Rifle Scopes Light weight low light tactical scope options

[Glassaholic]

I'm trying to figure out a light weight optic option for my next build (a light weight hunter/tactical rig). I'd prefer a scope that weighs less than 30 oz and offers great low light performance with a minimum maximum magnification of 15x. All the tactical scopes over 20x weigh over 30 oz so I'm trying to shy away from those at this time and I've thought of the following:

Leupold Mark 6 3-18x44 at 23.6 oz
Premier Light Tactical 3-15x50 at 26 oz

I know there is the March 3-24x42 at 22.6 oz but I'm skeptical about such a massive zoom range and such a small objective lens, you can't get past the physics so I'm thinking this would not work out for low light situations, but I'm will to listen to thoughts on this scope.

There are a lot of scopes I like but they do not fit my less than 30 oz and/or low light/magnification requirement, there are some "cheaper" scopes that are lighter weight but at the sacrifice of optical quality (ex: Vortex Viper PST 4-16, great scope but the optics suffer in low light). I could go with a SFP type scope like a Swarovski and meet my weight requirements, but I'm just not sure I want to go that route just yet.

With my kids still young it's just not practical that I'm going to be competing in anything for a while, so I'm going to sell my heavy tactical rifle and look for something more practical (lighter weight that I can use for hunting and long range steel, etc.) and would like a really good optic to match.

 

[Crosshair]

The Premier you listed would be a great option, and probably over all my favorite, everything considered. When selecting a low light optic, the main thing to consider is what realistic magnification you will need as that is what dictates objective size. For instance, the Leupold you mentioned with the 44mm objective can maintain a respectable 5mm exit pupil (6-7mm ideal) up to 8.8x. A 56mm objective can maintain a 5mm exit pupil up to 11.2x. So, at that point everything comes down to lens coatings. Most high end (over $1000) tactical scopes will have very good coatings, some will be a little better that others. Swarovski, Zeiss/Hensoldt, Meopta, Kahles, and S&B will be the lens coating kings. Steiner is a newer player and reports are awesome so far. For a low light setup I really like the 3-12x56mm form factor.

 

[ccoker]

Is having an illuminated reticle a must have?

I have ran the Premier LT and Kahles K312II back to back into the dark.
Overall I prefer the Kahles even without the illumination.

Since you are asking about low light I assume you mean for hunting.
What are you going after primarily?

 

[Glassaholic]

Thanks guys. Crosshairs, I'm concerned that 12x will be a limiting factor especially at long range. But please share your experience. I have a 3.5-21x50 G2DMR right now that has impressed me with its low light performance but it weighs 35 oz so will have to go. I would prefer illumination but is not a must have. I mostly hunt elk and they seem to like dawn and dusk, but sometimes I'm shooting on my property in the late evening and like to be able to shoot a little longer.

 

[Glassaholic]

Ccoker, you have the Premier but prefer the Kahles. Please share your thoughts with 12x vs. 15x for long range.

 

[Sako man]

The Premier you listed would be a great option, and probably over all my favorite, everything considered.

I have not owned the light tactical but used it for a few days, best glass in class. I don't think the Lupy will compete. Not sure about the weight of the Steiner, might be a little bigger. I own a 25x Steiner and it's very nice. But Premier makes a great product.

 

[SSSamurai]

It's going to fall outside your specs, but I would suggest the S&B 3-12x50 without illumination or parallax adjustment. I had one and wish I'd never sold it. Not having the extra lens for parallax adjust means less that the light has to pass through, and I rarely ever use illumination. I don't remember what the weight was, but it was under 22oz, maybe even under 20oz. I've shot well beyond 1k with 10-12x and never had an issue, in fact the clarity of the Schmidt easily makes up for the lack of the extra 3x. There's one on the sample list that's down to $1799 right now and it's killing me...

 

[peewee]

All these comments are great, but can you see a FFP scope reticle in Low Light and on its lowest power without illumination? I've had some serious difficulties in that respect however I haven't tried them all

 

[ccoker]

I have the Khales.
I have shot clay pidgen a at 1k with it and golf balls at 500.
The glass is outstanding and is just so easy to use.
I was running a USO 3.2-17 prior to the Kahles.

I hunt a lot and while I own several scopes with illumination rarely use it in all honesty for deer even at last possible shooting light.

 

[Crosshair]

Thanks guys. Crosshairs, I'm concerned that 12x will be a limiting factor especially at long range. But please share your experience. I have a 3.5-21x50 G2DMR right now that has impressed me with its low light performance but it weighs 35 oz so will have to go. I would prefer illumination but is not a must have. I mostly hunt elk and they seem to like dawn and dusk, but sometimes I'm shooting on my property in the late evening and like to be able to shoot a little longer.

Everyone has a different preference when it comes to magnification. I find 12x adequate for the maximum ranges I'm going to take a hunting shot. I mainly hunt moose, though elk are big-bodied also. For low-light shooting, I find I run out of usable exit pupil around 10x with my 50mm objective, so anything above that is only useful to me for daylight target shooting. For me, if I need more magnification that that, its going to be because I'm shooting at a smaller target and at that point I'd want to step up to a 56mm objective, and low light usability still tops out at about 12x-15x in my experience. Not sure of your budget, but a killer scope I'd like to own is the Swaro Z6i 2.5-15x56 at 22 oz. http://www.natchezss.com/product.cfm?contentID=productDetail&prodID=SS69558

 

[Theo98]

Another Good Choice

I'm trying to figure out a light weight optic option for my next build (a light weight hunter/tactical rig). I'd prefer a scope that weighs less than 30 oz and offers great low light performance with a minimum maximum magnification of 15x. All the tactical scopes over 20x weigh over 30 oz so I'm trying to shy away from those at this time and I've thought of the following:

Leupold Mark 6 3-18x44 at 23.6 oz
Premier Light Tactical 3-15x50 at 26 oz

I know there is the March 3-24x42 at 22.6 oz but I'm skeptical about such a massive zoom range and such a small objective lens, you can't get past the physics so I'm thinking this would not work out for low light situations, but I'm will to listen to thoughts on this scope.

There are a lot of scopes I like but they do not fit my less than 30 oz and/or low light/magnification requirement, there are some "cheaper" scopes that are lighter weight but at the sacrifice of optical quality (ex: Vortex Viper PST 4-16, great scope but the optics suffer in low light). I could go with a SFP type scope like a Swarovski and meet my weight requirements, but I'm just not sure I want to go that route just yet.

With my kids still young it's just not practical that I'm going to be competing in anything for a while, so I'm going to sell my heavy tactical rifle and look for something more practical (lighter weight that I can use for hunting and long range steel, etc.) and would like a really good optic to match.

WJM,

Not tactical, but at 20.4oz, might also consider this:

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Leupold 115005 VX-6 3-18x50mm 30mm

 

[RHutch]

I have the Khales.
I have shot clay pidgen a at 1k with it and golf balls at 500.
The glass is outstanding and is just so easy to use.
I was running a USO 3.2-17 prior to the Kahles.

I hunt a lot and while I own several scopes with illumination rarely use it in all honesty for deer even at last possible shooting light.

Can you post a pic of the Kahles on your rifle?
I want to see that 34mm tube on a hunting rifle.
Considering trying the K312 and currently run 3 Lite Tacs.

 

[Will Fennell]

The NightForce F1 will bust your weight limit by an ounce or so, but really performs in the field. Bullet proof tough, FFP, Mil/Mil, Illuminated, ZeroStop....whats not to love?

 

[Sako man]

I know there is the March 3-24x42 at 22.6 oz but I'm skeptical about such a massive zoom range and such a small objective lens, you can't get past the physics so I'm thinking this would not work out for low light situations, but I'm will to listen to thoughts on this scope.

Forgot to mention that the March is the best scope of the options you listed as far as glass/features/lightness.

Not sure what your trying to do here, what kind of shooting. That will be the determinant factor. If its for hunting and some tactical shooting at >1000 yards then 16x will get you there just fine. If your staying under 500-700yards then 12x will work for you.

 

[ccoker]

I have spoke with a few guys I trust who haven't been overly impressed with the March glass.
Never tried one myself so I can't say..

Oh, if you visit my site and search for Kahles k312 you will see it on a 20" 308

 

[SSSamurai]

Hopefully this helps until someone gets the exact scope posted, the aforementioned S&B 3-12x50 on a Rem 5R cut to 18.5".

 

[Cuckler]

I recently got a mark 6. 3-18x44 with a tmr reticle, and so far i have been really impressed.

 

[jeffersonv]

I have no experience with it but perhaps another option for you to research.

Sightron S III FFP 6-24x50. About 25 oz. per the website. I have read the glass in the Sightron scopes is pretty good.

Sightron Riflescopes SIII Series SIIISS624X50LRFFPMH

 

[steve123]

The NightForce F1 will bust your weight limit by an ounce or so, but really performs in the field. Bullet proof tough, FFP, Mil/Mil, Illuminated, ZeroStop....whats not to love?

I have a March 3-24 showing up Monday...but... right now I think the NF-F1 is one of the best all around scopes out there. Not too heavy or big, has illume- although the adjustment design is long in the tooth, the HS 10 mil knobs are excellent, has a zero stop, has a nice eyebox, great glass and last but not least is it's Nightforce "tough".

 

[Glassaholic]

Not sure of your budget, but a killer scope I'd like to own is the Swaro Z6i 2.5-15x56 at 22 oz.

Crosshair, like I mentioned in my original post, I like the Swarovski Z5 and Z6 line a lot and wish they made a more "tactical" style of scope. What I'm not certain about yet is the SFP reticle. I've shot with SFP for years; however, I've really liked the idea of FFP reticles with holdover options, not too thrilled about very busy ones like the Horus, but Premier has a really nice one, the G2DMR I have now is really nice. If I know my ballistics well enough I can create a chart so that when the elk sticks his head out from behind the pine at 476 yards, I know pretty much exactly where that lies on the mil hash Christmas tree and can take the shot much quicker than I could dial it in on the turrets. When I'm at a range with known distances I can easily dial my turrets then, it just seems like the best of both worlds.

The NightForce F1 will bust your weight limit by an ounce or so, but really performs in the field. Bullet proof tough, FFP, Mil/Mil, Illuminated, ZeroStop....whats not to love?

Will, I have pondered the F1 as well, but I really want to stay under 30 oz, if I go over, then I might as well look at some other bricks just a few ounces more and I don't want to do that. The lighter the better, but I still want to stay tough. Obviously it is not an easy task to find the right scope for this, but I appreciate everyone's thoughts and comments, it has opened my eyes to some new possibilities.

I have the Khales.
I have shot clay pidgen a at 1k with it and golf balls at 500.
The glass is outstanding and is just so easy to use.
I was running a USO 3.2-17 prior to the Kahles.

Very interesting ccoker, as the USO 3.2-17 is one I'd pondered as well except for the weight. USO also uses some of the best German glass, but it really sounds like you are sold on this Kahles 3-12. So in your opinion, even though the Kahles is 5x shorter than the USO, you feel the glass is so much better that you're able to make those kinds of shots at distance? Or is it simply that 12x with good glass is plenty for accurate LR shots?

I guess I'm trying to "re-educate" myself here as I've grown up with the belief that higher magnification = improved long range shots, but it could be more about the glass than I realize.

 

[ccoker]

The Kahles at 12x makes an 18" plate at 1k "appear"to be the same size as the USO at 15x

I really liked the USO, great scope!
Just the Kahles gives me the long range potential but in a lighter and shorter package.

 

[ccoker]

Per your request:

 

[Glassaholic]

Cuckler, tell me more. Used it in low light yet? I can't understand why Leupold put the thick bottom post so far up and left the mill hashes, would have been better as a cross instead of a plus. If they'd change the turrets to the low profile M5CS and offer an improved TMR reticle I'd be more thrilled.

I recently got a mark 6. 3-18x44 with a tmr reticle, and so far i have been really impressed.

 

[TorF]

The benchmark for low light hunting is the new Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56, ret 60. No other scope can touch it for low light performance. Even Swarovski Z6i 2.5-15x56 is outclassed. Up north (Alaska, northern Canada and Norway) in August/Sept there are several minutes difference at dusk and down in the ability to to get a clear shot on an animal between these scopes. S&B is not up there at all and I hunt with S&B.. Comparing the Zeiss with NF, Leupold, etc we are talking between 30 - 60 minutes. That's almost two hours hunting time every day..

The Zeiss can be fitted with a locking target turret with zero stop, single turn and 6,5mil elevation range/.1mil clicks. Maximum elevation range is limited to 12mil/120cm so mounting it needs some tinkering. Reticle is SPF.

 

[RHutch]

The 3-12x56 Hensoldt is short, 28oz and great in low light. You may consider it.
As CCocker said about the Kahles, the 12x top on this scope looks to be "stronger" than 12x due to excellent resolution.
I have other top tier scopes with more power but do not feel handicapped at distance with this Hensoldt. I put mine on a "cross-over" rifle, a little heavy to be considered a true hunting-weight rifle, but light for a tac rifle.
It's a 19" LTR 308 in a McM A1-3. Weighs 9.7 lbs as pictured without the bipod.

 

[Glassaholic]

The benchmark for low light hunting is the new Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56, ret 60. No other scope can touch it for low light performance. Even Swarovski Z6i 2.5-15x56 is outclassed.

TorF, I'm not doubting your statement but I'm curious where you've read reviews of both that verify the Zeiss "outclasses" the Swarovski or is this just personal opinion? I don't mind personal opinion at all, but just want to know if this has been verified somewhere else.

The problem with this scope is it is SFP and it is not a mil hash reticle (by problem I mean for my intended use, I would prefer FFP and a mil hash reticle). Thank you.

 

[Glassaholic]

The 3-12x56 Hensoldt is short, 28oz and great in low light. You may consider it.

RHutch, thank you for sharing. I am absolutely loving that new NH1 reticle, but I can only find it on the 4-16, does Hensoldt not offer the NH1 on the 3-12 I wonder?

 

[TorF]

TorF, I'm not doubting your statement but I'm curious where you've read reviews of both that verify the Zeiss "outclasses" the Swarovski or is this just personal opinion? I don't mind personal opinion at all, but just want to know if this has been verified somewhere else.

The problem with this scope is it is SFP and it is not a mil hash reticle (by problem I mean for my intended use, I would prefer FFP and a mil hash reticle). Thank you.

This is the general consensus by most hunters I see and talk to. I've also tested the scopes side by side. The new Zeiss HT is the new benchmark.

Just watching the hunters who are coming in with new top of the line equipment for the yearly hunting qualification (shooting test) I would say the Zeiss HT is outselling the Swaro Z6i by at least 30 - 1. Zeiss has simply moved the low light performance another notch and have left the others struggeling.

http://www.eurooptic.com/zeiss-victory-ht-3-12x56-reticle-60.aspx

 

[HardCorpsHunter]

I just ordered a NightForce 2.5-10x42mm NXS Illuminated Compact Riflescope .1 Mil-Radian MOA w/ ZeroStop and Mil-R Reticle.
Also not within your magnification specs, but at 20.5 oz I would compromise. I too have shot 1k with 10 power (leu mark 4) and have done well up against higher powered scopes in the control of my neighbors beside me.

" ...one way is by increasing the size of the objective lens to 42mm, making it even more effective in low light.... " A segment out of the link below. Good luck.

2.5-10×42 NXS? COMPACT RIFLESCOPE | Nightforce Optics, Inc.

 

[RHutch]

RHutch, thank you for sharing. I am absolutely loving that new NH1 reticle, but I can only find it on the 4-16, does Hensoldt not offer the NH1 on the 3-12 I wonder?

Unfortunately not. Only mildot in the 3-12.

 

[Glassaholic]

This is the general consensus by most hunters I see and talk to. I've also tested the scopes side by side. The new Zeiss HT is the new benchmark.

Just watching the hunters who are coming in with new top of the line equipment for the yearly hunting qualification (shooting test) I would say the Zeiss HT is outselling the Swaro Z6i by at least 30 - 1. Zeiss has simply moved the low light performance another notch and have left the others struggling.

Thank you TorF, it is interesting that SWFA's samplelist is full of Swarovski 2.5-16 scopes... I wonder if the light transmission of the Victory HT carries over into the Hensoldt line? Though Cassidian now owns Zeiss Optronics, they may be completely separate now.

 

[RHutch]

The 3-12 Diavari was/is better in low light resolution than the Swaro 2.5-15x56, both set on 12x IME.
That's a fact Jack.

 

[Glassaholic]

The 3-12 Diavari was/is better in low light resolution than the Swaro 2.5-15x56, both set on 12x IME.
That's a fact Jack.

That's pretty typical of comparing a 4x optic to a 6x optic, I think the real test would be if Swaro had a 3-12 to actually compare to. With a 6x optic you're going to have more glass which will cut down on light transmission. Also, are you talking about the Diavari or the Victory HT, according to TorF and according to Zeiss the HT has over 95% light transmission which is incredible.

It sounds like the light king is the Victory HT 3-12x56; however, for my needs I do not need the largest light gathering optic out there, for me the reticle too plays a big part especially with long range hunting. In Colorado we are allowed to hunt 30 minutes before sunrise and 30 minutes after sunset and I think most of the optics listed here are going to perform pretty well in those conditions.

The only way to truly tell how well these scopes will perform for what I'm looking for is to put them side by side in the conditions I am concerned about (mostly low light situations) as I'm sure all these scopes perform well in the daytime. So the question is, will I have enough optical brightness and clarity at these limits of 30 minutes before and after sunrise/sunset.

It would be nice if there were mini shot shows that would visit every state and have an outside manufacturers test area where you and I could do some of these comparisons. The difficulty for most of us is that we have to make these decisions without ever actually looking through the optics we're interested in...

 

[Glassaholic]

Regarding the Kahles, looking on their website when I look at the reticles section it shows the K312II with MSR reticle (2nd row from the top, and second reticle from the left); however, I cannot find anywhere that has the K312II with MSR reticle in stock? Is this a mistake by Kahles, or are they not shipping this scope with this reticle yet?

 

[RHutch]

The K312 MSR is on it's way "hopefully in about 2 months" according to Ken.

 

[Glassaholic]

The K312 MSR is on it's way "hopefully in about 2 months" according to Ken.

Pardon my ignorance but who is Ken?

 

[RHutch]

Kahles rep.

 

[ccoker]

Ok
So, let's clarify a few points:

1) you want to be able to bang steel at 1k, right?

2) What is the max distance you want to be able to cleanly take game at the 30 min mark?

3) Do you want to be able to shoot at running game up close at the 30 min mark?

I think if you honestly answer # 2 and 3 it will narrow down your options considerably.

I think sometimes rather than focusing on what will do everything perfectly it is better to prioritize your needs and use the process of elimination to filter out what won't work.

 

[Glassaholic]

The K312 MSR is on it's way "hopefully in about 2 months" according to Ken.

Thank you RHutch, this is good news as I much prefer the MSR reticle over the mildot

 

[Glassaholic]

Thank you ccoker. Like I said in my original post, it is simply not practical that I think I'm going to have the time to compete in any competition at this point, kids are still too young and family and farm demands the majority of my time. Here are my responses to your questions.

Ok
So, let's clarify a few points:

1) you want to be able to bang steel at 1k, right?

Yes, but realistically how often am I going to get to do that, Fort Carson has a new public range that I hear has a 1000 yard area but that is south Colorado Springs which is almost as bad as driving to New Mexico , DOW has a free range about 2-1/2 hours away that has steel out past 1000. I have a 100 yard range on my property which is where I will spend most of my time, and how do you practice for LR without actually having a convenient area to shoot LR. I have a friend who owns a bird ranch out in Calhan and he has a 300 yard range I can shoot at which may be the most convenient but again, not sure if that's far enough. So, this is something that I would like to do, but will not be able to do as often as I would like.

2) What is the max distance you want to be able to cleanly take game at the 30 min mark?

This is the big question, during those dusky times I would probably not want to go further than 300 - 400 yards max; however, if I get some really "bright" glass, I may find that it's much easier to take the shot.

3) Do you want to be able to shoot at running game up close at the 30 min mark?

I don't know how comfortable I'd be at taking a shot at running game in the dusk, there are just so many variables that need to be taken into consideration, are you in the bush, are you out in the open, what else is around you, can you clearly see everywhere and are certain of what is behind what you're shooting at. So to answer the question, no, it is doubtful that I want to shoot at running game up close, it would have to be the right conditions for me to feel comfortable doing so. I think what you might be getting at with this question is whether or not I need lower magnification to properly track a moving object up close.

I think if you honestly answer # 2 and 3 it will narrow down your options considerably.

What are your thoughts given my answer?

I think sometimes rather than focusing on what will do everything perfectly it is better to prioritize your needs and use the process of elimination to filter out what won't work.

You're probably right. I think too often we are looking for perfection; however, reality rarely lives up to perfection. This is a good exercise for me to really think about what is truly needed to accomplish my desired goals.

 

[Glassaholic]

Two additional thoughts...

When is Leica going to release the Magnus line to the US, I would absolutely love to see their 2.4-16x56 scope? At 27.7 oz with illumination it would fit in nicely with my requirements. I know, I know, Swarovski makes a 2.5-15x56 Z6, but still, nothing like a Leica (I come from a professional photography background)

And when will Vortex join the 21st century and provide 5x magnification in their Razor HD line - how about a 3-15x50 HD with 30mm tube and a 5-25x56 HD with a 34mm tube (more common than their current 35mm design)... if you're listening Vortex.

 

[ccoker]

given your responses I think you are over scoping your gun personally..
and I am quite guilty of it often...

I run a 1.5-6x42 S&B one one rifle and I can cleanly take shots on game at 30 min after dark at 200 and bust clay pidgeons in the day at 500..

Just food for thought

 

[Glassaholic]

Thanks ccoker, that's what I'm trying to work out. Originally I was thinking of the 5-25 series but realized truly how often do I "need" 25x and will it really help. That's when I realized weight and low light quality really need to be my primary considerations. I've pretty much ruled out the Leupold 3-18x44 (at least for this application, it might be great on my LMT LM8). I think you and others here have convinced me that 12-16x is probably the most I need for my given application.

 

[Glassaholic]

Thank you to everyone's response, you have helped me "narrow" this down from 2 scopes to 5 scopes now Here is what I'm thinking:

For FFP here are my top choices:
* Kahles K312 II 3-12x50mm with MSR reticle at 28 oz (this model with the MSR reticle should be available soon, everyone who owns one seems to swear by its optics)
* Premier Heritage Light Tactical 3-15x50mm with Gen 2 XR reticle at 25.34 oz (though I've read some think this reticle is too thin at lower mags)
* Nightforce F1 3.5-15x50mm with MLR2.0 reticle at 30 oz (this really pushes my weight limit, and most who've owned one or both of the above scopes seem to prefer the optics over the F1 glass)

For SFP here are my top choices:
* Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56mm with Rapid Z 800 reticle at 20.2 oz (cheapest and brightest of the bunch)
* Swarovski Z6 2.5-15x56mm with BRH reticle at 22.4 oz (the Swaro actually uses mils in its BRH reticle)

Obviously the SFP options are a bit lighter and brighter, but at the sacrifice of the reticle only being usable at top magnification. I am not too thrilled with this setup but it is workable for what I'm looking for; however, I think I have enough options with the 3 FFP optics above that I can rule out SFP for now.

 

[jlpier01]

Good set of choices there. I am fairly new to what this forum considers high end scopes. I have recently bought two NF NXS with MOAR reticle (different powers for different rifles. The brightest scope I own is a Meopta Meostar 4-16 Mildot. I think if Meopta would get serious about reticle offerings and a little more adjustment range, they would sell a lot more scopes.

 

[ccoker]

I think if Meopta would get serious about reticle offerings and a little more adjustment range, they would sell a lot more scopes.

yep!!
I have a few of them and they have damned good glass..
just an FYI.. Kenton Industries is due to release custom turrets for Meopro and Meostar models... currently they only offer in one scope model

 

[jlpier01]

Thanks for the info on the Kenton Industries turrets. I will check them out.
I also forgot my Meopta K-dot which is my 3-gun competition scope. I love it as well, I just didn't think it was in the power range for this discussion (1-4).

 

[Drifter™]

I know there is the March 3-24x42 at 22.6 oz but I'm skeptical about such a massive zoom range and such a small objective lens, you can't get past the physics so I'm thinking this would not work out for low light situations, but I'm will to listen to thoughts on this scope.

Sometimes I think the March would get better reviews (both real and armchair) if it were a 3-18x42 instead of 24x at the top end. So the eyebox gets a little tighter and the image less bright at 20x+ due to a small exit pupil, but the solution is to simply dial back the power. It's a helluva scope in a small package. Consider 20X and above to be a bonus for use during ideal conditions.

Regardless of which scopes you consider, exit pupil will be a factor in light transmission. A quality 42mm lens will transmit all the light the human eye can use at 6x power. Larger scopes with 50mm or 56mm objectives gets you to 7x or 8x in low-light conditions.

Quality fixed-power low-light scopes are based on the human eye dilating to a max of 7mm, which is why you'll find models like 6x42, 8x56, etc. Same principle applies to variable scopes.

 

[Glassaholic]

I am certain that March is currently designing their scopes mostly for the daytime shooter and under ideal lighting I'm sure these scopes excel; however, like you mention Drifter, the physics of light get in the way for using this scope in poor lighting conditions. Now, if they made a 3-18x56mm under 30 oz, then we might be talking

At this point I think my focus is on the Premier Light Tactical 3-15x50 with Gen 2 XR reticle. It meets all my requirements - focal range, weight, quality glass, mil/mil and hash reticle with wind holds. If I mount it on a 20MOA base I should have enough elevation to dial out past 1000 yards, the Gen 2 XR reticle goes down to 8 mil with horizontal wind marks which will get my rounds out to 1200 itself without having to spin the turrets, this is a big plus to me and the wind holds are an added bonus.

The only negative I have read about this scope is the reticle, apparently the Gen 2 XR is quite thin and difficult to see when at lower magnifications, what I've noticed with my Bushnell Elite Tactical G2DMR is that at lower magnifications the G2 reticle almost acts as a duplex reticle at the center which is just fine for short range hunting situations.

Kahles would be my option 2 here but I will need to wait for the MSR reticle to be made available. Thank you everyone for all your input and help.

 

[Drifter™]

I've owned the Premier LT as well. Like the March, it has very nice glass. The Premier might have slightly better light transmission because of the 50mm objective (didn't own the Premier and March at the same time, so a side-by-side comparison wasn't possible), but that will be the only aspect where it will excel over the March. (Again, dial the March down ~1x, and the light transmission would likely be comparable. Is a 50mm lens worth a mere 1x over a 42mm?) The Premier's turrets are not nearly as good as the March, and it has something odd like 6 mils per turn (with a gadgety little window to track which turn you're on). March reticle is also better IMO, as is the overall "feel". Illumination was relatively equal for low-light use.

I have no vested interest in what you choose. I simply think light transmission is misunderstood, and many scope decisions are made thinking 50mm is vastly different than 42mm on comparable glass. Any scope must be dialed down on power for use in low light. A 42mm just has to get dialed down 1x more than a 50mm.