allan wrote:Islander7 wrote:Thanks Flyer - very much appreciate all your help mate!
I'm a bit lost though, do I also need to buy ring bases separately or the rifle comes with them installed? I'm trying to find various photos of the rifle on the web but get mixed results.
They're ring mounts - you don't need anything else. The Weihrauch has an 11mm dovetail and the base of the ring-mount clamps on to it.
Islander7 - Your new rifle should arrive with a set of Weaver style bases & screws in the carton and should also have 4 tiny "filler" screws installed in the holes on top of the receiver. Both mine arrived that way. Perhaps Flyer will confirm. If you're using mounts that clamp to the dove tail, I would leave the filler screws in the receiver and put the supplied bases & screws away carefully. Mine appear to be a "Weihrauch Special" thread - Certainly not the standard 6/48 threads found on most rifles.
Stix wrote:yep...something looks a big miss there Daddybang...can only go by the pics but that rifle/scope combo set-up doesnt look at all comfortable on you mate...
Length of pull looks short, but that could just be the pic.
SCJ429 wrote:The eye relief is still very long, need to move the scope mounts forward until the cheek is on the cheek rest. The exit pupil gets very small at higher magnification and head position becomes critical.
Daddybang wrote:Yep as its not my rifle and I don't tend to shoot it off the shoulder (they're a bloody heavy bit of kit) very often it's not a problem .
We actually had to turn the comb around to get any cheek at all on it. All too bloody complicated for me so as I said I'll stick to my 3-9x.and leave the high.mags for those that want it!!
Daddybang wrote:Stix wrote:yep...something looks a big miss there Daddybang...can only go by the pics but that rifle/scope combo set-up doesnt look at all comfortable on you mate...
Length of pull looks short, but that could just be the pic.SCJ429 wrote:The eye relief is still very long, need to move the scope mounts forward until the cheek is on the cheek rest. The exit pupil gets very small at higher magnification and head position becomes critical.
Yep as its not my rifle and I don't tend to shoot it off the shoulder (they're a bloody heavy bit of kit) very often it's not a problem .
We actually had to turn the comb around to get any cheek at all on it. All too bloody complicated for me so as I said I'll stick to my 3-9x.and leave the high.mags for those that want it!!
bladeracer wrote:Daddybang wrote:Yep as its not my rifle and I don't tend to shoot it off the shoulder (they're a bloody heavy bit of kit) very often it's not a problem .
We actually had to turn the comb around to get any cheek at all on it. All too bloody complicated for me so as I said I'll stick to my 3-9x.and leave the high.mags for those that want it!!
I was figuring it can't possibly be youmr own rife set up like that
Islander7 wrote:Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.
I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.
Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because I would've been disappointed even more probably
P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all
Islander7 wrote:Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.
I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.
Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.
P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all
Islander7 wrote:Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.
I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.
Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.
P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all
Ziad wrote:Why did you get a smoke with no parallax adjustment
Ziad wrote:Why did you get a smoke with no parallax adjustment
Flyer wrote:I'll have to check my box again, because I don't remember seeing any Weaver mounts in mine. My Sako A7 came with them, but not my Weihrauch, as far as I know. I do have the mounting holes with tap screws and thought of mentioning this, but I haven't used them so can recommend anything.
bigfellascott wrote:Islander7 wrote:Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.
I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.
Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.
P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all
It doesn't surprise me at all! I've done plenty of testing of euro and cheaper offerings and there really was SFA diff in brightness in between any of them at last light. I was expecting to be able to use the euros without any added light source but it wasn't the case at all.
Stix wrote:bigfellascott wrote:Islander7 wrote:Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.
I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.
Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.
P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all
It doesn't surprise me at all! I've done plenty of testing of euro and cheaper offerings and there really was SFA diff in brightness in between any of them at last light. I was expecting to be able to use the euros without any added light source but it wasn't the case at all.
When it comes to scopes & low light, the difference in seeing things for longer in fading light is a furphy i believe.
In low light like the last throws of daylight, with good or bad optics of similar construction, there is only "X" amount of light period...so a better scope cant make more light & allow you to see for 15 minutes longer.
Where you will notice the better optics perform is in the saturation levels of colours, lower or no chromatic aberration, & naturally sharper fine details and a greater tonal range in across a greater variety of lighting conditions
.
I always like to test a scope on a bright sunny day...look into the shadows & see how much detail you can see...then look at the highlights--for example--if you could/can, look at a white lace curtain or a wedding dress out in the sun then in dark shadow--you will find with poor quality optics the curtain will appear blanket white, as opposed to a Z5 for example, you will see the intricate detail of the lace (let your eye/brain adjust to the light level of course).
The sucker for testing scopes is on an overcast day--the cheap ones make things look bright, have way more contrast & therefor appear sharper, where as immediately against the quality optics, initially appear dull & lifeless--but again, thats where you look into shadows for the real test...so its easy to be fooled into thinking a Z5 is not worth the coin when compared to a cheaper Bushnell of a mere fraction of the price
Cheaper optics have coatings that make the poor glass "appear" brighter & sharper by way of increasing the contrast...when in actual fact what you want is a low contrast image with good saturation.
This can even make a difference at night--say for example, a fox in a stubble field under halogen light at 200-250 yds (fox not looking at the light so you cant see its eye reflection)...with a cheap high contrast optic, the fox's fur blends in to the stubble & you rely more on movement to see it...however with a low contrast high definition quality optic you will see detail enough to make out the fur.
Its all a matter of training our eye to see what we actually see, rather than what our brain percieves us to see...
So relating that to dusk situation & the very last throws of daylight, you wont "get longer use" out of a better quality optic, rather you will just see things clearer & be able to make out better detail in a wider variety of lighting conditions..
Stix wrote:bigfellascott wrote:Islander7 wrote:Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.
I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.
Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.
P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all
It doesn't surprise me at all! I've done plenty of testing of euro and cheaper offerings and there really was SFA diff in brightness in between any of them at last light. I was expecting to be able to use the euros without any added light source but it wasn't the case at all.
When it comes to scopes & low light, the difference in seeing things for longer in fading light is a furphy i believe.
In low light like the last throws of daylight, with good or bad optics of similar construction, there is only "X" amount of light period...so a better scope cant make more light & allow you to see for 15 minutes longer.
Where you will notice the better optics perform is in the saturation levels of colours, lower or no chromatic aberration, & naturally sharper fine details and a greater tonal range in across a greater variety of lighting conditions
.
I always like to test a scope on a bright sunny day...look into the shadows & see how much detail you can see...then look at the highlights--for example--if you could/can, look at a white lace curtain or a wedding dress out in the sun then in dark shadow--you will find with poor quality optics the curtain will appear blanket white, as opposed to a Z5 for example, you will see the intricate detail of the lace (let your eye/brain adjust to the light level of course).
The sucker for testing scopes is on an overcast day--the cheap ones make things look bright, have way more contrast & therefor appear sharper, where as immediately against the quality optics, initially appear dull & lifeless--but again, thats where you look into shadows for the real test...so its easy to be fooled into thinking a Z5 is not worth the coin when compared to a cheaper Bushnell of a mere fraction of the price
Cheaper optics have coatings that make the poor glass "appear" brighter & sharper by way of increasing the contrast...when in actual fact what you want is a low contrast image with good saturation.
This can even make a difference at night--say for example, a fox in a stubble field under halogen light at 200-250 yds (fox not looking at the light so you cant see its eye reflection)...with a cheap high contrast optic, the fox's fur blends in to the stubble & you rely more on movement to see it...however with a low contrast high definition quality optic you will see detail enough to make out the fur.
Its all a matter of training our eye to see what we actually see, rather than what our brain percieves us to see...
So relating that to dusk situation & the very last throws of daylight, you wont "get longer use" out of a better quality optic, rather you will just see things clearer & be able to make out better detail in a wider variety of lighting conditions..
Islander7 wrote:Bladeracer, yes I spent whole night outside yesterday without looking at bright computer/phone screen etc, so my eyes were very well adapted to the natural twilight setting. Astronomy is my another hobby, so I know the importance of eye adaptation to the darkness before looking through scope.
I've decided to keep it for now at least. I'll try to get and test better optics (Swarovski etc) in the future. If I get blown away, I'll happily upgrade. My own conclusion now is everyone's eyes are different, and apparantly my eyes aren't that great after all, which is a bit disappointing I didn't believe this fact at first, but then I remembered that I've got a $20k hi-fi stereo system and I'm the only one (within my circle of friends and family) who are able to clearly hear difference/advantage in comparison to, say, $3k system.. so yes, we are all different.
Flyer, illuminated reticle was off, simply because it came to me with dead battery (ex-display unit). Yes it's got fixed parallax at 100m, however it has a focus ring, so you can get everything in focus at most distances.
Bigfella, I still will try to do a proper test with more expensive optics in the future, just to see for myself
allan wrote:Flyer wrote:I'll have to check my box again, because I don't remember seeing any Weaver mounts in mine. My Sako A7 came with them, but not my Weihrauch, as far as I know. I do have the mounting holes with tap screws and thought of mentioning this, but I haven't used them so can recommend anything.
If the bases aren't there, you're not missing anything - Mine are rubbish. The HW66JM even came with a Leapers UTG 3-9X40 scope in the box - Have it advertised on a couple of sites - Can't give it away!
I have both my scopes mounted using J&P delrin 11MM adaptors & Burris Signature zees.
Flyer wrote:On a related note, I disassembled the bolt and polished up the inner bolt handle and rest of the bolt and have got it working pretty slick now. They have a heavy firing pin spring in them and are only a 54-degree bolt throw or something, so can be a bit stiff when you first get the rifle. I did find there was a bit of a taper on the bolt handle and the bolt itself wasn't perfectly smooth, so it was binding up a little when I cocked the handle. That's gone now.
Next mod I'm think of doing is lightening the firing pin a little and replacing the spring with something with a little less tension. Again, the Weihrauch HW66 has got a big ol' firing pin in it which needs a strong spring. It's a bit of overkill, but part of what makes these rifles so accurate, I believe, is the heavy-duty action for small calibre. I've just finished bedding mine front and back as there was no need to bed the entire action. Whether it needed to be bedded or not is open to conjecture, but I felt better about doing it. I can't leave things alone.
bigfellascott wrote:Stix wrote:bigfellascott wrote:Islander7 wrote:Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.
I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.
Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.
P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all
It doesn't surprise me at all! I've done plenty of testing of euro and cheaper offerings and there really was SFA diff in brightness in between any of them at last light. I was expecting to be able to use the euros without any added light source but it wasn't the case at all.
When it comes to scopes & low light, the difference in seeing things for longer in fading light is a furphy i believe.
In low light like the last throws of daylight, with good or bad optics of similar construction, there is only "X" amount of light period...so a better scope cant make more light & allow you to see for 15 minutes longer.
Where you will notice the better optics perform is in the saturation levels of colours, lower or no chromatic aberration, & naturally sharper fine details and a greater tonal range in across a greater variety of lighting conditions
.
I always like to test a scope on a bright sunny day...look into the shadows & see how much detail you can see...then look at the highlights--for example--if you could/can, look at a white lace curtain or a wedding dress out in the sun then in dark shadow--you will find with poor quality optics the curtain will appear blanket white, as opposed to a Z5 for example, you will see the intricate detail of the lace (let your eye/brain adjust to the light level of course).
The sucker for testing scopes is on an overcast day--the cheap ones make things look bright, have way more contrast & therefor appear sharper, where as immediately against the quality optics, initially appear dull & lifeless--but again, thats where you look into shadows for the real test...so its easy to be fooled into thinking a Z5 is not worth the coin when compared to a cheaper Bushnell of a mere fraction of the price
Cheaper optics have coatings that make the poor glass "appear" brighter & sharper by way of increasing the contrast...when in actual fact what you want is a low contrast image with good saturation.
This can even make a difference at night--say for example, a fox in a stubble field under halogen light at 200-250 yds (fox not looking at the light so you cant see its eye reflection)...with a cheap high contrast optic, the fox's fur blends in to the stubble & you rely more on movement to see it...however with a low contrast high definition quality optic you will see detail enough to make out the fur.
Its all a matter of training our eye to see what we actually see, rather than what our brain percieves us to see...
So relating that to dusk situation & the very last throws of daylight, you wont "get longer use" out of a better quality optic, rather you will just see things clearer & be able to make out better detail in a wider variety of lighting conditions..
Yeah done all those types of tests in the bush and honestly still haven’t seen any real reason why I should spend $1000’s more to do the same thing - I certainly haven’t noticed any real difference in my success rate using the more expensive stuff over my Nikon, leupold or zeiss.
Stix wrote:bigfellascott wrote:Stix wrote:bigfellascott wrote:Islander7 wrote:Just did a very non-scientific test/comparison of my new scope in low light situation - Meopta Meostar R1r 3-12X56mm.
Basically I setted up the scope ~60m from a shipping container on my property and tried to read some numbers written on a container (white letters on green background). I also tried to do the same using my old budget ($300 from ebay USA) binoculars Nikon Monarch 8.5x56mm with one eye shut.
In both cases (through Meopta scope that I set to 8.5X and Nikon binoculars 8.5X) I could not read the text any longer at exactly same minute 9:33pm. I moved 20m closer and was able to barely see the text again, after few more minutes the contrast faded away, again, at exactly same time for both.
I then directed both to the bush behind the container - contrast was pretty poor through Meopta, while I still could distinguish different branches via Nikon. Both were about same brightness however.
Slightly dissappointed to be honest, considering that these binoculars are budget model and this scope is often comparable to much more expensive models. There are numerous reports online that this scope is better optically than Z3 and just slightly behind Z5/Z6, S&B, Zeiss Victory etc. I trust those reports, and now glad that I didn't pay twice the price for other brands, because it wouldn't make any difference for my eyes most probably.
P.S. very unscientific I know. Maybe my eyes are poor enough to be able to distinguish the difference in optics and superiority of Meopta, who knows. I'm keeping the scope anyway, as I like it still and it's more than enough for my hunting needs anyway. It's just that I was prepared to be blown away by low llight performance and I wasn't after all
It doesn't surprise me at all! I've done plenty of testing of euro and cheaper offerings and there really was SFA diff in brightness in between any of them at last light. I was expecting to be able to use the euros without any added light source but it wasn't the case at all.
When it comes to scopes & low light, the difference in seeing things for longer in fading light is a furphy i believe.
In low light like the last throws of daylight, with good or bad optics of similar construction, there is only "X" amount of light period...so a better scope cant make more light & allow you to see for 15 minutes longer.
Where you will notice the better optics perform is in the saturation levels of colours, lower or no chromatic aberration, & naturally sharper fine details and a greater tonal range in across a greater variety of lighting conditions
.
I always like to test a scope on a bright sunny day...look into the shadows & see how much detail you can see...then look at the highlights--for example--if you could/can, look at a white lace curtain or a wedding dress out in the sun then in dark shadow--you will find with poor quality optics the curtain will appear blanket white, as opposed to a Z5 for example, you will see the intricate detail of the lace (let your eye/brain adjust to the light level of course).
The sucker for testing scopes is on an overcast day--the cheap ones make things look bright, have way more contrast & therefor appear sharper, where as immediately against the quality optics, initially appear dull & lifeless--but again, thats where you look into shadows for the real test...so its easy to be fooled into thinking a Z5 is not worth the coin when compared to a cheaper Bushnell of a mere fraction of the price
Cheaper optics have coatings that make the poor glass "appear" brighter & sharper by way of increasing the contrast...when in actual fact what you want is a low contrast image with good saturation.
This can even make a difference at night--say for example, a fox in a stubble field under halogen light at 200-250 yds (fox not looking at the light so you cant see its eye reflection)...with a cheap high contrast optic, the fox's fur blends in to the stubble & you rely more on movement to see it...however with a low contrast high definition quality optic you will see detail enough to make out the fur.
Its all a matter of training our eye to see what we actually see, rather than what our brain percieves us to see...
So relating that to dusk situation & the very last throws of daylight, you wont "get longer use" out of a better quality optic, rather you will just see things clearer & be able to make out better detail in a wider variety of lighting conditions..
Yeah done all those types of tests in the bush and honestly still haven’t seen any real reason why I should spend $1000’s more to do the same thing - I certainly haven’t noticed any real difference in my success rate using the more expensive stuff over my Nikon, leupold or zeiss.
Hey BigFella...i certainly wasnt trying to tell you how to suck eggs mate. ..and to be honest im envious of you having that experience...
Unfortunately i spent 14 plus years in the photographic industry servicing some of the best & most anal commercial photographers with everything from camera & lens hardware to film, photographic paper, colour seperation & reciprocity failure issues, right through to the initial transition into digital...not to mention having photographed my share of portraits & weddings (where skin tones & detail in wedding dress on a sunny day...well on any day, are critical), and all this history forces one to actually see subtle differences as big black dogs balls right in the middle of your vision...
I have a Ziess conquest HD5 that cost me good coin yet has real bad chromatic aberration, is not in focus when parralex is set correctly & is only sharp in the middle of the image, all the outside is real blurry...i find it bloody annoying & not worth the coin as compared to my bushnell elite's for the money they cost...yet for everyone whos looked through the scope, im the only one that notices it...
Im somewhat lucky in that ive lost most of my 'eye' having been out of the game for a long time now, but some of it still remains.
And ive had the pleasure of comparing my scopes to a Swarovski Z6 3-18x50, & let me tell you...my eyes were experiencing multiple squirters...
If i had the coin, id have one of those on every bolt action centrefire i own with no hesitation...
Having said all that...most of what i do is bunnies & foxes, & all of those shots are within 300yds, most between 80-200, so i agree with you whole heartedly that almost any glass does the job...