The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Optics IlluminationGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Illumination | Login/Join |
One of Us |
After Years of hunting with ( very good ! ) non illuminated scope reticles, I have revised my decisison: I´ll NEVER, EVER again buy a NOT ILLUMINATED scope! Just my 2 cts. Hunting is harder now, Game spookier, it gets later now, the Night´s get darker :P I pay the premium price, because even in Midday, the illuminated Dot is much quicker in Target acquisition than a fine crosshair ... I rest my case ... Your ideas on that theme??? Hermann formerly, before software update, known as "aHunter", lost 1000 posts in a minute | ||
|
One of Us |
Your eyes are getting older too?   I'm in the same boat and considering a VX6 2-12 e-dot these days...There's a lot to be said for the Dot. Regards, Robert ****************************** H4350! It stays crunchy in milk longer! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Eyes are getting older, and the game IS getting shy and sparce. I don´t care so much for ballistic reticles, as I don´t Varmint hunt, and for larger Game and as I don´t like to shoot over 300 m it is not necessary. But that Dot gives you SOMETIMES the edge, and my hunting days are very limited, so I intend to have an illuminated reticle on any hunt, which is important for me. Hermann formerly, before software update, known as "aHunter", lost 1000 posts in a minute | |||
|
One of Us |
Since we're not allowed to sit up for tigers any more, I'm underwhelmed with the illumination concept. Turned on more than the faintest amount, I find the dot dulls the target, possibly by contracting the pupil. Anyway, by the time a sportsman can't see a deer between black sidebars, maybe it's time he went home. | |||
|
One of Us |
You guys heard much about the durability of the electronics? I know that Leupold only offers a 2yr warranty on that portion of the scope. It seems like if that went out it would really tank the resale value of the scope and potentially be a pricey fix. | |||
|
One of Us |
While Leupold has a 2 year limit on the illumination electronics, they have upgraded the electronics on my 12 year old scopes at no charge. This was returned for a separate issue unrelated to the electronics. I have never had any issue with the electronics in any of my big bore mounted Leupold illuminated scopes, including two 1.5-5x that are each around the 12 year mark. I now buy only illuminated scopes as I believe they are quicker and better than standard scopes, and certainly provide an edge to older eyes. Mike ______________ DSC DRSS (again) SCI Life NRA Life Sables Life Mzuri IPHA "To be a Marine is enough." | |||
|
| One of Us |
Lionhunter- Thanks for the comment. I'm glad to hear how they've taken care of you. I sure hope they've engineered these scopes to last. Vortex has a lifetime warranty on everything. I wish their Razor HD 1-6x24 didn't weigh 22 oz! Seriously? That's heavy considering the Swaro and Leupold are both just over 14 oz. | |||
|
| One of Us |
While I appreciate the trend towards everything lightweight, I would not be concerned about 8 ozs. I humped an M-60 machine-gun and an M-14 AR with bi-pod through the jungles. Yeah, I was younger then, but really, any rifle/scope under 9 lbs should not be a problem for anyone in decent physical condition. Over 10 lbs and I begin to notice it by the end of the day, but that is pretty much only the 500NE DR class of sporting firearms. Mike ______________ DSC DRSS (again) SCI Life NRA Life Sables Life Mzuri IPHA "To be a Marine is enough." | |||
|
| One of Us |
Mike, I'd be throwing this on a CZ 550 which comes in over 9lb without optics so I wondered if I might think twice about that 8oz. It also seems like so many of these 1-6x24 scopes are "tactical" scopes that guys are putting on their ARs. I assume they'll stand up to the recoil of the big boomers? | |||
|
| One of Us |
PM inbound to you. Mike ______________ DSC DRSS (again) SCI Life NRA Life Sables Life Mzuri IPHA "To be a Marine is enough." | |||
|
One of Us |
I use 1.5-6x42 high end Euros with FFP reticles. For me, they work as well or better than illuminated reticles. With any kind of light they are good for well past legal shooting hours and on many nights, they cam hunt all night. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yeah, miles58, if you can't see a fat reticle, you probably can't see the target anyway. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Illumination is an advantage in poor light particularly when the targets are a dark colour. If you like them use them. If they extend the years that you are able to hunt because you don't see the crosshairs so well anymore I say do it amd enjoy your hunting. | |||
|
| one of us |
+1 It's always more difficult in poor light to see your target, which you can't be sure where is, than your reticle, which is always and forever right square in the middle of your sight picture. If anything, having a reticle (or reticle center) which is brighter than your target is a detriment to aiming. By using an artificially illuminated reticle you're just fooling yourself. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Don't forget, e-Ret's are variable in power. On my wife's VX6 the turned down level is all but invisible until one gets into the darkest conditions. Turned up to max and it's a brilliant aiming point in the brightest of days. I've hunted hogs on several occasions where the finer non-illumated reticles just wash out and become invisible. Even hunting hogs I don't like the idea of guessing where the actual aiming point is. And I've also found that e-Rets are fantastic in broad daylight - they are very fast acquisition, much faster than just a normal reticle. Personally, I love the technology. What I don't like are the 2 year warranties. I haven't seen any real failures but the thought of electronics on a recoiling rifle somehow makes me nervous. I shouldn't be as concerned as I am - I mean, Aimpoint has a stellar reputation for durability. e-Rets are truly fantastic tools if they are properly executed. Many of them are. Regards, Robert ****************************** H4350! It stays crunchy in milk longer! | |||
|
| One of Us |
The U.S. military has been using illuminated reticles and red-dots on virtually all of their battle rifles and carbines for the past 12 years and even much longer for SpecOps warriors. But according to some posters here, they must not have a clue, yes? So, does the Oz SAS not use them? That's a rhetorical question, as I know they do. I first used electronic red-dots on tactical weapons over 30 years ago and was buying them for my SpecOps teams more than 20 years ago. These devices work even when their lens are broken or covered in mud. I have never seen a dead battery in the field nor an electronic failure - they actually have quite a long life span and everyone carries a spare. I have used illuminated scopes and red-dots in africa since at least 2001; Elephant, Buff, Lion, Hippo and other DG & PG at all times of day and night - where legal. Never had an issue with performance. I even have red-dots on my 500NE DR. I no longer buy optics without illumination. I guess you could say I am "underwhelmed" by some of the comments in this thread. But nobody is forced to use them, let's just stop with the FUD, please. Mike ______________ DSC DRSS (again) SCI Life NRA Life Sables Life Mzuri IPHA "To be a Marine is enough." | |||
|
| One of Us |
Used on extremely low-powered scopes, I can see that an illuminated dot could allow you to shoot at running game with both eyes open to good effect. In poor light against a dark target, my doubts persist, even if defence forces employ them. First, armies are not always right: their belief that it would be a good idea to take cavalries to WWI being a case in point. Second, Should we lionise sniper practices as high sportsmanship? Maybe I'm just a Luddite who tries to remember the ideals of Aldo Leopold, who believed the greatest moral value of hunting was the link with atavism; to get out and do it with the fewest modern cheats possible, without the tonnage of new camping equipment and the Poly-Choke set on infinity. Yes, time takes a toll on eyes - and also on memory and our innate sense of orientation. Therefore I use radios and a GPS for safety (knowing it is illegal here to tell mates on the radio when deer are heading in their direction) but there's a difference between safety devices and those that give an unfair advantage over game. In the state where I live it may even be that electrical aids such as illuminated reticles are illegal, if the police choose to push it. Finally, despite the reliability Mike cites, I am reluctant to trust anything that requires batteries too far. While I use a GPS, I trust it less than my compass. Though iron deposits may pervert the latter, they will not kill the thing dead if batteries die - or tell me roads are 300 yards away from where I know they are. | |||
|
| one of us |
It's a fool's errand to attempt to equate the efficacy of something used against another human who is also armed with something used to hunt a game animal in field conditions. There may well be circumstances in which an illuminated reticle (not really comparable to non-magnifying optical battle sights) provides some limited advantage. In most hunting circumstances it provides none, and may inadvertantly be a hindrance. | |||
|
One of Us |
I have several and they are excellent. For those daytime hunters maybe not that big a deal, but boar hunting at night they give an exact aiming point. Not sure why a lot of folks are dead set against them, especially if they never used them Never had one go bad, for over a dozen years. And most have a spare battery under the windage cap if you are on a hunt and one goes dead just replace it, no big deal. -------- There are those who only reload so they can shoot, and then there are those who only shoot so they can reload. I belong to the first group. Dom --------- | |||
|
| One of Us |
That may be the most silly statement ever made on AR! WTF?  Here are just two that came from the military and have had enormous success when adopted to hunting, and continue so over 100 years after conception: 1. The Mauser bolt action rifle - M1903 Springfield 2. The .30-06 cartridge Further, I strongly suggest you take caution in who you refer to as a fool over the internet. Were I a lesser man I might take offense to your tone. BTW, I have hunted men and that does not change my opinion of the application of both illuminated scopes and re-dots to the hunting fields. Mike ______________ DSC DRSS (again) SCI Life NRA Life Sables Life Mzuri IPHA "To be a Marine is enough." | |||
|
| One of Us |
I guess the battery doesn't really matter if the dot is superimposed over a reticle with side bars - if the battery goes flat you're no worse off than the rest of us. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Agree with Dom 100% Some of these objections, particularly the often heard theory that the dot will close up your eye's pupil are simply wrong. Certainly with a high quality scope adjusted properly it is wrong. Do you think the Europeans use them so widely because they don't work ?? | |||
|
| One of Us |
The dot would not open up the pupil, secondtry, but it might make it smaller, whereby the target behind could look darker. The Europeans tend to sit up for roe deer etc and you'd think they would know what they were doing. It is possible, of course, for even European buyers to be beguiled by marketing. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Oops !! I meant contract NOT dilate.(fixed it) It definitely doesn't happen. When the dot is adjusted correctly, it shows as a contrasting pinpoint against the dark background. No glow, no glare. Look away - look back - play around all you like - it makes no difference that I can detect. The brighter settings are for use in good light for fast target acquisition and running animals. The brightness is no problem in good light. Against a dark target in very bad light, the dot provides aiming precision that is not possible with any type or thickness of crosshair alone. Dunno about the marketing, but it is interesting that now neither Zeiss nor Swaro catalogue a best quality traditional 4x zoom 30mm tube scope that doesn't have an illuminated reticle. Give a Zeiss Victory with a red dot a serious try and see what you think. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I grew up thinking that 3x zooms and tubes around 26mm were the tradition and that the 1-4 and 1.5-6 scopes broke the rules somehow, though I love the early ones. I can't prove it yet but suspect that 4x zooms and 30mm tubes are part of the erector-tube decadence that is taking us backwards. It's probably jealousy but have to admit I can't afford to give the illuminated Zeiss Victory a try. I've already got more scopes than rifles to put them on, and find the heavy-sidebar reticles do everything I need. | |||
|
| One of Us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
Sorry but I do not know how my post about FUD .ended up in the middle of your post | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yep - a proper European No 4 has long been my favourite, but interestingly Zeiss no longer offer an illuminated No.4.in the Victory. They offer a thinner version of the 4, with a much wider window between the outer bars, with illumination. Works fine until the dot is needed, and then the type of reticle doesn't much matter. Clever little buggers these Germans. 4x Erectors aren't decadence. Now 6x (and 5x)erectors - there is a marketing exercise if ever there was one. Along with 14/15x in scopes with 44mm objectives Oh dear, I'm sure that will upset someone  | |||
|
| One of Us |
LionHunter, how about posting a time line of your looong military service. According to my math it spans 5 decades. Yackman | |||
|
One of Us |
I like the illuminated reticle/dot optics. I used them a lot in my former life and have them mounted on my 9.3x74R SxS and my drilling. Where they really shine (pun intended) is during limited visibility or on dark targets. An experience shooter (that can shoot) will be able to apply precise shots faster on the target using an illuminated aiming device. That is what I know having "seen it and personally done it", a lot. How that is applicable or needed for the reality of the majority of hunting situations will be each individual's personal decision. I am sure it is needed as much as the 4x4 SUV I drive on paved roads. But, you never know when....  Technology has progressed a long way from the delicate, battery eating illuminated optics of old. In fact, some do not even use batteries. They are nice options that some will find useful and others not so much. | |||
|
| One of Us |
army aviator - Good question and here's your answer: FUD /fad/ noun 1. fear, uncertainty and doubt, usually evoked intentionally to put a competitor at a disadvantage. Used most often when the person using FUD doesn't have the correct information, or when giving the correct information will destroy their argument. Some will say it stands for F***ed Up Data. JIm Yackley - I owe you nothing, but suggest your basic math needs some work, as do your keyboard skills (JIm???). But since you asked so politely, I am completely retired after 3 careers, beginning in 1965, all of which entailed use of firearms and optics in the military and public sector. Your turn JIm, and I'm not sure what your post has to do with the topic? Mike ______________ DSC DRSS (again) SCI Life NRA Life Sables Life Mzuri IPHA "To be a Marine is enough." | |||
|
| One of Us |
LionHunter you are 100% correct, you owe me nothing. I could care less what NGO/Gov agencies you worked for. You seem a little thin skinned when asked a question. As for the reason for my post on this thread, I was wondering if God appointed you as the resident expert on all matters related to red-dot optics. Yackman | |||
|
| One of Us |
While I'm sure we all appreciate your wit, intelligence and reading comprehension, I still fail to see what any of your posts in this thread have to do with the topic of the OP? But this is the internet, where you can be as rude, discourteous and irrelevant as you wish to be, without fear of repercussions. So do carry on, however I will not be responding to your silly comments any further. Mike ______________ DSC DRSS (again) SCI Life NRA Life Sables Life Mzuri IPHA "To be a Marine is enough." | |||
|
| One of Us |
You haven't upset me, secondtry. It may be that the first 4x-erector scopes were managed with a fixed-housing erector set but I'm sure the 6x and 7x-multiple scopes of Valdada are not and that they know the erector-tube system is not reliable enough to use in their tactical scopes. The 44mm objective in 14x scopes leaves you with a very small exit pupil, all right, but it is usable in good light and saves the even greater danger of accidental damage as the bell gets bigger. I've got one but only because I got sick of waiting for the shop to get a 3-12 as my tahr trip loomed. | |||
|
| One of Us |
No, I didn't think I would upset you Sambarman, but perhaps some of the many who must buy these high magnification/small objective, scopes. That small exit pupil makes it very hard to rapidly acquire a sight picture, or to reacquire said sight picture after a shot has been fired. For me anyway - others might not have the problem. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yes, secondtry, I agree with you there. To me the whole tendency towards higher powers and bigger ranges of variables is mostly folly. The only reason I went anywhere near 16x is because the NZ tahr have relatively small horns and I didn't want to carry a spotting scope. When I got over there I discovered that size is judged more on the colour of the animal. And when I came to shoot one, I didn't think to wind up the power, adjust the parallax or use the BDC reticle I had hung out to get, so a fixed 4x or 6x would have done just as well. | |||
|
| one of us |
The size of the exit pupil has virtually no influence on the latitude of eye placement (unless the exit pupil were several times as large as the eye pupil!) Some fixed scopes with only 20mm objectives provide some of the greatest latitude in eye placement and therefore speed and ease of sight picture acquisition. Some scopes with 50mm objectives, even at lowest power, have very critical eye placement, thus difficult sight picture acquisition. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Arminius, I am with you 100%. Lighted retcles are the way to go. I often had issues with "aiming small" and the lighted reticle allows me ( forces me ?) to have those crosshairs on the exact spot that I intend the bullet to hit. With moderate practice, human neural pathways develop a reflex of sorts for this to occur. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Stonecreek - I'm referring more to lateral placement, not so much fore and aft, though both seem to become more difficult. Try it. The narrow field at high powers is no help and the small exit pupil adds to the difficulty. If you try it and disagree that's fine. I'll just keep working with my physical problems | |||
|
| One of Us |
CLL- You are spreading FUD! Please do NOT do this on AR (or anywhere for that matter). Your statement regarding use of electronic sights precluding record book entry is totally FALSE!!! I am an Official Measurer for both SCI and Rowland Ward and had never heard your allegation, but just to confirm it, I called the SCI record book folks in Tucson and confirmed this is NOT true. The only exception would be if local fish & game laws prohibited such use. All record book entries must be in compliance with local laws wherever the trophy is taken. There is no record book prohibition on the use of illuminated scopes or red-dot sights, period! Mike ______________ DSC DRSS (again) SCI Life NRA Life Sables Life Mzuri IPHA "To be a Marine is enough." | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia