light. I think Eurooptics would work with you if you explain your situation and allow you to purchase your top 3 or so scopes and try them out in hand. Then send back the unmounted scopes for a refund.

Now, having said all that, there are likely several scopes better in low light than your 17 year old Buckmaster for around $1000.

Here are a few I would look at.
http://www.eurooptic.com/meopta-meostar-r1-3-12x56-rd-reticle-4c-matte-black-rifle-scope.aspx
http://www.eurooptic.com/kahles-c-25-10x50-4a-riflescope-10102.aspx
http://www.samplelist.com/-P78441.aspx

SWFA has a restocking fee if you decide on a return, so ask about that. I want to see a scope of this caliber in hand before purchase. I have found some similar scopes may have tunnel vision at the lowest setting or I may not like the reticle as well as a different maker's. Any of these and many more however should allow you to shoot at any legal deer within reasonable range.

For $1500 you could buy a Meopta Meostar scope of your choice plus a pair of Meopta binoculars. That combo will blow away any scope standing on its on, that is in a real hunting situation.

I have a Meopta R2 2.5-15 x 56 illuminated that I think is pretty good. I looked over an 8 point about 35 minutes past sunset the other day just to see what I could see (already decided not to shoot based on binoculars). I could easily see to make the shot - however at 100 yds against a backdrop, could not really judge the rack. I think this brings up a good point: you'll never see as well through a scope as you can through good binoculars.

M48Scout is spot on.

This is a good point I've brought up here before several times. You gotta be realistic about your expectations. A low light scope is not night vision. Even the best of them have their limitation which is darkness.

I run a Meopta 3-12 on one of my rifles and I can see to shoot well after legal light, but that's just a deer in the dark. If you want to see what the rack looks like there is no substitute for a good set of Binoculars. But even then.... still not night vision.

I've got a Victory, S&B, Swaro, etc. Still just a deer in the dark no matter how much you spend.

On the subject, what does a really good set of Binoculars cost? Ones I've seen recommended would blow his budget on just the Bino's.

Also - the difference between the R1 and R2 is likely minuscule relatively to what you currently have. I think the main thing is mag ratio, however they also claim improved coatings and possibly different glass. I think the R2 basically represents their best current product technology. After using the scope I don't know how useful the 2.5x setting is and the magnification above 12. It's nice to have, but not critical for what you're wanting. The illumination works nice and doesn't wash out the image in low light. I only use the lowest setting.

I'm not looking to night hunt. My wife just got me a pair of Nikon prostaff 7 binoculars 8x40 I think. I had those with me and could see the deer enough to tell which buck I was looking at, but could not see clearly enough through my scope to feel certain about the shot. I could see enough to shoot at a deer, but not enough to know I was putting a lethal shot on the buck I wanted. I feel like if I get any of the scopes mentioned it will blow my binos away, but that is fine, I'm more interested in making a clean kill then "hunting" til 6 pm.

I'm really way more of a bow hunter but I clearcut most of my property and my 3yo is wanting to hunt with daddy some so I'm spending more time on a greenfield than I used to.

Interesting topic. My wife is just starting to hunt and she was dogging the buckmaster scope on her dad's old rifle. She loves my redfield binos that are not very expensive but good for the money.

She claims she could only see a blob at 5:20. I remember using that scope and seeing deer easily up to 5:30. I think every set of eyes reacts differently to optics.

I just got an older Vari-x III in a 50m that appears outstanding to my eyes.

I don't know that you need to spend $1500 to do what you want. I probably shouldn't have spent what I did, but I just get crazy when it comes to thus stuff. You might even look at a 50mm Meopro instead of a Meostar. If it meets you expectations you can save $$ and keep your 1" rings to boot

http://swfa.com/Meopta-4-12x50-MeoPro-Rifle-Scope-P45969.aspx

Yes and yes. Have that same scope and ran into this issue last week. Knew he had a BIG body, but could not properly id his rack. Hated to pass...

Look at the specs on the super zooms and you will see that they actually have a smaller exit pupil than comparable 3X scopes on low power. When I say 3X I mean 3X power ratio. The super zooms like a 2-12 or 2.5-15 will have a much smaller exit pupil on low power than a 3-10 or 4-12 with the same size objectiv. I personally think the 3X ratio scopes are brighter, at least they have been in the super zooms I've compared them to.

I have an older Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 that gathers enough light that I can see to shoot within 200 yards almost 10 minutes after my naked eyes fail me. And I have excellent eyesight. My Leupolds are only slightly less bright.

If you can't see it through a Swaro Z3 then it's time to go home or you need to get your eyes checked.. I have 3-10x42 Z3 and it will get you about 10 mins more than a zeiss conquest 3-9x40, which will allow you to shoot way later than you probably should anyway.

The huge objective scope are way overrated in my opinion. If it's that late you shouldn't need a scope on more than 7x power anyway.

If you end up with a meostar, do not buy the r1. Buy the r2 and thank me later

The best light gathering scope I've ever used is the Swarovski PH 2.5-10x56 with a 30 mm tube.

You should be able to pick one up used for $1100 or so.

I just bought a Swarovski Z3 4-12x50 with 4A reticle about 3 days ago. I think I got it Friday. After looking at it, it's just not for me and I've got a little buyer's remorse. I'll knock $150 or so off retail if you're interested in it.

I hear ya. I looked thru one BamaBart had on a rifle and I thought it was highly overrated for the cost of the thing.

This ..plus read this
http://www.opticsplanet.com/msgboard/about9-5733.html
I have 2 of the exact same scopes one in 40mm and one in 50mm. The only difference I could tell was at dark and both on 10x and it was very slight. I would choose the highest quality 40mm I could afford.

Camera Land New York, Demo/Sample list usually has a pretty good selection. They are also running a additional 10% off moving sale.
I have had very good experiences with Camera Land, Europtics, and Sportoptics.

My leupold vari x III will get me past legal light every day. I'd buy a good used scope with a good warranty whatever you get and save some money.

i guess i am just cheap but i cannot see (see what i did there?) paying $100 per minute past sunset. sometimes, you just gotta let the deer win ...

It's all relative to what you are used to spending. I can't see spending $1000 a year on Skoal or cigarettes. I would much rather own something instead. Not directed at you, just making a point.

A 2.5 is a Hard to beat!

I purchased a Minox Ze5i 3x15x56 from Cameraland and am quite impressed with the glass and light gathering capabilities. IMO it compares equally to my Zeiss Diavari 3x12x56.

don't smoke or dip or chew.
fixed income.
i'm a little bit cheap.
can't see worth a flip at dark.
don't mind letting the deer win.
$1,500 is half of what it will cost to replace the motor in my bride's suburban.

For $500 you can get a scope that 90%-95% as good as a $1000+ scope. You pay a lot for small increases after $500 in just a hunting scope.

I was just saying different people look at money differently. I get flack from some of my buddies because of what I spend on guns and scopes when they argue their whatever is just as good and complain they can't spend that kind of money. One of them smokes 2 packs a day and the others dips, no telling how much. We go somewhere hunting and both want to spend $50 at a steakhouse when I would rather eat cheap and spend it elsewhere.

har! gotcha, mr. clark.
i knew where you were coming from.

Mr. Clark me and you would get along just fine. My buddies are the same way

I appreciate the southern gentleman behavior but you can call me Randy and I would be honored if I ever get a chance to hunt with you folks. A lot of the guys on here are rough around the edges but all I've met were real good guys at heart.

yeppie ...

^This. I have the swaro z3 and zeiss conquest and the swaro is MUCH brighter at last light. The zeiss is very nice but no comparison between it and the swaro.

For that matter, my leupold vx3 and a previous Mark 4 were not in the same ballpark as the swaro z3. I'm lusting for a Z5 Swaro right now and if I had $1500 burning a hole in my pocket then the Z5 3x18x44mm would be my first choice.

Used 2.5 x 10 x 56 Schmidt Bender, I haven't found anything better.

You probably won't. I had one that I sold and was going to replace later but I can't justify spending that much on something without a lifetime warranty.