Are compact scopes good for bush hunting?

[goodkeenman]

Hi - long time since my last post.

Am looking at buying a compact scope (Leupold VXII 1-4x20mm) for my NEF .243 specifically for bush hunting Sika deer here in NZ.

The trick being is the bush here is so thick that most shots are not more than 30-40 yards and you have to be able to lock onto a hard to see often moving animal super quick, hence my interest in the compact scopes (hopefully giving me a big FOV).

But I am worried that the light gathering might be that great on a compact versus say a 32mm? Are the compacts better for say bright light, close up, big cat style hunting?

[Sourdough]

I got a couple of the Bushnell Compact Shotgun scopes and put them on a 22RF and a .223.  They have larger objective lens and gather light well.  Not sure if they still make those scopes anymore.  Have not seen them in the stores lately.

[cwlongshot]

Scopes do not "gather lite" they allow light thru them. Quality glass and coatings FAR surpass a cheaper scope with a large objective.

That Leupold will give you plenty of "lite" I would suggest a bold reticule. It will show up better against the brush. Leupold offers a number of options. Just selecting the "shotgun" version of that scope gets you a bit more eye relief and a bold duplex reticule.  

Leupold is my choice, but I admit there are others that will also suite your requirements. Just do not be taken in by the nonsense that a large objective is needed to "gather lite".
Buy the best scope you can afford, it's a purchase you will never regret.

CW

[boatboy]

I agree with CW
I cant believe how many guys think a 50 MM Simmons is better than a 33mm quality scope
I think Leupold has about the best CS in the buisness but I dont think good scope choices are limited to them.

Hank

[petemi]

I agree with CW
I cant believe how many guys think a 50 MM Simmons is better than a 33mm quality scope
I think Leupold has about the best CS in the buisness but I dont think good scope choices are limited to them.

Hank

I disagree with both of you.  I have poor, old eyes and lots of Tasco, Simmons and Bushnell 40 and 50mm scopes and do fine with them.  They've taken fox at over 300 yards at dusk.  Yes, scopes do not "gather" light, they allow it in.  The larger the objective lens, the more light enters.  The better and larger the glass, the more light.  Yes it does pay to put money into good glass.....if ya happen to have the cash to spare.  I couldn't afford twenty or thirty Leopolds.

Pete

[cwlongshot]

I agree with CW
I cant believe how many guys think a 50 MM Simmons is better than a 33mm quality scope
I think Leupold has about the best CS in the buisness but I dont think good scope choices are limited to them.

Hank

I disagree with both of you.  I have poor, old eyes and lots of Tasco, Simmons and Bushnell 40 and 50mm scopes and do fine with them.  They've taken fox at over 300 yards at dusk.  Yes, scopes do not "gather" light, they allow it in.  The larger the objective lens, the more light enters.  The better and larger the glass, the more light.  Yes it does pay to put money into good glass.....if ya happen to have the cash to spare.  I couldn't afford twenty or thirty Leopolds.

Pete

Pete,
 you would be correct if the grind, polish and glass coatings where the same. They are far from even close!!  The best scopes in some of there lines do not equal even a Leupold VXII. (middle of their line)

Many believe more and bigger is better. It's almost as American as apple pie. Trust me when I tell you  that little 1x4x20mm Leupold will transmit more light at 4x ( its highest setting) than most of the others you mentioned. Also there is a limit to what is even useable lite, approx 6mm of light is all that's needed. Many cheap scopes struggle to get there and don't come close at higher magnifications. That's ecause the light traveling thru them is defused by poor clarity. Which is a result of poor grind and polish. Not to mention none of the ones you mention make glass of equal quality of that Leupold.

 You all know I love leupold, but you could incert Nikon, Burris, Ziess, Upper end Bushnell scopes and the same holds true. Simmons, and tasco and a mired of other "cheapies" have there place and can be entirely sufficient for the majority of needs. But lo light and dark shadows will not be their forte.

CW

[XD40SC]

I have one on my 45/70 and was able to hit a buck running full speed through 1 inch saplings at 14 yards. I had it set on 2x. I had no problem finding it or seeing.  I use Swift scopes- excellent for the money.

[Lloyd Smale]

perfect eyes will allow the light a scope with an exit pupil of about 7 will allow but few have perfect eyes. Most are more like 4-5. Firgureing the average is about 5 a 4x scope will get no benifit from an objective bigger then 20mm if it has glass that allow good light transmition. Now a cheap scope with poor glass will probably benifit from a 50 mm objective because of the poor light transfer of the lenses. If you buy good glass you can mulitply the power your using it at by 4 and that will give you a big enough objective but if the scope is crappy you might want to step that up to 7 but even then a 50mm tasco is never going to pick up light as well as a vx3 leupold or a nikon monarch even with a 20mm objective.

[Graybeard]

First the Leupold you mention is NOT considered a compact scope tho it is relatively compact in size. It's in the full size line not the compact line.

Voice of experience speaking here. The Leupold Vari-X II or VX-II is not nearly as bright as the Vari-X III or VX-III 1.5-5 and for me when the sun falls behind the mountains and darkness is moving in it isn't bright enough to hunt until the end of legal shooting time for me. The VX-III 1.5-5 is better due to better optics. It too is limited by that 20mm objective tho so isn't as bright as the 1.75-6 with much larger objective or even the 2-7x33.

I do not like scopes with 20mm objectives and have gotten rid of all of them I had. Old tired eyes need more even if the eye can't open beyond 4.5-5mm anymore. They also need quality optics and quality multi coating on the lens.

So my advice to you would be to get the VX-II 2-7x33 which has a wider FOV than the excellent VX-III 1.75-6x32. To my eyes it is as bright as the 1.75-6 at half the cost and has a wider FOV for those up close shots you mention. It has replaced the 1-4 and 1.5-5 Leupolds I used to have on my rifles.

Just because the objective is larger doesn't automatically make a scope brighter unless the lens are ground and polished properly and high quality glass is used to begin with them all air to glass surfaces are multi coated. But regardless of glass quality and coatings those 20mm objectives no longer cut it for my eyes.

[helotaxi]

For close range, quick work, magnified optics are not the best way to go IMO.  An unmagnified red dot or holosight works much better in close quarters and the illuminated dot stands out better than even the boldest unlit reticule against a dark background.

[charles p]

A low powered scope setting (below 2X) on a scope mounted low to the barrel allows me to see my  rifle barrel in the sight picture, much as a bird hunter sees his shotgun barrel.  This makes for very fast target acquisition for me.  Remove the front sights from the rifle barrel for better image quality.  Learn to sight with both eyes open and you will find that a scope can be very fast, and my preference for running deer.  The stock should be straight and the scope aligned so that the sight picture "comes to the eye" when the rifle is mounted.