2-7x32 and 3-9x40 scopes. Not what they use to be. Ha ha ha.

[JRS]

 

[JRS]

If the detached retina resulted in permanent vision loss, more magnification is not going to help you. That blurriness remains there forever, if it was not treated in time. Magnification is not going to change that. I recently went through cataract surgery. I had a choice with optimal vision. Close-up, mid range, or distance. I chose distance, and have to wear reading glass for anything 24" away or closer.

Edit: Forget about spending money on scopes. Use that money to have your eyes assessed and repaired.

 

[Falfan2017]

Depending on what your budget is the march 3-24x 42 ffp is a heck of a scope. 3 power for close moving shots or in brush. 24 power for longer range or varminting. All in a small lightweight package. I believe there also an illuminated one for low light situations

 

[ImBIllT]

Cherry picked to prove your point, and an apple to oranges comparison at that. I could easily do the same, to prove my point...

Fact is, there are any number of quality variables that'll be just as bright, or brighter. Specifically, those within a similar objective size, and corresponding variable range...

I'd submit my 'low-mid level' variable Minox up against your fixed 6x42 for brightness, any time. No extra lens for an AO, just for mag zoom. Also, have a baby Kahles 3-9x42 that has an AO, and is still phenomenal in low light. And a 2-10x50 AO, that's even better...

Again, not disagreeing that a fixed lower has merits, it does for sheer simplicity. But, technology has allowed shooters to enjoy variables that don't suffer optical 'shortcomings' of yesteryear. We're loooong past that, now...

Not cherry picked at all. I simply went with a high end optic that I own. If you take two scopes from the same brand and same line of scopes, the fixed power will always have greater light transmission(unless they downgrade he lenses just because they can get away with it in a fixed power) because it has fewer lenses. It’s only apples to oranges if you compare a variable with high end lenses and coatings to a fixed power that is has lower quality lenses and coatings and then say that they have the same light transmission. Frankly even cheap scopes these days have pretty good light transmission. I have Weaver Classic K series, Sightron S1s, S-Tacs, and and S-IIIs that are all very bright, some even brighter than the best fixed power optics Germany had to offer in ‘80s and ‘90s. The fact remains that in an equal comparison of two scopes from the same line the fixed power will be brighter. There is also no reason to compare a high end European variable to Chinese 6x32. The variable in that comparison will probably be brighter, but that’s not the point. I highly doubt there is a variable on the market, anywhere, at any price, that is brighter than a current FX-III 6x42 or any of the more expensive Euro 6x42s.

 

[CTK]

Cherry picked to prove your point, and an apple to oranges comparison at that. I could easily do the same, to prove my point...

Fact is, there are any number of quality variables that'll be just as bright, or brighter. Specifically, those within a similar objective size, and corresponding variable range...

I'd submit my 'low-mid level' variable Minox up against your fixed 6x42 for brightness, any time. No extra lens for an AO, just for mag zoom. Also, have a baby Kahles 3-9x42 that has an AO, and is still phenomenal in low light. And a 2-10x50 AO, that's even better...

Again, not disagreeing that a fixed lower has merits, it does for sheer simplicity. But, technology has allowed shooters to enjoy variables that don't suffer optical 'shortcomings' of yesteryear. We're loooong past that, now...

My 3x9x42 Kahles with side focus is awesome in low light but has a smaller reticle than practical( for me) for low light big game hunting. Relegated to rimfire work. Have a 3.5-12x50 Kahles that is much brighter to me than Swaro z5's or Zeiss Conquest.

 

[NDAR15MAN]

Again thanks for all the good info. I think I might look st some of theses lighted reticles. I have a sightron lll 10-50x60 MOA-2 that has the lighted dot. I like it a lot for target shooting. Miniox brand seems interesting. Thanks again. Marty

 

[fredo]

Not cherry picked at all. I simply went with a high end optic that I own. If you take two scopes from the same brand and same line of scopes, the fixed power will always have greater light transmission(unless they downgrade he lenses just because they can get away with it in a fixed power) because it has fewer lenses. It’s only apples to oranges if you compare a variable with high end lenses and coatings to a fixed power that is has lower quality lenses and coatings and then say that they have the same light transmission. Frankly even cheap scopes these days have pretty good light transmission. I have Weaver Classic K series, Sightron S1s, S-Tacs, and and S-IIIs that are all very bright, some even brighter than the best fixed power optics Germany had to offer in ‘80s and ‘90s. The fact remains that in an equal comparison of two scopes from the same line the fixed power will be brighter. There is also no reason to compare a high end European variable to Chinese 6x32. The variable in that comparison will probably be brighter, but that’s not the point. I highly doubt there is a variable on the market, anywhere, at any price, that is brighter than a current FX-III 6x42 or any of the more expensive Euro 6x42s.

Comparing a fixed, low power 'big game' scope, to a variable, adjustable parallax 'varmint/target' scope, is indeed, cherry picking...

But, if ya wanna got down that road, I can still offer up a 'target/varmint' scope that'll smoke ANY fixed power, for brightness, at a given eye pupil...

They're out there, ya just gotta pay for em!

So, we're back at square 1. Nowadays, fixed powers offer little/nothing over quality variables. The only factor is: price point. In that, one could conceivably purchase a "bright" fixed power for less than a comparably "bright" variable.

But, to rest on past (valid at the time) claims that fixed power scopes are all "brighter" by default, is not consistent with keeping up with current products. To the point that it'd take an optical engineer to decide a winner...

Thankfully, hunters can just go outside & see for themselves which scopes are capable, and which ain't.

Good discussion, thanks!

 

[fredo]

My 3x9x42 Kahles with side focus is awesome in low light but has a smaller reticle than practical( for me) for low light big game hunting. Relegated to rimfire work. Have a 3.5-12x50 Kahles that is much brighter to me than Swaro z5's or Zeiss Conquest.

Who'd a thunk it?
Wicked bright, variable mag, and side parallax to boot. All those lens, and still a super dooper low light scope! Kicker is, they ain't hardly 'new', which lends credence that variables have been kicking azz in the brightness Dept. for some time, now. Especially when ya pick the right one for the job...

 

[JRS]

If the OP is dealing with blurriness due to the detached retina, no scope on earth is going to correct that problem. He needs to have his eyes taken care of, if possible, and his eye doctor would have already explained that to him. If you have followed the OP, you'll realize he has been playing you.

 

[ImBIllT]

Comparing a fixed, low power 'big game' scope, to a variable, adjustable parallax 'varmint/target' scope, is indeed, cherry picking...

But, if ya wanna got down that road, I can still offer up a 'target/varmint' scope that'll smoke ANY fixed power, for brightness, at a given eye pupil...

They're out there, ya just gotta pay for em!

So, we're back at square 1. Nowadays, fixed powers offer little/nothing over quality variables. The only factor is: price point. In that, one could conceivably purchase a "bright" fixed power for less than a comparably "bright" variable.

But, to rest on past (valid at the time) claims that fixed power scopes are all "brighter" by default, is not consistent with keeping up with current products. To the point that it'd take an optical engineer to decide a winner...

Thankfully, hunters can just go outside & see for themselves which scopes are capable, and which ain't.

Good discussion, thanks!

It’s not a varmint/target scope. Both scopes are in the same line from the same manufacture. The 6.5-20x50 is on my sandhills mule deer gun, and the fixed 6Xs are on 308’s intended primarily for closer range work, but perfectly suitable for longer ranges. The only reason I upped the power was that I wanted to better judge antlers at 400+ yards and didn’t want to carry binos any heavier than the ones I had.(I walked 18 miles in the sandhills the day I killed my muley last year). Yes, the 6.5-20x50 is plenty bright. Brighter even that plenty of fixed power scopes out there, and definitely brighter than scopes of the past. It is not however as bright as the fixed power scope from the very same manufacture and line.

As far as saving money by going with a fixed power, that should be in the cards, but it’s realky not. Fixed power scopes are no longer popular, so they tend to come on two categories. Budget, and top end. Budget fixed power scopes will be beaten by top end variables. Top end fixed power scopes aren’t really any cheaper than their variable counter parts. Leupold may sort of be an exception with their FX-II, but I’ve never looked through one. They get plenty of good reviews, and in spite of their 6mm exit pupil it may not matter to older eyes. If your pupil won’t dilate past 6mm, then the extra millimeter wouldn’t offer any improvement in brightness. Larger exit pupils do reduce sensitivity to head position though, so it’s still nice.

I don’t know why you think there’s a variable out there somewhere that is brighter than a fixed power using the exact same lenses as the variable but fewer of them. It doesn’t take an optical engineer either. You take the light transmission per lense to the power of the lense number. .98^3 vs .98^4. Pretty simple. Whatever light transmision you choose, the only way the fixed power fails to win is if the light transmission per lense is lower, or if it has extra lenses for now reason. Neither case is realistic. The best fixed power Schmidt has to offer does not have less light transmission per lens than their best variable. That’s the same for most high end manufacturers. There are certainly some low end fixed power scopes that don’t have the same quality of lenses and lens coatings as variables made by the same manufacturer, but again, that’s not a fair comparison. Yes it is much less problem today than it once was. At 98% light transmission per lens(not uncommon now days) you’re looking at 94% for three lenses compared to 92% for four lenses. At 95% per lens(not uncommon in the past) you’re looking at 86% for three lenses vs 82% for four lenses. Yes the “new” variable beat the “old” fixed power. Yes the difference between the two is smaller today than it was in the past. The fact remains that the effect is still there and undeniable and it gets even worse when you add side focus. Many manufactures are in the 97- 98% range today, so you can easily pick a variable off the shelf and compare it to the best fixed power on the market 20-30yrs ago and the newer variable could be brighter. That doesn’t mean there’s some magic that makes it not matter. It’s comparing apples to oranges.

 

[ImBIllT]

If the OP is dealing with blurriness due to the detached retina, no scope on earth is going to correct that problem. He needs to have his eyes taken care of, if possible, and his eye doctor would have already explained that to him. If you have followed the OP, you'll realize he has been playing you.

Totally agree. That’s why I suggested a scope with plenty of field of view and good set of binoculars if he needs a closer look. Going down the path of a high powered scope for a shotgun or muzzle loader is not likely to help.

 

[fredo]

Semantics getting thick, again.

Percent, schmercent. Has zero to do with field comparisons.

Show me a fixed power that is bright, and I'll show ya a variable that's every bit as bright, or brighter...

I don't use scopes based on "fairness" of transmission %, or # of lenses. I use what is adequately bright. And, fact remains, there are PLENTY of variables on the market that are as 'bright' as any fixed power. To suggest otherwise, is doing everyone a disservice, as they'd be missing out on the versatility of a quality variable, in favor of a more limited fixed power...

 

[ImBIllT]

Semantics getting thick, again.

Percent, schmercent. Has zero to do with field comparisons.

Show me a fixed power that is bright, and I'll show ya a variable that's every bit as bright, or brighter...

I don't use scopes based on "fairness" of transmission %, or # of lenses. I use what is adequately bright. And, fact remains, there are PLENTY of variables on the market that are as 'bright' as any fixed power. To suggest otherwise, is doing everyone a disservice, as they'd be missing out on the versatility of a quality variable, in favor of a more limited fixed power...

You’re simply mistaken. No lense transmits 100% of light. Every lens you use compounds the loss. It’s possible to look through a lot of great lenses and get a brighter image than looking through one or two bad lenses, but that’s absurd. If you’re going to compare a fixed power scope to a variable with the same lens quality, the variable will have lost more light. I’m not saying there isn’t a fixed power scope out there that a variable doesn’t beat for brightness, but I am saying that in order to do that, you have to compare top variables to crap fixed power, or new variables to old fixed power. You yourself said that you “have to pay for” the variable that is bright. I’m saying that if you pay those same dollars to the same company for a fixed power scope in the same line, that the fixed power scope will be brighter. You said I can show you a fixed power scope and you will show me a brighter variable. Go find a new Schmidt fixed power in the 6x to 10x range and then show me a variable that is brighter at the same power. You won’t be able to do it. You probably won’t be able to beat the Meopta, and I’d even be surprised if you could top the FX-III...at any price.

 

[JRS]

I have a S&B 8X56 Klassic. Which variable power scope do you have that is "brighter" than this? Forget about the manufacturers claims. I'm talking about reality.

 

[ImBIllT]

I have a S&B 8X56 Klassic. Which variable power scope do you have that is "brighter" than this? Forget about the manufacturers claims. I'm talking about reality.

I get a feeling that his reality is never going to conform to ours.

 

[fredo]

You hafta compare at equal exit pupil, not magnification.

And don't need a fixed Schmidt anymore, since my high end variables are every bit as bright as one (ask me how I know)

Again, for the sake of this conversation & context, I've got variables that can hang with ANY fixed power, to well past legal shooting light...

Now, if you'd care to segway into later hours & night hunting, then that's where a variable will allow even more versatility/advantage, over a fixed. But, for schwackin a deer with a slug gun, when the sun hangs low...gimme a decent low power variable, all day long, and twice on Sunday!

 

[fredo]

I get a feeling that his reality is never going to conform to ours.

So wound up, you're responding to private messages on the open forum?

 

[ImBIllT]

So wound up, you're responding to private messages on the open forum?

Didn’t see a PM and quoted an open post in an open forum. Not sure what you’re talking about.

 

[fredo]

Wasn't "quoted", no matter. Agree to disagree, then.
Hope the OP gleaned sumthun' outta the exchange...

Good shooting

 

[ImBIllT]

You hafta compare at equal exit pupil, not magnification.

And don't need a fixed Schmidt anymore, since my high end variables are every bit as bright as one (ask me how I know)

Again, for the sake of this conversation & context, I've got variables that can hang with ANY fixed power, to well past legal shooting light...

Now, if you'd care to segway into later hours & night hunting, then that's where a variable will allow even more versatility/advantage, over a fixed. But, for schwackin a deer with a slug gun, when the sun hangs low...gimme a decent low power variable, all day long, and twice on Sunday!

Power and exit pupil are both relevant. They used to say that intensity didn’t matter, but there some movement on that front now, with some experts arguing that a higher power and equal exit pupil can allow the eye to see better in low light. Exit pupil however is only relevant where brightness is concerned if your pupil will dilate that large. Older eyes may not get any advantage at all from a 6X42 compared to a 6x36 if those eye will not dilate beyond 6mm.

Absolute brightness is not always important for every hunting situation. If it was, I wouldn’t have a 6.5-20x50 with side focus on one of my hunting guns. Certainly any good variable is suitable for many, if not most, hunting situations. I live in flat country and can see well past legal shooting hours. In sandhills with some shadows a decently bright scope can be an asset. In the hill country with deep valleys and lots of trees it can become difficult to see well enough to walk, let alone hunt, with plenty of legal shooting time left on the clock, and the brightest thing available offers an advantage. Additionally, the actual color rendering itself is also important. I love my screw in amber lens for my FX-III, which does technically reduce light transmission, however it enhances low light contrast, and while it may not make anything “brighter”, it makes it easier to see a deer well in low light. My Meoptas and Doctor have better low light contrast than any of my Japanese scopes, as well as the FX-III without the amber lens. Generally most new scopes are fine for most hunting situations. I listed a myriad of considerations in my first post to this thread, not just brightness. However, if brightness has been lacking for you, you should consider ditching any extra lenses unless your scope simply needs updating.