New Scope | 300 yards in low-light

[Mr. UML]

Again, gently, if you can't count tines with a Swarovski at 200 yards, something is going on with your eyes. You may correct to 20/20, but? Macular degeneration, early cataract?

Or, if you really just want the best, here you go.

6-24 x 72 - Long range telescopic sight | HENSOLDT

Telescopic sight for extremely precise adjustability and very high magnification

www.hensoldt.net

Counting tines in lowlight (legal) conditions is difficult with it.

Any thoughts on that list?

 

[Dave N]

Buy a pair of binoculars for counting tines and use the scope to shoot it. If you can't see crossshairs on the deer it's too dark. You don't have to aim at a single hair, it's a large kill zone.

 

[Mr. UML]

I always hunt with a pair of binoculars but the ones I have aren't that great, They're 12x magnification and aren't worth a damn in low light (granted, they were like $300 about 10 years ago).

Still, my scope should be able to do it easily. Hoping for some input on my list.

 

[TheJason]

I’d ask Tom Terrific.

 

[Dave N]

You would have better luck hoping for more light.

 

[Addicting]

I’d ask Tom Terrific.

I was just thinking if he could see how neatly the lettering was stamped. Lol

 

[Forkyfinder]

I always hunt with a pair of binoculars but the ones I have aren't that great, They're 12x magnification and aren't worth a damn in low light (granted, they were like $300 about 10 years ago).

Still, my scope should be able to do it easily. Hoping for some input on my list.

Im not sure what your 4-16x50 is - but on a deer 300 yards away id not use more than 16x.

You got a few salty responses - but not out of ill will. A lot of people probably assume you are trolling. No disrespect implied/intended - but this is like asking a bunch of mechanics where to change your blinker oil.

 

[Mr. UML]

Well the reality is that in my opinion, @16x is insufficient - especially at 300 yards.

I'm hoping for input on the list I posted.

 

[Dave N]

In reality, in my opinion, 300 yards is not a realistic range for shooting deer with a muzzleloader unless it's a follow up shot. As far as your list goes, I think you went past that with the reasons behind looking for one. I'm out.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Well the reality is that in my opinion, @16x is insufficient - especially at 300 yards.

I'm hoping for input on the list I posted.

Everyones entitled to an opinion. Mine has changed here and there though, and im usually better for it.

Here's an article with a better written case.

https://backfire.tv/how-much-rifle-scope-zoom-you-need-with-pictures/

What kind of scope are you using?

 

[Mr. UML]

In reality, in my opinion, 300 yards is not a realistic range for shooting deer with a muzzleloader unless it's a follow up shot. As far as your list goes, I think you went past that with the reasons behind looking for one. I'm out.

How is 300 yards not a realistic range for a state of the art muzzleloader? They're excellent even to 500 yards providing you have the right model (e.g., UML, Paramount, Gunwerks).

 

[Mr. UML]

Everyones entitled to an opinion. Mine has changed here and there though, and im usually better for it.

Here's an article with a better written case.

https://backfire.tv/how-much-rifle-scope-zoom-you-need-with-pictures/

What kind of scope are you using?

I currently have a Zeiss Conquest V4 4-16x50.

 

[jt13]

There is something entertaining about putting a longrange target scope called the "TenMile" on a 300 yard muzzleloader though that's probably the best choice on the list to hunt with as it has a low-end magnification at 4.5x

 

[Caseknife]

Sounds like you need a FFP scope, the Nightforce on your list would fit the bill perfectly.

 

[Mr. UML]

There is something entertaining about putting a longrange target scope called the "TenMile" on a 300 yard muzzleloader though that's probably the best choice on the list to hunt with as it has a low-end magnification at 4.5x

I don't argue that it's entertaining, I'm just wondering if it's built to handle that kind of recoil.

@Forkyfinder - that link you provided highlights exactly my issue. The image of what 16x looks like at 500 yards (below) is a shooting situation that I'm not comfortable with and I need more zoom and precision. Granted that I'm at 300 yards, the animal would appear larger, but still not like the "ideal" image that the article mentions.

@Caseknife - Are their scopes good in quality?

 

[brockel]

I currently have a Zeiss Conquest V4 4-16x50.

Just took a 6x to 690 yards pretty easily. Your 4-16 at 300 should be more than plenty. Sounds like more practice is in order. Maybe less power for less target panic

 

[Mr. UML]

Just took a 6x to 690 yards pretty easily. Your 4-16 at 300 should be more than plenty. Sounds like more practice is in order. Maybe less power for less target panic

See the picture above. To me, that is not a good shot to take. I would want to be more precise on my shot placement which requires more zoom. It's not an issue of practice - I simply don't like the data available from the scope at that range.

 

[Sheltowee]

Here's an article with a better written case.

https://backfire.tv/how-much-rifle-scope-zoom-you-need-with-pictures/

Scoping livestock is a bold choice.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Scoping livestock is a bold choice.

No disagreement there.

I find the backfire guy to be mostly a tool, but it came up when i was trying to find a picture of an animal through a scope.

 

[Mr. UML]

Scoping livestock is a bold choice.

Lol not my picture, but whitetails are much smaller than cows.