optics for crossbow

[terry1]

I was wondering just how much a guy would spend on optics for a crossbow? I have one scope about $300(eotech dot-sight) and a basic Mid-level leupold 2.5 fixed scope about $190+ QR rings to detach it without resighting. I ask because you can only shot as good as you can see and at low light you can normally tell a cheap scope from a nice scope. Just the other evening I was out trying to fill my last doe tag before season ends on doe's the 15 here and right about dark with alittle rain going on to I noticed a big Doe coming my way through my Zeiss 8x 40's. I sat them down grabed my Exocet and leupold and raised up to shot. I could not see through the scope it was to dark for it with the rain and cloudy skies and dusk. I just put the Cbow down and watched her leave through my binoculars at only 20 yards. I will not loose alot of sleep over it, but if that would have been a huge ten point I would be kicking myself for years over what happened. I am thinking it may be time to up grade the optics on the Exocet for next season and just wondered what everyone else uses on their Cbows.

[Digger]

3 Excal xbows - 3 varizone scopes. What else can I say.

Digger

[brayhaven]

Just my preference, but I refuse to put a scope on a crossbow just as I refuse to put one on a muzzleloader. One of the reasons I use a crossbow (or any bow) is the primitive nature of it. "Teching" it up defeats the purpose of that, to some extent, for me (though I don't judge others on it ). I like the peep sight. I stuck a red dot on mine and didn't like it. I also refuse to shoot a deer or hog in bad light in the evening. I will take that shot in th AM. Tracking is much more difficult at night and, to me, the cardinal sin of bowhunting is to wound & lose an animal or have to abandon it to spoil or be scavenged.
Greg

[Woodsman]

I like the Varizone on my Exomag. If I can't see through the scope anymore, I'm pretty well past legal shooting time anyhow.

[terry1]

Woodmans, Thats the way I use to feel myself. If I could not see through the scope it was time to go and about the end of legal shooting time. This season I have been checking the legal shooting time against my watch in the evenings. What I have found is if I am hunting in a open area or clear skies I have no problem seeing until legal shooting time is up. If I hunt in the heavy timber or real cloudy days I sometimes find I have several minutes(5-10minutes sometimes) of legal shooting time left but I must pack up and go which sucks here as that is always when the big ones are coming out of the bedding areas. It just gets darker much faster back in the heavier timber from shadows of the big trees as compared to more open areas I hunt. And like stated above if I can't see to make a good shot I will not take it. Thats the problem with the doe I passed. I could barely see her in the scope. I could have winged a arrow but that would have been a poor choice to do so. I would have liked to had just alittle more brightness and clarity so I could have made a better shot at her. I guess what I would like to do is not to push father in dusk shooting time, but improve what time I have by getting the best,brightest view I can therefore helping on making the best shoot I can in legal shooting light. No doubt the better you can see your target the better chance of a good shot placement. I also like morning AM tracking much better ,but the fact I shoot 90% of the deer on my place in the evening I have been use to tracking in the dark and it really does not bother me a bit anymore, plus we have a trained tracking dog if she has to come out she will do the job I will but a $100 bill on that fact anyday.

[kev]

I don't have expensive glass on my crossbows. I have a cheap Bushnell Trophy 3X9 Mil Dot on my EMax and Tasco World Class 1.5X4.5 scopes on the rest. The Taso's have Pro Shot reticle's wich allow 4 aiming spots. The Mil Dot works well also.

I use a Bushnell 3200 3X9X50 Fire Fly reticle on my Coyote hunting rifle. The glass is good enough in it for 75-100 yards on a dark night, if the moons full a little further.

[terry1]

Kev, those bushnell elites are nice scopes. My friend has two of them and I was thinking of the 3200 1.5x5x32mm or the 4200 1.5x6x36mm depending on funds at the time I buy. I hear the 4200's are unreal I have only seen the 3200's in person and they were very nice.

[ExcalBeliever]

I have Burris Mini 4X on my Vixen.

I would rate Burris right up there with Leupolds.

In the future I will be getting the Excal Vari-Zone, though.

The Burris is probably set parallax free at 50 yards, I think the Excal scope are set at 20 or 30 yards.

[kev]

terry. The 4200's are definetly a step or two above the 3200 line. We have a local shop that stays open till 9:00 pm and they'll let you walk out side and compare the scopes. I you have a shop that'll let you do the same make sure you do.

ExcalBeliever. Burris does make nice scopes.

The best I've looked through in low light has been a Zeiss. It was'nt the cheaper U.S made Conquest line. If I remember correct it was around $1300.00

Scope are definetly one of those items where you get what you pay for. I'm surprised my Excaliburs have'nt busted the reticles or jarred the lenses loose in the cheapo Tasco's yet. My EMag trashed 2 Simmons Red Dots in less than 200 shots. It loosened the battery housing on both.

[brayhaven]

.

The best I've looked through in low light has been a Zeiss. It was'nt the cheaper U.S made Conquest line. If I remember correct it was around $1300.00

Scope are definetly one of those items where you get what you pay for.

Totally agree on the quality of Zeiss scopes. That's what I use on the only modern rifle I shoot. But as you know, you can get a decent used car for what one costs you. There is a myth that scopes can actually make it "lighter". That does not happen. It might help you to see something better by magnifying it, but if you can't see it with your eye, you won't see it with the scope, unless you're using a starlight scope ). The zeiss is the best at light "gathering" in tests and actual use, but it still doesn't extend (responsible) shooting time.
Greg

[maddog]

Save your money. Use the Varizone......the advantages far outweigh the possible disadvantage of less light being transmitted.
I have a excalibur Varizone on both my Horton and Excalibur xbows. The original Horton scope I had was junk!
Bill from PA

[brayhaven]

I use the Simmons 4X crossbow scope This scope definitely has "light gathering" capabilities. You can see much better through the scope in the dark than you can without it and its not due to the magnification. Its because of the physical size of the objective lens (front of scope). Same reason deer/cattle can see in the dark better than we can. Their eyes are much larger so they gather more light.

Congrats, your scope has eclipsed the laws of physics & you didn't even have to pay zeiss prices for it ). Try this: take a light meter and tape it to the ocular lens, totally blocking any light that doesn't come through the scope. Take a light reading. Then remove it and take a light reading. You'll see that the scope reduces ambient light considerably. Some are more efficient than others due to, magnification, objective diameter, superior optics etc, but none actually increase or even transmit the actual ambient light level. Same with binocs. Or you can look at the specs and the extensive testing done by companies like Zeiss, Swarovski, Leitz etc, and you'll get an idea.

[terry1]

All scopes loose light through the lens. Most real good scopes put maybe 90%-95% of light to your eye. But however with that said You can see better alot of times with good optics than your eyes alone. I often see a dark object moving toward me about dusk and pick up my binoculars and can see it is a deer buck or doe. without them it is just a dark spot.

[brayhaven]

Yes Terry, binoculars or a good scope definitley help with resolution in poor light. They do it by magnifying the object and clarifying it but not by increasing the light. No (purely) optical instrument can amplify ambient light. On the contrary, none can transmit 100% of the existing light either. I use Zeiss binoculars (8X30) because they are the very best I've found in low light and have the best resolution I've seen. Same for the Zeiss scopes but, even they can't increase visibility; only sharpen an image that you can see already and bring it closer and more focused. I had a good friend ,who I've lost contact with now, that could explain it much better than I can . He was a light engineer who designed spetrophotometers, laser and other light related equipment. The bottom line is to get the best equipment you can afford and look around at a few scopes that you think might work for you; testing them in poor light. I don't worry about it because I won't use a scope on my crossbow again. I'm working on adapting a tritium fiber optic sight pin to a front sight I'm machining for mine to use in the low light of the early AM. I'll let you guys know how it works out.
Greg

[brayhaven]

I'm not sure if Zeiss makes a "crossbow" scope. I think most crossbow scopes are basically the same as rifle/shotgun scopes with a little difference in reticles or range adjustments (rangefinders) and or paralax adjustments to compensate for the much shorter ranges.
As a gunsmith I look through a whole lot of scopes day in & day out. I think, generally, cheap scopes have gotten better and closed the gap between them and the outstanding European scopes. I think they have really closed the gap between expensive mid/upper lines like Leupold etc. (though there is still a gap ) I see less of them with broken reticles, full of water etc. A lot still have trouble holding a zero and inconsistent adjustments. I try to advise my customers not to skimp when buying a scope. Some of them even listen ).

As for "bright" scopes, the brightes scope I ever looked through was the old Weaver K-1, 1 power. It was a very fast, strong scope that I installed on some African dangerous game rifles I built.
Greg