Handgun Scope/Hunting

[pebco]

I have a 7mm08 15" Encore w/2-6x32 Bushnell Trophy, great scope other than at dawn or dusk low light, is the 3200 better, thanks.

[Redhawk1]

I have owned and used both and I would say no..  The Bushnell Trophy is a good scope, and in my opinion is one of the better scope for low light condition. You will not gain anything with the 3200.   

[shot1]

I have not found any pistol scope that will allow you to see early or late in low light like you can with the average rifle scope. I have been using the Weaver 2.5-8X28 on three different caliber barrels and they are about as good as anything I have seen even the high $$$ pistol scopes.

[Redhawk1]

That is the problem with all handgun EER scopes.

[S.B.]

Maybe try an Ultra red dot glass site?
Steve

[shot1]

The problem with the electro dots is they wash out your target with glare when used in low light.

[Redhawk1]

The problem with the electro dots is they wash out your target with glare when used in low light.

Try a Ultra-dot with the different brightness settings, I never have a problem with any of my Ultra-dots in low light conditions.

[Ken ONeill]

In very low / last light conditions, as in following a wounded animal, I too have found the 1" Ultra Dots to have a lot of dot flare, even with the setting on "1", so I would suggest that may not be the perfect answer to the problem. It hasn't been for me.

To answer the op's origial question, I don't think you'll find a bit of difference between the 3200 and the Trophy, although I have had only limited use of a friend's Trophys. I use a lot of Leupolds, Burris' and 3200's as well as 4  1" Ultra Dots (the 30 mm might be better), and prefer the 3200's to anything else at dusk / near dark, because the cross hairs tend to take on a golden cast

[jhalcott]

  I tested several brands and powers of EER scopes on different handguns. The BEST of the lot was the Leupold 2.5x8, the worst was a Simmons 4x. I had the guns on a table at the edge of a field  and every 5 minutes I would look thru each scope at a herd of deer feeding about 200 yards away. They were slightly down hill and on the wooded edge of the field. As the sun set they were in more and more shade. A Dnr guy spotted me and asked what I was doing. He decided to help, and we took turns comparing the optics. With the Leupold we could still see the deer AND the horns after the others were useless! I did have to lower the X's on the Leupold at the last of the Legal light though!

[Curtis]

The BEST of the lot was the Leupold 2.5x8, the worst was a Simmons 4x.

Do you remember what other scopes you tested?

Thanks,
Curtis

[Redhawk1]

Well I tested a bunch as well, and as much of a fan of Leupold as I am, the Bushnell Trophy and 3200 and 4200 did the best in low light conditions. Now I have owned a bunch of Leupold handgun scopes, and Leupold is what I use on all my rifles, but I had to live with the fact, Bushnell did the best in the handgun scope category. Now I am still a Leupold rifle scope fan. 

[Junior1942]

Low light conditions bring out the low in low quality optics.  One hazy morning a couple of years ago, a nice buck stepped into a thicket just as the sun went behind a cloud.  I got only a fuzzy glimpse of him through my old 4x pistol scope as he disappeared.  Having seen the light, pun intended, I replaced the old scope with a Leupold 2.5 x 28mm Scout scope.  Wow, what an improvement!

The far better quality of the image through the Leupold 2.5 x 28mm Scout scope vs the image through the 4x pistol scope prompted me to do a side-by-side comparison of all my scout and pistol scopes.   Late one afternoon I turned off my living room lights and one-by-one with all my LER and EER scopes, looked through my front screen door at my mailbox located some 75 yds across my yard.   Through a red dot, I could not tell I was looking at a mailbox, only a black lump.  Through a few 2x and 4x pistol scopes, I could tell I was looking at a mailbox.  However, through the Leupold 2.5 x 28mm Scout scope I could not only tell I was looking at a mailbox, I could read the letters on its side!

Since that day, I replaced one of the low quality scopes with a Burris 2 x 20 pistol scope.  Via the same mailbox test, its optics looked just as good as the Leupold's optics.  Long story short, high quality optics are worth the extra money.

[bcraig]

I hunted with a handun exclusively for 12 years and tried the red dot route ,washes out the target as others pointed out.
Tried the Leupold hangun scopes and stopped there. I never had a shot when I had enough daylight to see the animal(be it a squirrel or deer) that The Leupolds wouldn,t handle.
Thought about the leupold 2.5-8 handgun scope but a friend of mine had one that his wife bought him as a present and the scope was to difficult to hold steady over bout 4x.
I settled on a Leupold 2x for deer hunting and a Leupold 4x for squirrel hunting(though I
 suspect I could have used the 2x for that as well)
I dont think you can find a tougher handgun scope than a Leupold (remember a handgun is tougher on a scope than a lot if not most high powered rifles !)
 A Leupold 2x or a Leupold 4x Handgun scope would be the scope I would choose .

[Sverre A.]

The only thing I have to "point a finger on" concerning Leupold 2,5-8 - is the short eye relief.
But still   - I keep my eyes on Leupold 2,5-8 for my longrange handguns.
I have choosed Leupold 2x as my revolverscope.

You will never find an EER - which is suitable for aftersunset-hunting.

[jhalcott]

 I used Leupold 2,4 and 2.5x8, several Burris variables a 1.5x4 and some 2x7's. A Redfield 2x7, the Simmons and a 3x Tasco. I also had a 2x6 Bushnell(a very good scope!) and a reddot. I admit it is HARD to hold steady with a high powered scope on a handgun OFF hand. That is why I always take a tall bipod  with me. Or hunt next to a tree, fence or other handy rest. The 2x scope seems to make the target SMALLER to my eyes. I generally start hunting with the x on 4 power and turn it UP if I see some thing to shoot with the binocs. IF it's close enough , the 4x will work!

[bcraig]

I guess everybodys eyes sees something different as I use a 4x leupold rifle scopes on rifles now and have absolutely no problem killing deer at 250 yards .
Heck Jack Oconnor and others talked about killing game at 350 and 400 yards with 4 power scopes.
Technically speaking 4x makes something bout 4 times bigger than would be viewed by the naked eye shooting iron sights,so shooting something at say 200 yards would be bout like shooting it at 50 with iron sights .
Can I see something as well at 4x as I can at say 9 x ? no BUT I can see the target well enough to present a perfectly fine picture,in fact I used to have a TC contender with a SSK barrel by JD jones in 300 Savage that I  using a 3 inch dot on the target could place 3 rounds into 2 inch group at 150 yards and a deer certainly presents a larger aiming area than a 3 inch dot. And this with the 2x not the 4x as it stayed on my 22 match barrel(also made by SSK industries)
BTW my eyes have never been that great as I have worn either eyeglasses or contacts since I was 12(extreeme nearsighted) and without them cant read a soda can at a foot away !
Just my oppinion but at 51 I have come to the conclusion (for me at least) that most hunters are using more magnafication than is needed.I have tried through the years higher powers and they are not needed(again for me at least)but then again I prefer fixed powers as well ,Less parts ,less moving parts easier to seal against the elements etc. Although this is something to think about remember your mileage my vary and we all need to be shooting something we want to shoot.

[Sverre A.]

I can`t read that you are talking about handgunscopes after-sunsethunting??

[Redhawk1]

I guess everybodys eyes sees something different as I use a 4x leupold rifle scopes on rifles now and have absolutely no problem killing deer at 250 yards .
Heck Jack Oconnor and others talked about killing game at 350 and 400 yards with 4 power scopes.
Technically speaking 4x makes something bout 4 times bigger than would be viewed by the naked eye shooting iron sights,so shooting something at say 200 yards would be bout like shooting it at 50 with iron sights .
Can I see something as well at 4x as I can at say 9 x ? no BUT I can see the target well enough to present a perfectly fine picture,in fact I used to have a TC contender with a SSK barrel by JD jones in 300 Savage that I  using a 3 inch dot on the target could place 3 rounds into 2 inch group at 150 yards and a deer certainly presents a larger aiming area than a 3 inch dot. And this with the 2x not the 4x as it stayed on my 22 match barrel(also made by SSK industries)
BTW my eyes have never been that great as I have worn either eyeglasses or contacts since I was 12(extreeme nearsighted) and without them cant read a soda can at a foot away !
Just my oppinion but at 51 I have come to the conclusion (for me at least) that most hunters are using more magnafication than is needed.I have tried through the years higher powers and they are not needed(again for me at least)but then again I prefer fixed powers as well ,Less parts ,less moving parts easier to seal against the elements etc. Although this is something to think about remember your mileage my vary and we all need to be shooting something we want to shoot.

Everyone has different preferences to what they like..  I have done the long range handgun hunting, it is not for me. But others like it, and I say more power to them...
 
Quick shots and off hand shooting with a handgun is for open sights or red-dots. A scope on a handgun is good when you have a rest or tree to lean on..
 
Now for my rifles, it depends on what type of shooting I am doing, long range I like my Leupold 3.5X10X50mm, for short range DG I like my Leupold 1.5X5X20mm..  Most of my rifles, slug guns, and muzzleloader's have a 3X9X40 on them. Just my personal preference!