Extremely un-professional scope low light test

[mcseal2]

I had a buddy coming over for supper and a perfect evening to test low light performance on some scopes. Tonight was a very overcast misty evening, the kind of evening when mature bucks move during legal shooting light. I was giving back his rifle I'd taken down for him after our moose hunt and cleaned, and wanting to evaluate his glass compared to mine.

We had a Huskemaw 5-30x56, a Swaro Z5 3.5-18x44, and a Huskemaw 3-12x42 we looked through.

DISCLAIMER We are not optics gurus. We are not sponsored by anyone. I just wanted to share what we saw. I do have some experience with good glass. I now hunt with 10x42 Leica binos, 15x56 Swaro binos, and a Kowa 55mm Prominar spotter. I have also owned a STM65 Swaro spotter and a ATS80HD Swaro spotter.

We had a group of calves we recently weaned at 500yds along a fence in a shaded tree row. We also had another group at 300yds in an open brome field that caught about all the light that was available. We rested all the rifles over the hood of my buddies truck and looked at both groups of cattle as well at the T posts of the fence to see if we could take a shot, and how much detail we could distinguish. The calves are all 600-700lb black angus except for a few roping steers we kicked out too, we had a black and white one to look at in the close group. I pulled the bolts from all the rifles cleaning them and didn't put them back in to be extra extra safe.

We used 8x on all the scopes for the comparison. That's about as much power as I've ever used at last light for a shot, and it's usually much less. When I've used that has been shots of 300 yards or so with multiple deer in the area of the one I'm trying to shoot. It was dark enough when we started the test in the shaded part of my yard that I had to use my cell phone light to set the scopes to 8x.

The Huskemaw 5-30x56 won as it should with it's bigger tube and lenses. It wasn't a huge advantage, but it was a clear advantage. We both felt that 8x on it looked a little smaller than 8x on the other two, but not much. It has a 34mm tube and 56mm objective, those are big advantages. It's also the most expensive at full retail by about a grand.

The Swaro Z5 took second. It had a little brighter picture than the 3-12 Huskemaw, but not much. We both felt that we could see as much detail and take any shot with the Huskemaw that we could with the Swaro to the last light. The images were clear, the Swaro image was just brighter by a little bit. The Huskemaw reticle is a shade thicker which probably helped it against the black calves. I was a little shocked that it hung in that well to be honest. The Huskemaw has a 42mm objective and 30mm tube where the Swaro has a 44mm objective and 1" tube.

I have looked through the 5-20x50 Huskemaw in the past and was not that impressed with it's brightness. My gunsmith and his brother both use those scopes. The old Leupold VX III 4.5-14x40mm scopes I used in my younger days had just under 20ft FOV at 100yds and I never wanted to hunt with anything less than that. I like some low end FOV. The only exception to that I have made is the big 5-30 Huskemaw that I got bought right for a designated long range gun. I call that scope the Hubbel, its huge, heavy, and bulky but that's ok on the rifle it's on. My buddies 300WM has the Z5, and my light 300WM has the 3-12 Huskemaw. I actually had a Z5 just like his on the rifle but switched it out last year. That rifle is a Rifles Inc LW 70 with some variations I had them build it with. It's the gun I want to be able to take a beating that I carry in the mountains and used on my AK moose hunt this year. I shoot the 180gr Nosler E tip in it, and I'm pretty happy with both the rifle and scope's ability to perform out as far as that bullet keeps enough speed for reliable expansion.

I really wanted a scope on my 300 that was as KISS as it could be while having the ability to reach when necessary. I practice with it a lot to 600y yards but don't look for long shots hunting. So far it has taken a WY muley at 350yds, and a AK moose at 300yds. I wanted a scope with the ability to dial elevation and be confident in using it that way. I also wanted a scope with covered turrets so that I could just leave it on 200 yards and forget about the turret until it was needed. I sometimes carry rifles in scabbards on packs or horses and want a covered turret to give me one less thing to think about when the moment I need to shoot arises. The Huskemaw had those features.

I have not looked through a 4-16x42 Huskemaw. I really wish they had a 4-16x50mm option.

Anyway, that's what we saw on a very un-professional field test. Hope it helps someone.

 

[mcseal2]

One thing I thought of I might add for anyone who has read my rambling this long that I heard on a podcast a while back that made me re-think magnification a bit on a second focal plane scope:

Bryan Martin of Asian Mountain Outfitters said that he has clients that have to much top end magnification on their scopes. Once an initial shot is fired, they can't relocate the animal quickly without dialing down. Dialing down magnification means their windage marks are off and they have to dial back up to have everything right for the shot. That all takes time and is hard to remember when the first shot is fired and adrenaline has hit. It has made me re-think how much I really need for the shots I take. I seem to shoot from field positions just as well with the 12x top end on the Huskemaw as I do with the 14-18x top end on my other guns. With 12x as the top end I can still relocate a target pretty fast without changing anything. I still really like more magnification for coyotes or varmints, but unless I can get prone and rock solid I seldom use it. For antelope or bigger animals to 600 yards I don't feel it necessary. Anyway, just something to think about with the second focal plane scopes a lot of us use.

 

[Mtslackcountry]

One thing I thought of I might add for anyone who has read my rambling this long that I heard on a podcast a while back that made me re-think magnification a bit on a second focal plane scope:

Bryan Martin of Asian Mountain Outfitters said that he has clients that have to much top end magnification on their scopes. Once an initial shot is fired, they can't relocate the animal quickly without dialing down. Dialing down magnification means their windage marks are off and they have to dial back up to have everything right for the shot. That all takes time and is hard to remember when the first shot is fired and adrenaline has hit. It has made me re-think how much I really need for the shots I take. I seem to shoot from field positions just as well with the 12x top end on the Huskemaw as I do with the 14-18x top end on my other guns. With 12x as the top end I can still relocate a target pretty fast without changing anything. I still really like more magnification for coyotes or varmints, but unless I can get prone and rock solid I seldom use it. For antelope or bigger animals to 600 yards I don't feel it necessary. Anyway, just something to think about with the second focal plane scopes a lot of us use.

Well put! This is precisely why I use a Ffp scope. The lrhs which has a retical good for close and far range hunting. It’s a thick retical at 4x which a lot of other ffp scopes don’t have

 

[mcseal2]

I like that scope from all I've read, it just doesn't have the covered turrets I like. If I was a more dedicated long range hunter I'd probably feel different about my covered turrets.

I'm more of a normal but "long range capable" hunter. Long range to me isn't long range to a lot of guys, my longest shot on game is 614 yards. I prefer to get inside 350yds if at all possible, and closer if I can. I'd be lying if I said that I try to hard to close the distance though if I can get a solid prone shot at 350. I will if there is a good way to do it, but if I can get 350 prone I'm super confident after all my practice at 600. Long range is sure fun and beneficial to practice but I like it when I don't' have to use those skills on game.

When I started bowhunting the guy at the bow shop had me practicing 80yds using early 90's technology archery equipment. His logic was that errors in shooting form show up bigger at that range and are easier to identify and address. I figure that applies to rifles too. I practice at double what I like to hunt at.

 

[Mtslackcountry]

I like that scope from all I've read, it just doesn't have the covered turrets I like. If I was a more dedicated long range hunter I'd probably feel different about my covered turrets.

I'm more of a normal but "long range capable" hunter. Long range to me isn't long range to a lot of guys, my longest shot on game is 614 yards. I prefer to get inside 350yds if at all possible, and closer if I can. I'd be lying if I said that I try to hard to close the distance though if I can get a solid prone shot at 350. I will if there is a good way to do it, but if I can get 350 prone I'm super confident after all my practice at 600. Long range is sure fun and beneficial to practice but I like it when I don't' have to use those skills on game.

When I started bowhunting the guy at the bow shop had me practicing 80yds using early 90's technology archery equipment. His logic was that errors in shooting form show up bigger at that range and are easier to identify and address. I figure that applies to rifles too. I practice at double what I like to hunt at.

The windage turret is capped and the elevation isn't going to spin on you. It has a zero stop and very low profile. There is no way this super low profile turret will spin on you without some serious effort on your part. Its seriously not an issue at all.