Who has the brightest scope for the money?
- Thread starter Gohome2
- Start date
sir_springer
Regular
- Location
- East Kootenays
Ah, the power of marketing, eh? 
For years I used Bausch & Lomb/Bushnell 3000/3200 Elites on all my rifles.
Then several years back I convinced myself it was time to move up to better quality optics, in part considering all the money I'd spent on making several rifles into shooters of small groups clearly required, so I'm told ad infinitum, to plug deer at a couple hundred yards or so.
So I spent some more dough on upgrading to Leupold. To that end I bought a VX-III 4.5x14x40 for my go-to 300 WM, an FX-II 6x36 for the Marlin, an FX-11 4x33 for the Ruger 77/22, and a VX-II 6x18x40 AO for the 25.06 Rem. Varminter.
My anticipation for the VX-III with its "indexed" lens system in squeezing out an extra dozen or so possible minutes of the hunter's witching hour had me twitching with enthusiasm for deer and elk season to arrive. Boy, just imagine how great this is gonna be to see twilight turn into daylight as all those other poor slobs with their inferior scopes had to pack it in just when the game du jour was finally getting around to poking their heads out of trees to see if the coast was finally clear!
You can imagine the sag in my shoulders when I inevitably discovered that perhaps my expectations were maybe a tad bit over the top.
Indeed, pretty much nothing had changed...at least not that I could tell. Twilight was still pretty much...ummm...twilight. Damn!
Oh, well...there was still the advantages of Leupold quality and reputation.
...not that my relatively inexpensive Elite 3000/3200 scopes ever let me down, mind you.
In making the move to Leupold I'd wondered what the difference in light transmission was between the VX-I, II and III amounted to. So I sent them an email, to which they quickly replied.
From memory, best as I can recall...
VX-I: roughly 88%
VX-II: roughly 92%
VX-III: roughly 95%
Since then I've done a lot more reading on optics...paying more attention to the facts, and less to manufacturers' marketing hype. You know, reading I should have done before spending a bunch of dough.
Bottom line:
Fixed power scopes with "fully multi-coated" lenses will transmit about 98% of available light at best.
Similarly glassed variables, due to the number of additional lenses involved, will transmit about 95%.
These numbers represent, contrary to advertising loosely "suggesting" otherwise, pretty much the limits of light transmission as dictated by the science of physics.
I remember once watching a brief news documentary in which they put about 20 "officiandos" of sound systems in a room...blindfolded...and asked them to rate the different playback from the various equipment. Interestingly enough, they were all over the map, and systems costing a mere fraction of others generally scored, all said and done, about as well.
Point being, when's the last time anyone read the results of a blind...okay, you know what I mean!...test on rifle scopes???
Right. I thought so.
The human eye...with all its faults, particularly as one gets on in years...is only capable of so much distinction. I sincerely doubt Joe Average Guy, for the most part, is actually capable of distinguishing the difference between 95% light transmission provided by one brand of fully multi-coated lenses and the the next...forget that the cross-hairs lie at the center of image where the deer's vitals happen to be located, nowhere near the outer edges where nothing worth mentioning is happening.
However, the power of suggestion (meaning, yes, marketing) certainly can convince many otherwise.
Yes, a 50mm or 56mm...or God forbid...a 72mm objective may add a few minutes of potential at the end of the day due to the "exit pupil" thingy happening. Good stuff, if one doesn't mind, personal preference-wise, packing around what looks to be a battle club attached to his rifle I guess.
Marketing, eh? Makes the world go around.
More to the point, makes people want to spend their money on the latest and bestest with the mostest that surely will make us the baddest, meanest, leanest, most proficient, kick-ass Masters of the Known Universe.
Hunters and shooters are no different from fishermen, x-country bikers, skiers, you name it. Did I mention golfers? Especially golfers!!!
Hence, the next 6.8mm Whizbang Magnum, with precision 2.246 lb trigger, stock reinforced with the same carbon fibers used on B-2 bomber wings, match grade barrel rifled to .0000001 tolerances, all coated with military spec Astro-Duratech-Teflonite to insure long life and maximum performance we deserve and expect...
...as we sit hours on end, everything from our bootlaces to our sunglasses camoed to the nines with TrueTreeLeaf Armortech, in lonely treestands till the last flicker of marginally legal shooting light finally forces us to pack it in for another day.
You gotta love it!
For years I used Bausch & Lomb/Bushnell 3000/3200 Elites on all my rifles.
Then several years back I convinced myself it was time to move up to better quality optics, in part considering all the money I'd spent on making several rifles into shooters of small groups clearly required, so I'm told ad infinitum, to plug deer at a couple hundred yards or so.
So I spent some more dough on upgrading to Leupold. To that end I bought a VX-III 4.5x14x40 for my go-to 300 WM, an FX-II 6x36 for the Marlin, an FX-11 4x33 for the Ruger 77/22, and a VX-II 6x18x40 AO for the 25.06 Rem. Varminter.
My anticipation for the VX-III with its "indexed" lens system in squeezing out an extra dozen or so possible minutes of the hunter's witching hour had me twitching with enthusiasm for deer and elk season to arrive. Boy, just imagine how great this is gonna be to see twilight turn into daylight as all those other poor slobs with their inferior scopes had to pack it in just when the game du jour was finally getting around to poking their heads out of trees to see if the coast was finally clear!
You can imagine the sag in my shoulders when I inevitably discovered that perhaps my expectations were maybe a tad bit over the top.
Indeed, pretty much nothing had changed...at least not that I could tell. Twilight was still pretty much...ummm...twilight. Damn!
Oh, well...there was still the advantages of Leupold quality and reputation.
...not that my relatively inexpensive Elite 3000/3200 scopes ever let me down, mind you.
In making the move to Leupold I'd wondered what the difference in light transmission was between the VX-I, II and III amounted to. So I sent them an email, to which they quickly replied.
From memory, best as I can recall...
VX-I: roughly 88%
VX-II: roughly 92%
VX-III: roughly 95%
Since then I've done a lot more reading on optics...paying more attention to the facts, and less to manufacturers' marketing hype. You know, reading I should have done before spending a bunch of dough.
Bottom line:
Fixed power scopes with "fully multi-coated" lenses will transmit about 98% of available light at best.
Similarly glassed variables, due to the number of additional lenses involved, will transmit about 95%.
These numbers represent, contrary to advertising loosely "suggesting" otherwise, pretty much the limits of light transmission as dictated by the science of physics.
I remember once watching a brief news documentary in which they put about 20 "officiandos" of sound systems in a room...blindfolded...and asked them to rate the different playback from the various equipment. Interestingly enough, they were all over the map, and systems costing a mere fraction of others generally scored, all said and done, about as well.
Point being, when's the last time anyone read the results of a blind...okay, you know what I mean!...test on rifle scopes???
Right. I thought so.
The human eye...with all its faults, particularly as one gets on in years...is only capable of so much distinction. I sincerely doubt Joe Average Guy, for the most part, is actually capable of distinguishing the difference between 95% light transmission provided by one brand of fully multi-coated lenses and the the next...forget that the cross-hairs lie at the center of image where the deer's vitals happen to be located, nowhere near the outer edges where nothing worth mentioning is happening.
However, the power of suggestion (meaning, yes, marketing) certainly can convince many otherwise.
Yes, a 50mm or 56mm...or God forbid...a 72mm objective may add a few minutes of potential at the end of the day due to the "exit pupil" thingy happening. Good stuff, if one doesn't mind, personal preference-wise, packing around what looks to be a battle club attached to his rifle I guess.
Marketing, eh? Makes the world go around.
More to the point, makes people want to spend their money on the latest and bestest with the mostest that surely will make us the baddest, meanest, leanest, most proficient, kick-ass Masters of the Known Universe.
Hunters and shooters are no different from fishermen, x-country bikers, skiers, you name it. Did I mention golfers? Especially golfers!!!
Hence, the next 6.8mm Whizbang Magnum, with precision 2.246 lb trigger, stock reinforced with the same carbon fibers used on B-2 bomber wings, match grade barrel rifled to .0000001 tolerances, all coated with military spec Astro-Duratech-Teflonite to insure long life and maximum performance we deserve and expect...
...as we sit hours on end, everything from our bootlaces to our sunglasses camoed to the nines with TrueTreeLeaf Armortech, in lonely treestands till the last flicker of marginally legal shooting light finally forces us to pack it in for another day.
You gotta love it!
Last edited:
Brightness is very important for me when hunting predators for livestock protection.
25-06AI wearing a VXL works great in minimal light conditions.
Brightness is very important for me when hunting predators for livestock protection.
25-06AI wearing a VXL works great in minimal light conditions.
That would be one of the uses where it matters.
What power is your VXL? I picked up one in 3.5-10 x 50 Illuminated B&C for legal night hunting in Argentina, and leopard someday. I'll be buying more of them, since the cut-out allows the low mounting I strongly prefer.Once the junk scopes are eliminated from contention, real meaningful gains are going to have to made by objective size. If higher powers are to be used, then once again the big objectives come into play.
My point, if any, is that most people could find something more important to worry about than a couple percentage points in light transmission on scopes of standard size.
- Location
- Stony Plain, Alberta
One of the best scopes I've ever used. I can't imagine putting junk optic's on a rifle, after using Swarovski's.
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
I've found the type of reticle to be far more important in low light shooting than perceived brightness.
Many scopes I've looked through were plenty bright but I couldn't see the reticle. Illuminated ones are OK, but I still prefer to not have to worry about batteries,etc.
Best for low light is the European 1A reticle(post). It's not good for precision long range shooting, but great for low light/night, hence the most popular European night scope being an 8x56 with 1A reticle.
Many scopes I've looked through were plenty bright but I couldn't see the reticle. Illuminated ones are OK, but I still prefer to not have to worry about batteries,etc.
Best for low light is the European 1A reticle(post). It's not good for precision long range shooting, but great for low light/night, hence the most popular European night scope being an 8x56 with 1A reticle.
