Night time scope change ? 56mm vs 40mm

I have been wanting to change this scope on my night time rifle to a illuminated reticle system. I have decided that the Trijicon Accu-Point is going to be best option. My problem is I don't know if it would be better to go with the larger 56mm obj or the 40mm. I will be using  the lowest power setting, so I don't think 2.5 vs 3 should be a factor. What I would like to find out, is how much better will the 56mm glass perform in the night time set up ? My goal is to get away from using any artificial light carried on rifle.  Any information,comments or suggestions will be appreciated....  Thanks Kevin

Having owned and used both, I'd go with the 3-9 for your application (no artificial light, lowest power setting.)

Thanks RC, that helps a lot. I Really did not want to mount such a large scope on this rifle, if not needed. Is there a preference of color for triangle ?

In truth, for "precision" shooting and definitely for night time hunting, I prefer the mil dot reticle over the triangle.  I know, the triangle is faster on target (my 3-9 is an amber triangle), but I have less success placing precision rounds on target with a triangle reticle than with a mil dot.  Additionally, the dot is a finer aiming point in very low light, and the mil scale is useful for bullet drop in day light (since only the very center of the crosshairs is illuminated on the mil dot reticle, the dots are useless in low light as they are not visible.

Hi, Kevin...

There are 2 main features that make a great low light / night time scope:

1.  Optics with great low light performance (high % light transmission, especially in blue spectrum, good contrast, a minimum of 6 - 7mm exit pupil on the chosen magnification);
2.  Illuminated reticle (that can be adjusted to low enough intensity so it doesn't overpower the view through the scope)

The Trijicon Accupoint scopes are pretty good at #1 and excellent at #2.  Optically, they are at best equal to or maybe not quite as good as your Conquest 3-9X50 in low light.  So, if you're expecting to see your target better through the scope in low light, you're likely to be disappointed in the Accupoints vs. your Conquest.  The reticle will provide a decided low light advantage, though.  Reticle acquisition is equally important as good low light optics for night time use.

In an absolute sense, the 2.5-10X56 is a better low light scope than the 3-9X40, but since you'd be mounting it on a rimfire, and you said you would be using low power, the 3-9X is your better choice.  I don't personally believe any of the reticle color options provides an advantage over another; it's pretty much personal choice.  RC recommended the mil dot / lit dot reticle, but both the mil dot and conventional duplex reticle are only available in amber and green illumination.  Of those two, I would probably choose green myself.  If you want red, it is only available in the triangle reticle.  I disagree with him on the choice of reticle styles for this particular application.  If this is to be a low light optimized optic, the less you have in the sight picture besides the lit aiming point the better.  In low light, you don't want elements of your reticle blending in with your target, especially if your target is a dark colored animal.  When aiming into dark shadows during a moonlit night, the dark lines of the reticle will blend in with and obscure some of the animal, making shot placement slightly more difficult.  Although the BAC triangle doesn't provide the ranging ability of a mil dot in the daytime, I believe it to be superior in low light because it doesn't obscure much of the sight picture and you need every bit of available sight picture you can get for your brain to resolve the outline of your target best.  Also, since this scope is for a rimfire, mil dots probably won't be as useful as they would be on a centerfire.

Just keep in mind one important thing when you're trying to get away from using an external light:
no conventional scope is equal to night vision.  No matter how good, none will allow you to see in complete darkness.  Even the very finest low light scopes money can buy will only transmit 90 - 95% of available light at best.  However, a really good low light scope will allow night hunting during a full or nearly full moon (where legal) without any external night source, with fairly limited visible range.


Edited by RifleDude - January/30/2011 at 20:34

All Ted's statements are valid. As he said, reticle is personal preference.

Let me throw this one into the mix also.  With a 24mm objective at 4x you have a 6mm exit eye pupil and as you dial down to 3.4 power and below you will have over a 7mm exit eye pupil which is as much light  as a young man could use where us older guys may only be able to use 6mm.  I really notice a difference between the 2.5x low end and the 3x low end and prefer something in the 1.5x to 2x power range.  For night distances should be fairly close so that leaves me thinking 4x top end should be plenty.  There are other options also like the compact ACOG with red crosshair and I have one in 3x that I like a lot and have used for coyotes at night. The amber triangle I like more for CQB / Police entry type use.

Edited by Urimaginaryfrnd - January/31/2011 at 12:05

Thanks everyone for answering my questions on these scopes. Now I have to decide which reticle to go with. 

Kevin, I've been looking at the Trijicon as well.  My question concerns the size of illuminated part of the scope.  Is the triangle much larger than the dot at the center of the mil dot reticle?  From what I can find, data shows the dot at the center of the mil dot is smaller in total area than the triangle.  Would like verification of this. 

I understand that you can increase/decrease the brightness by regulating the amount of light during the day, does it work the same way at night or does the tritium glow at a constant level?

Tritium glows at a constant.  The window can be opened/closed to allow more ambient light in to increase brightness in daylight use. The window doesn't do anything in low light.

Thanks.

The triangle is indeed much larger than the dot, but still, it isn't large.  Neither is too overpowering for effective night use when in tritium mode... IMO. 

I agree, have used both at night, and both have down what was required of them.

Anyone with both that can post some real world reticle photos?  that might be helpful for a lot of folks!

The 2.5-10 is significantly larger and heavier, and does offer brighter sight picture at higher powers; however, the 3-9 is plenty bright at the lowest setting for almost any low light hunting.....

I have a Trijicon Accupoint 2.5-10x56.  In my opinion, the huge objective is a downside on a bolt gun because it requires rings that are really high.  In fact, I took mine off my bolt gun because I couldn't stand it anymore.  I ended up mounting it on top of my 6.8SPC AR-15 with a Burris P.E.P.R. mount.  The fit is perfect. 

For a bolt gun, I'd prefer the 3-9x40 Accupoint. 

That said, I've looked through plenty of 3-9x40 Accupoints at gun stores, gun shows, etc. and I just think the bigger objective of the 56mm is a bit clearer and easier to look through...that's just my own impression...I just wouldn't want to mount that huge objective on a bolt gun again.

If you decide to get one with a 56mm objective, I now have a nice set of Burris Signature Zee rings for it that you can have.  They are useless to me now.  They will fit a weaver style base.

I wish Trijicon would make a 2.5-10x50.  That would be the perfect size for a bolt gun.