quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Matter of fact there was a guy down at the local shop looking for an illuminated scope today. The trouble wasn't space-occupying lesions on the ocular as it happened - just that every one he went to try had a flat battery.

I find that incredibly odd. I recently bought a 20007 production Zenith that was all original -- including the battery. Guess what? It still worked...as did the back-up

In the situation you mention, it's more likely that he didn't know how to operate the scopes, or perhaps he didn't know that the illumination -- on the better scopes -- won't even show up inside until you are at the 3rd, 4th or maybe even 5th setting and simply chose to blame ALL of the batteries for being dead. Or were there batteries even in the scopes???

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I've looked through the scopes in the shop, Bobby that was enough.

Ahhh...I see: you've arrived at your speculation without any actual experience in using these scopes. Those of us who actually use them and have spent substantial time with them choose to base their claims on experience-based fact.

If the illumination housing would actually be a "problem" that blocks one's view, how do you explain all the Butler Creek (and similar) flip-up users who never, ever seem to have an issue?

You should get out in the field and actually give illuminated scopes a try. Put in some time with them to formulate an opinion. Chances are, you might even like them.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Matter of fact there was a guy down at the local shop looking for an illuminated scope today. The trouble wasn't space-occupying lesions on the ocular as it happened - just that every one he went to try had a flat battery.

I find that incredibly odd. I recently bought a 20007 production Zenith that was all original -- including the battery. Guess what? It still worked...as did the back-up

In the situation you mention, it's more likely that he didn't know how to operate the scopes, or perhaps he didn't know that the illumination -- on the better scopes -- won't even show up inside until you are at the 3rd, 4th or maybe even 5th setting and simply chose to blame ALL of the batteries for being dead. Or were there batteries even in the scopes???

Like bobby I also find that extremely strange, I use an S&B and Swarovski with illuminated reticles as well as my Leica Geovid which also uses batteries, and I have never changed them. All of them are over 8+ years old and are subjected to a lot of hunting. The S&B has taken around 2000 head of game during hunting, culling etc and all seems to be working well. I do carry spare batteries in my pack but have never needed them.

But what do I know, I just use these products in the field and not write books about it.

https://imgur.com/a/PcZhnEs

Well Bobby, here is a view of a certain illuminated scope I hate. Usually my pics show the view through the optic but this one fixed on the tunnel-vision-creating eyepiece and field stop and the ugly crap on top. I think people who hunt habitually with bulky lens protectors in place are also misguided.

I'm afraid that, as an adherant of Aldo Leopold's philosophy, use of electrics in game hunting do not fit my ethics, so will not be spending my limited resources on illuminated scopes I don't need, anyway.

The problem I see with your ultra-reliable scopes, MD375, is that they are setting you up for a catastrophic moment. As I mention in that book, I think your batteries have something in common with the little guys I used to use in my old manual SLR camera. The batteries lasted for years if not decades, and after a while I misplaced the replacement battery I kept for it and forgot to get another one. It was a great camera, still my favorite, but there was a wailing and gnashing of teeth when the battery finally failed on an overseas holiday, so long after the camera was made that those batteries were no longer available. I eventually got a similar one and made it work by adding a piece of silver foil, but it was a near thing and several good shots were certainly missed.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

The problem I see with your ultra-reliable scopes, MD375, is that they are setting you up for a catastrophic moment.

Really??? He still has a normal RETICLE to use should the batteries fail. The function of these scopes is NOT dependent upon a battery. They work just fine without one or with a dead one. If you'd acquaint yourself with these scopes to gain some actual experience with them, you'd know that. Just saying'...

Also, you said "I think people who hunt habitually with bulky lens protectors in place are also misguided." Please elaborate on this line of thinking. Some people actually do care about their optics. I think more hunters SHOULD use covers. I've seen a few alpha scopes for sale that I wouldn't give $50 for because they were abused and the lenses not protected. One of them, a Zeiss Diavari V, was listed as "excellent," but the seller -- the original owner -- never used covers, and the coatings were all but gone (the exterior of the scope was indeed "excellent"). With any side or bad-lighting, you may as well have been looking through a $30 Simmons with dirty lenses as the image degraded substantially. So I guess you can count me as one of those "misguided" folks who believes in protecting optics.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

The problem I see with your ultra-reliable scopes, MD375, is that they are setting you up for a catastrophic moment.

Really??? He still has a normal RETICLE to use should the batteries fail. The function of these scopes is NOT dependent upon a battery. They work just fine without one or with a dead one. If you'd acquaint yourself with these scopes to gain some actual experience with them, you'd know that. Just saying'...

Also, you said "I think people who hunt habitually with bulky lens protectors in place are also misguided." Please elaborate on this line of thinking. Some people actually do care about their optics. I think more hunters SHOULD use covers. I've seen a few alpha scopes for sale that I wouldn't give $50 for because they were abused and the lenses not protected. One of them, a Zeiss Diavari V, was listed as "excellent," but the seller -- the original owner -- never used covers, and the coatings were all but gone (the exterior of the scope was indeed "excellent"). With any side or bad-lighting, you may as well have been looking through a $30 Simmons with dirty lenses as the image degraded substantially. So I guess you can count me as one of those "misguided" folks who believes in protecting optics.

I am bad about not using lense covers. But I normally carry my guns in soft cases.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
https://imgur.com/a/PcZhnEs

Well Bobby, here is a view of a certain illuminated scope I hate. Usually my pics show the view through the optic but this one fixed on the tunnel-vision-creating eyepiece and field stop and the ugly crap on top. I think people who hunt habitually with bulky lens protectors in place are also misguided.

I'm afraid that, as an adherant of Aldo Leopold's philosophy, use of electrics in game hunting do not fit my ethics, so will not be spending my limited resources on illuminated scopes I don't need, anyway.

The problem I see with your ultra-reliable scopes, MD375, is that they are setting you up for a catastrophic moment. As I mention in that book, I think your batteries have something in common with the little guys I used to use in my old manual SLR camera. The batteries lasted for years if not decades, and after a while I misplaced the replacement battery I kept for it and forgot to get another one. It was a great camera, still my favorite, but there was a wailing and gnashing of teeth when the battery finally failed on an overseas holiday, so long after the camera was made that those batteries were no longer available. I eventually got a similar one and made it work by adding a piece of silver foil, but it was a near thing and several good shots were certainly missed.

Unlike your camera, if my battery runs flat, I can still USE my scope, the reticle does not disappear.

Ethically, my aim is take the animal as cleanly as possible with minimal suffering and I will use whatever technology available that will ensure clean quick kills be it bipods, moderators, shooting sticks, illuminated variable scopes etc.

For your purposes, Bobby, that obsession with the cleanliness of the glass probably makes sense; for some of us a scope is just a sight we need to get into action pretty quick and not to be cleaned every time a drop of rain get on a lens. I recall having some of those Uncle Mike flip-off lens covers on my scope when it was raining. A big hind got up right in front of me but the moment it took for me to flick the rear cover off (whereby the front one went too) was enough for for her to get away. Since then I try to keep the rifle under the side flap of my coat when the bush is wet.

As I've explained previously, though the illuminated dot may get you on to the target quicker, I fear that people who use it constantly might get so dependent that if it ever does fail they may be momentarily at such a loss they'll fluff the shot - the semi-auto paradox rewrit.

You see, if you convince yourself that this technology is so good you've got to have it and spend twice as much on a scope to get it, it destroys your faith in anything less. The conventional reticle is there but you may not even see it. History is full of strange behaviour. Think of the soldier at one of the American Civil War battles who somehow managed to load his muzzle-loader 23 times, (thankfully?) without remembering to fire it once.

Once again, MD375, on most occasions (except possibly on that black-as-black bear) an illuminated dot won't make for a safer shot than say a #1 or #4 reticle - but it might kid you into staying out later than is safe.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
For your purposes, Bobby, that obsession with the cleanliness of the glass probably makes sense; for some of us a scope is just a sight we need to get into action pretty quick and not to be cleaned every time a drop of rain get on a lens. I recall having some of those Uncle Mike flip-off lens covers on my scope when it was raining. A big hind got up right in front of me but the moment it took for me to flick the rear cover off (whereby the front one went too) was enough for for her to get away. Since then I try to keep the rifle under the side flap of my coat when the bush is wet.

As I've explained previously, though the illuminated dot may get you on to the target quicker, I fear that people who use it constantly might get so dependent that if it ever does fail they may be momentarily at such a loss they'll fluff the shot - the semi-auto paradox rewrit.

You see, if you convince yourself that this technology is so good you've got to have it and spend twice as much on a scope to get it, it destroys your faith in anything less. The conventional reticle is there but you may not even see it. History is full of strange behaviour. Think of the soldier at one of the American Civil War battles who somehow managed to load his muzzle-loader 23 times, (thankfully?) without remembering to fire it once.

Once again, MD375, on most occasions (except possibly on that black-as-black bear) an illuminated dot won't make for a safer shot than say a #1 or #4 reticle - but it might kid you into staying out later than is safe.

Cleanliness of glass should not be over looked. Hard to hit what you can’t see.

Your blabbering BS get quite old, you’re only an expert in your own mind.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
For your purposes, Bobby, that obsession with the cleanliness of the glass probably makes sense; for some of us a scope is just a sight we need to get into action pretty quick and not to be cleaned every time a drop of rain get on a lens. I recall having some of those Uncle Mike flip-off lens covers on my scope when it was raining. A big hind got up right in front of me but the moment it took for me to flick the rear cover off (whereby the front one went too) was enough for for her to get away. Since then I try to keep the rifle under the side flap of my coat when the bush is wet.

As I've explained previously, though the illuminated dot may get you on to the target quicker, I fear that people who use it constantly might get so dependent that if it ever does fail they may be momentarily at such a loss they'll fluff the shot - the semi-auto paradox rewrit.

You see, if you convince yourself that this technology is so good you've got to have it and spend twice as much on a scope to get it, it destroys your faith in anything less. The conventional reticle is there but you may not even see it. History is full of strange behaviour. Think of the soldier at one of the American Civil War battles who somehow managed to load his muzzle-loader 23 times, (thankfully?) without remembering to fire it once.

Once again, MD375, on most occasions (except possibly on that black-as-black bear) an illuminated dot won't make for a safer shot than say a #1 or #4 reticle - but it might kid you into staying out later than is safe.

Sambarman, I respect your opinion and knowledge, you seem to have done much more research than all of us.

We do not use illuminated ALL the time. Try hunting hunting bushpigs, jackal etc at night with and without an illuminated reticle. I guarantee I know which one you’ll pick after 1 or 2 outings. More and more PHs are actually putting red dots on doubles and DGR rifles.

Keeping your glass clean is just as important, last week I was out stalking Chinese water deer in pissing rain, my guide had slipped on a latex glove over the front lense. We stumbled upon a real big boy at no more than 40-50m. He couldn’t see/smell us and just kept feeding along. Simple process to remove the glove get ready and I took him at 25m. I guarantee you if I didn’t have the glove on, my lense would’ve been F****d.

Thanks MD375 but no, I don't consider my outlook on this matter, at least, researched; it's more philosophy with a bit of homespun observation and psychology thrown in.

Yes, if you only use the light intermittently, you should not develop that dependency. I imagine that if you're shooting at night without an external light, an illuminated scope would be a big help. I have been known to shoot rabbits and foxes by spotlight, so have no problem with using electrics and high-tech stuff for pest destruction.

I've even had some experience with rain causing trouble with lenses, beyond just not being able to see through them. Once I got deer's blood on my best scope and foolishly irrigated the lens with a commercial glass spray to get it off. Next day it rained like hell, the lens got wet and the scope fogged up, perhaps because enzymes in the blood and/or the lens cleaner had eaten some seals. The scope was 21 years old, too, but I sent it back to Austria to be refurbished - at a cost almost twice what I'd paid for it new.

PM me your address, MD, and I'll give you a copy of the book, to save jwp475 being bored to death by my going over things further here.

No, jwp, I'm no more an expert than you are a grammarian.

How does Special Ops function with the use of illuminated optics, night vision, red dots, etc.?!?!
Oh yea, they train, train, train and plan for contingencies. If you have become "psychologically dependent" on a bloody optic (or any other tool or kit) and flake out when it fails (because $hit happens or you forgot to plan), you shouldn't be handling a firearm or hunting.


Happy Christmas...……..LL

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Thanks MD375 but no, I don't consider my outlook on this matter, at least, researched; it's more philosophy with a bit of homespun observation and psychology thrown in.

Yes, if you only use the light intermittently, you should not develop that dependency. I imagine that if you're shooting at night without an external light, an illuminated scope would be a big help. I have been known to shoot rabbits and foxes by spotlight, so have no problem with using electrics and high-tech stuff for pest destruction.

I've even had some experience with rain causing trouble with lenses, beyond just not being able to see through them. Once I got deer's blood on my best scope and foolishly irrigated the lens with a commercial glass spray to get it off. Next day it rained like hell, the lens got wet and the scope fogged up, perhaps because enzymes in the blood and/or the lens cleaner had eaten some seals. The scope was 21 years old, too, but I sent it back to Austria to be refurbished - at a cost almost twice what I'd paid for it new.

PM me your address, MD, and I'll give you a copy of the book, to save jwp475 being bored to death by my going over things further here.

No, jwp, I'm no more an expert than you are a grammarian.

At least I have experience with Optics that I have an opinion on and comment on. Instead of spouting a bunch of BS. I've read your BS in the Optics forum for a long time before I called BS
Bobby Tomeck has forgotten more about Optics than you have ever known.

Well SF, defence forces may not always pick perfect products for their troops to be involved with, though I imagine snipers recognise the value in illuminated sights.

Though spending billions on fighters etc now is all the go, 150 years ago armies deliberately chose single-shot rifles for their troops because they didn't want them to waste ammo. The Canadian army probably thought the Ross rifle was a good idea and the French were content to press on with the tubular-magazined Lebel into WWI. Agent Orange was marvellous in Vietnam and land for miles around our airforce bases is now contaminated with deleterious fire retardent.

So, just because armies use or do stuff, don't assume it is an absolutely great idea that should be taken up by everyone else in society as well. Will you be conducting training courses for big-game hunters to make sure they won't fall foul of their equipment, too?

Happy Christmas to you, too, jwp!

Sambarman: I assume your opinion of what the military does or does not do is based on all of your other opinions: zero experience. No, I won't be running any course. If someone is too lazy and irresponsible to practice and become proficient with whatever kit he chooses, he can just buy your book and form opinions and excuses based on limited experience much like you do.


All that said, I do appreciate a good BS'er but after awhile it does become a bore.

Regardless, Happy Christmas!

quote:

Originally posted by Quintus:
I have not read the books, but have used the VXR in 2-7 and 4-12. The dot is fantastic for bears, especially black bears. In low light it can be very difficult to find the shoulder on those black buggers and even tougher to get the crosshairs where you want them. The firedot makes this much easier. I have not had an issue with mine. Also, not only have I not missed a shot or opportunity due to the dot, I have made several shots calling fox and yotes at night that I probably wouldn't have taken without. I guess to this point I have only seen the positives.

Bear hunting is the main reason why I went with a VXR on my .350RM. You are quite correct on the advantages it provides.



The rifle gets thrashed pretty good during this hunt and never has the dot failed to work when needed. It also has Leupold scope covers. A little practice allows me to flip them up as the rifle comes up. It takes less than a second.

I just don't buy the "theory" that some seem to think is important that all this somehow will slow me down or become dependent and on. I also shoot with both eyes open so the idea that there is somehow going to be tunnel vision doesn't hold much water.

All I can say is you either practice with your chosen equipment or make excuses why it didn't work.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
You still haven't answered my question as to how many times you have actually had your view and shot blocked/obstructed or interrupted by an illumination system.

He can’t answer your question, because he has zero experience with one.
He spouts half baked opinion and try’s to pass it off as fact.

Can't add much here except, Merry Christmas, gentlemen.

Thanks Bill, I hope you've had a happy holiday, too!

SFRanger, you're right, I have had zero experience in the forces and am happy to say it, if only because the former soldiers I know of who've seen much action seem to lose their lust for hunting.

Whether extensive training in use of vulnerable equipment makes more sense than selecting reliable equipment is a matter I continue to wonder about, though. Electricity and batteries are wonderful things but when it comes to atavistic activities in remote and sometimes dangerous circumstances, I feel the less reliance we need to make on stuff that can possibly let us down, the better.

Will illuminated sights ever let you down? Not often it seems but I seem to recall that although Leupold guarantees their scopes for life, until recently at least, they would only guarantee the illumination for one or two years.

Call me a Luddite but I prefer to limit my dependence on decadent mod cons in the bush when possible. My 4X4 is a manual because you can't push-start an automatic and crank handles are like hens teeth these days. I wish my car did not have electric windows, at least on the driver's side. Why, because they are just another thing to break down. Some guys drowned in a river here recently, apparently because the windows would not go down and they couldn't open the doors until too late because of the pressure from outside.

Sorry if my arguments are boring and sometimes reiterated but I thought a forum was a place where people argue different positions. In other places on AR, threads run to hundreds of chapters with good grace, with writers posting consecutively with impunity. Should this one be a mutual-admiration society?

Thanks Cougarz, good points. You might find back a few posts that I have already tipped my lid to Quintus's point about black bears. Unfortunately, I'll be using someone's else's rifle when I go after them in May, so, even if it were not an ethical problem for me, I might have to go without illumination.

Yes, if I found myself hunting somewhere that muddy, I might consider flip-up scope caps. Matter of fact, I had some on when hunting NZ tahr in 2011 and they may have stopped mud getting on the lenses when I slipped over and bumped the scope on a soft, muddy bank. (They didn't save my shot, though, when a chamois appeared a few minutes later. My guide was a man who hated to stand still for long, so I just got up and followed him as he expected. Despite the minimal impact of that interaction with the mud, the large objective had been wrenched in the mounts, knocking the scope 10 MoA out of whack, causing me to miss the chamois only 120 yards away.)

Not sure if you read all the posts, jwp, but I did explain that it was against my self-imposed standards to use electronic aids in hunting game. Had you read my contributions in other threads you would know that I respect Bobby's knowledge of the high-end scopes used to shoot hogs at the bottom of his garden and understand his need and justification of new technology to overcome his physical disability.

Did you have nice Christmas, there, under your bridge?

Sambarman you are missing the point entirely. It is not about "extensive training in use of vulnerable equipment...". Anything made by man is vulnerable. It is about extensive training period and being prepared for contingencies. Train and plan for the worst and hope for the best. Never make a plan based on hope. If you base your success on everything going right, you are limiting yourself and/or setting yourself up for failure. Those who have the mental breakdown you continue to point out are not prepared for contingencies. When the crap hits the fan, nobody grows a big "S" on their chest. You do what you have trained to do.

This thread has made me take one of my vx-r out of my stockpile (I bought 3 at academy on clearance) and put it on custom ahr 375 h&h.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by SFRanger7GP:
Sambarman you are missing the point entirely. It is not about "extensive training in use of vulnerable equipment...". Anything made by man is vulnerable. It is about extensive training period and being prepared for contingencies. Train and plan for the worst and hope for the best. Never make a plan based on hope. If you base your success on everything going right, you are limiting yourself and/or setting yourself up for failure. Those who have the mental breakdown you continue to point out are not prepared for contingencies. When the crap hits the fan, nobody grows a big "S" on their chest. You do what you have trained to do.

I wouldn't class that situation I mentioned as a mental breakdown, simply a phenomenon of animal/human existence that may happen in times of stress. No matter how hard we practise, things can sometimes go wrong.

For instance, I always make a habit of slipping the safety on a gun or rifle just before I go to fire because, if I release it early, that might be forgotten at the last moment and I could waste time trying to push a shotgun-type catch forward again.

So, even when I shoot clay targets, I engage the safety and slip it again just as I raise the gun, because that will be the situation when ducks appear on opening day. (This has not been a problem after rapid reloading when the non-automatic safety has been off but I think an automatic safety would make the procedure more consistent, with shotguns at least.)

Doing this has worked well for me for many years - except one day when my PH in Mozambique had me run back through long grass to get a shot at a big kudu. Despite his well-honed procedure of holding the sticks while making an elbow support of his back, I could not get that shot off.

Somehow, in the excitement I had forgotten to slip the safety and could not understand why the rifle wouldn't fire. That is not the same as not seeing an existing reticle but is analogous in that it shows how no amount of training or practice might be so fool-proof as to cover all exigencies.

In my case an M70-type safety or, better, an old Mauser flag safety, straight up and blocking sights, might have alerted me to the problem; in the case of scopes, a non-illuminated reticle or an illuminated one used only when necessary might leave the shooter in a less-vulnerable position.

I ordered the VX-6 with the Firedot as soon as they were introduced by Leupold. There was very little information on them at that time. All of my hunting rifles from 270 to 375 now wear the VX6s with the Firedots. The VX6 are great scopes and to date I have yet to have a problem with one of any kind whether that is optically, mechanically, or with the electronics. But I know that if I do, Leupold is there to take care of it. To me they are well worth it.

I also run the VXR on some other rifles and ARs and again they have been flawless.

I have used several extensively, including Swaro, Zeiss, S&B, and Leupold. They are fantastic and certainly worth the extra money. I always choose a simple red dot, in darkness it don't take much, daylight requires a lot more juice to make them show. All have crosshairs and can be used without the illumination.

To each his own, but I definitely prefer them. Perhaps for a high noon daylight hunter not required, but early/late and any night hunting sure makes the shot a whole lot easier!

In summary, only if you need it; if not bulky and heavier than needed.

I've followed this thread with interest, not least because I've enjoyed the posts of Sambarman here over some time and because I am finding his book enlightening and thought provoking and also because I agree with quite number of the opinions on the usefulness of illumination by other posters.

Sambarman knows that I too like simplicity and I think that trends have moved in a direction driven by marketing and not by the actual usefulness of many products or so-called "innovations", including scopes (particularly massive magnifications and the big zoom factors). Optics have however developed a great deal over the years and image quality is better than ever in affordable packages. Some other negatives have been introduced in the process of course and Sambarman's book does delve into some of these.

The ability to blend field of view and locate a target is critical in hunting and moreso where quicker shooting may be required. A large well blended FOV and depth of view is good for this and not all scopes provide this.

I have also personally witnessed very bad tunnel vision; interestingly both on 2.5-10 Euro's; one a Swaro Habicht and another an IOR. Currently I still own both, but they are effectively 4-10x scopes. I also abhor scopes which actually require a fine parallax adjustment for focus, as this is impractical in the field. For longer range shooting where time may be on your side and that magnification works best, no problem.

I have also witnessed issues with high turrets on scopes where quick acquisition is required - my Z6 1-6 on my AR used for IPSC for example. One of the turret covers is deeper, to accommodate a spare battery, and I oscillate between thinking it is less bothersome as elevation or windage turret cap. Here the VXR is quite unobtrusive.

Illumunation adds both bulk and weight, which I generally don't want on a walk and stalk type rifle used for shorter range hunting.

However... where needed it is great and I don't share Sambarman's view on ethics and illumination. I feel that it is my duty to make the best shot and to kill my quarry in the most efficient manner and if illumination aids this then so much the better. Like others the illumination is not always utilised.

I have had illuminated optics on my 375 H&H for many years, first a 1-5 VXIII (yep pre VX3) euro with the "circle dot" reticle (an excellent reticle by the way) and later replaced this with a 3-9x40 VXR. I later bought two more secondhand. I have been very impressed with the VXR 3-9 in the specific application.

Sure, other brands or a VX6 may have better optics, but for most hunting it is great and reliability has been excellent. I found the illumination very valuable hunting small antelope in the dense and sometimes all-day-twilight forests of Mozambique where the ability to see the centre of the reticle instantly was a great help. So too I have found it useful when hunting dark coloured game in dense bush. I would prefer them lighter in weight though! This is also a Leupold with a large occular lense (unusual for Leupold) which makes mounting low a problem on some rifles and I cannot live with a scope mounted too high, so do be aware of this.

I am a fan of 3X zoom if I must have a variable and the VXR offers this.

All in all a great product, but for most of my needs it could be a fixed and probably also not illuminated! I wonder how much interest there would be in 3 of 4X fixed illuminated reticle? The S&B offers this is 6X and 8X. I am mostly a set and forget hunter and make a choice depending on terrain. I like more magnification for load development and sighting in, where the confidence of a good shooting rifle assists me when I hunt with it later at 2X or 3X magnification. Of course there are times when more magnification is useful, particularly on a rifle which may see use out a bit further.

I've had no issues with my VXR's (or my old VXIII Illuminated). They have done a lot of miles on my 375 on flights, in trucks and sometimes in boats and over my shoulder and for literally several hundreds of stout loads. I would not use an illuminated reticle which did not have a visible crosshair if the illumination failed for some reason.

If you feel that illumination is worth it then go for it, but if you don't need it, then it is expensive in both price and bulk.

Thanks AL,
yes, you and Quintus may have a point when it comes to dark animals like black bears and 'panthers'. And, I guess even if illumination is seen as an ethical problem, it is no worse than bating for leopards and bears - and it appears a drum of fish is the go where I'm going in May.

As you have probably gleaned by now, I blame thick rubber eyepieces for a lot of the tunnel vision these days, though image-movement probably added a bit while cutting five feet off Leupold's 4x field of view in the mid 1960s. There is a solution that could give eyebrow protection without adding tunnel vision (as mentioned in the book) but I don't think any maker has taken it up yet.

I'm not a scope technician but I suspect the bigger-and-bigger magnification multiples come with a cost to erector tube length and mass. For many decades multiples beyond 3x and then 4x were in the too-hard basket, and I wonder why. Though a guru on another forum says powering up can involve pulling one of the erector lenses back, the traditional method has been (as in camera zooms) to move both/all forward. This may require a lengthened erector tube and result in more leverage under recoil inertia.