I still do not have a scope with a lighted rectile and I'm not sure if I need/want one. Actually, I don't think I need one, but may want one.

For those of you who do use a scope with the lighted rectile what do you think? Were you missing something? Which scope do you have and would you recommend it?

Thanks

I have been looking out my back where we often have deer at dawn and dusk. I think it will give you an extra 15-20 min. of hunting at each end of the day. The scopes will have a glass etched reticle which may offer other advantages too.

There is an impressive difference in very low light when the plex is on the dark hide and the rheostat is turned on and off.

I am a rookie with scopes but INMHO the illuminated reticle could trump a huge objective
or $500+ additional light gathering power for low light needs.

I have NightForce and US Optics scopes with lit reticles, and I do find myself using them quite often in low light conditions.
Probably the best use of the feature is with the NightForce, which has very fine cross-hairs. Because the crosshairs are so fine, it is difficult to see them when looking into a dark backgroung such as heavy timber, even in good light conditions.
The fine crosshairs are a plus when shooting from the bench, and the lit reticle makes the scope usable for serious hunting.
FWIW

MHX-TX
last year i was comparing my zeiss 3-9x36 the west german one to a BUSHNELL 2.5-10x50 with a illuminated dot, i did this over a period of several weeks to get the feel and i would say the bushnell was marginally better , but so little , that it was insignificant, however at very last light when it was dark when i turned the illuminated dot to on , what it did was to make aiming /shot placement far easier on animals like wombats kangaroos etc etc , i guess the a zeiss 3-12x56 would be far better than the bushnell, from a straight out optical point of view, i also found that the thick duplexes blocked/obstructed the light gathering qualities of the scope,
i came to the conculsion that for shooting in complete darkness where one can just see the shiloette of the animal , and at times not all that well the zeiss 3-12x56 with the illuminated vari point 0 dot is the best of the best, but this is a very specific purpose built set up , you do not have the thick duplexes obstructing anything , its just like looking through a binocular with a red dot
...another 4 weeks to go!!!!!
Daniel

I use a Leupold 3.5x10x50 ill on my big field rifle. It probably is good for 5-10 minutes more shooting time in the open field but think it would not improve shooting time in the woods. The leupold system has a VERY fine center of the crosshair that is lighted by a single battery. If the center is not light it is hard to see. The trick is to keep the center light as low as posible so your eye will focus on the target not the crosshair. I have tried this rifle in the woods once to see how it worked & was very unhappy with it.

Like Tom said, illuminated reticles need constant attention until it gets to be dead dark. If they're too bright you can't see anything, so they need to be just barely visible, but if you get the combo right they really help for those targets that would be too far out in the dark for "gross" aiming. By gross aiming, I mean just putting the animal in the middle of the scope and shooting. Sounds, well, gross, for those of us who are accuracy freaks but it kills them dead when they're close in.

quote:

Originally posted by tom ga hunter:
I use a Leupold 3.5x10x50 ill on my big field rifle. It probably is good for 5-10 minutes more shooting time in the open field but think it would not improve shooting time in the woods. The leupold system has a VERY fine center of the crosshair that is lighted by a single battery. If the center is not light it is hard to see. The trick is to keep the center light as low as posible so your eye will focus on the target not the crosshair. I have tried this rifle in the woods once to see how it worked & was very unhappy with it.

Tom,

Good posting.
I was concerned about what you write and decided not to get into lighted reticles as a result.

Don

For any and all that does lowlight shooting of game or varmints/predators a lighted reticle is a great aid since a goof FFP nr 1 reticle is not avaliable or preferable in many of todays high X scopes the reticle gets to thick.


I have two Ziess 6-24x56 Diavaria one with a nr 43 Mil dot and one with a lighted nr 43, the later can be used for a total of one full hour more when hunting dusk and dawn, for me that´s importent.

I set mine to a low glow and forgett about it, the higher settings are not required in my wiev.

Best regards Chris

I can see far past legal shooting times with any of my quality scopes w/o lighted reticles. Are you going to hunt at night?

More that can go wrong if you ask me.

I've also heard that lighted reticles make it harder to see in dim light, not to mention having to mess with batteries.

Reloader

i've shot an awful lot of stuff in really dark conditions with a ill., scope, but my preference is for a scope called micro dot. This one has just a 1 minute red dot in the center, which doesn't blind you.

Well, in low light it is a MUST have!

I have one Zeiss Victory Diavari 2,5-10x50
nd 3 Swarovski PV-N (European edition) 3-12x50

Guess what I definetly prefer? - The Swarovski´s...

Just goes to show how subjective the advantage or disadvantage can be. I belive everyone who posted that they like them has a good technique for their use but my experience was not so positive. But my use was specific to hunting in the dark, not trying to extend the last bit of shooting light.

My night hunting was pretty constant for 5 years(every month on the three nights around the full moon and usually one other weekend in the same month with or without any moonlight). Disregarding any hunting with a spotlight, I found the lighted reticle on my Nightforce too bright even on the lowest setting. It would over-power the sight picture. I even changed from a 3v battery to 1.5v battery which dimmed things but still not enough for me. I always prefered my Swarovski 3-12 x 56 with a good old-fashioned German #3 reticle.

That style of scope scope is made for low-light hunting by folks who do it traditionally and it works. The 3 heavy outer crosshairs made a focal point in the center of the field of view that allowed very precise shooting at short night ranges. The fine hairs were invisible but not needed under those conditions.

Depending on the size of the hog, the power ring was used to bracket the hog correctly in center of the scope by growing or shrinking the reticle, not by growing or shrinking the target. That allows one to perfectly frame the shot as opposed to trying to place a specific point in the center of the scope on a specific point on the animal.

It sounds like there would be more room for error but once the technique is understood, it is lightening fast and it allows for very precise shot placement.

On driven hunts, I really prefer lit reticles. Especially the Swarovski circle dot. They get you on target very fast.

Dito, a lighted reticle coupled with a 9,3x62 works ideally for drive hunting.

I am with Reloader. What did we do all these years without them? Although I believe in new technology, I am kind of a purist when it comes to hunting - I don't even have a range finder. However, if I ever come to the point of considering one, it would be for my coyote rifle - I hope I am not slipping. Lou

For me yes. I have found the best ones are just a dot, that can be adjusted from barely on upwards. Guess it depends on the quality of the scope and what your purpose is, but if you night hunt, or even very low light hunt, with a quality scope, there's no way I'll ever go back to the old days. My night hunter wears a Swarovski 3-12x50, with just a dot in the middle -- when it's daylight, I've got the crosshairs #4 to use, and in the dark, just barely on, you know exactly where you're aiming on the dark background of the animal, Waidmannsheil, Dom.

YES!

Two Mk4 with Mil-Dot lighted reticles, convinced me.

So far I've not made a shot with an illuminated reticle that I could not have made without it. So, no not necessary.

Also, in some scopes they are a problem, being too bright and flaring up.
Not to mention that in the last scope I baught, a Swaro Z6 1,7-10x42 it was going to cost me an extra 400 odd euros for the feature.

I do not think I will EVER buy another hunting scope that did not have an illuminated reticle.

I also perfer a scope that the illuminated reticle can be used in bright daylight, like the Swaroviski Circle Dot, or the S&B Flash Dot.