I know I am going to be in the minority, but actually I love the Bushnell Circle X reticle. It is the handiest for quick target acquisition. I works close up and at long distances on larger game.
After that would have to be the target dot.\
Third is I am fond of a German # 1 Heavy Reticle I have on a Leupold 3 x 9 that is mounted on Winchester Featherweight in 7 x 57 that I use for Elk Hunting.
Where I primarily Deer hunt, we can begin hunting an hour before sunrise until an hour after sunset. Based on that, I really appreciate the HEAVY Duplex during twilight when color consists only of shades of gray.
I've got one real old "Made in USA" K3-C3 Weaver with a Tapered Post which is real nice and quick to align.
I'd sure like to try one of the Leupold, Burris or Springfield Illuminated scopes with the "Variable" Intensity.
That Bushnell "Fire Fly" scope looks interesting. My only concern would be if you stuck the light to it and then went to use it, would the intensity of the light be too much for the background and overpower the Deer. Don't know and hope someone answers who has one.
Posts: 9920 | Location: Carolinas, USA | Registered: 22 April 2001
On European scopes for low light hunting: German #4, or a German #8 (some manufacturers call this #7) - unfortunately I have no illuminated reticles, but if I had, they would be modifications of the above.
I like the Zeiss Z-Plex reticle - thicker outer arms than the standard (Leupold) Duplex, yet nice thin crosshair.
On a Leupold, I go to the Heavy Duplex, as the regular Duplex is too thin to be any good for low light hunting. Sadly, Leupold has not caught onto, that what you need are THICK outers and THIN inners, so in Heavy Duplex you get thick inners as well. Not so ideal for range work, but fine for hunting. - mike
Posts: 6653 | Location: Switzerland | Registered: 11 March 2002
I agree with J223 about illuminated recticules, the problem with them is that if it is dark enough to have problems seeing the recticule the illumination will wash out the sight picture. The only scope that ever got it right was the old B&L ones that would just have a tiny dot light up when they were switched on. If I found a model like that I would recommend it but otherwise they are pretty much a useless gadget.
Posts: 7786 | Location: Between 2 rivers, Middle USA | Registered: 19 August 2000
One has to be carefull on illuminated or any other scope that takes a battery.I found out the hard way.I have a .454 and put a Burris Speed Dot on it only to find out it is illegal to hunt with in Idaho.Any scope that takes a battery is illegal to hunt with in Idaho and a couple other states I believe.I sure don't understand it as the Speed Dot is not magnified and the sight picture is not as clear as a good Leupold.Owe well live and learn.
Just my opinion.Jayco.
Posts: 565 | Location: Central Idaho | Registered: 27 February 2004
Quote: ... I thought they would work good at low light and also if game was against a dark background. Trust me on this one save your money
Hey Jimmy, Could you expound on that a bit more. I thought the "new" Leupolds have a variable intensity level. Is that wrong? What was the problem you had?
I do know they do not give their Gold Ring Lifetime Warranty on them. That in itself caused me to wonder "Why not?"!
...
Quote: ...(HEAVY Duplex) Not so ideal for range work, but fine for hunting. - mike
Hey Mike, What kind of Target are you shooting?
...
Quote: ...The only scope that ever got it right was the old B&L ones that would just have a tiny dot light up when they were switched on. If I found a model like that I would recommend it but otherwise they are pretty much a useless gadget.
Hey Mark, When I went to the 2000 NRA Convention all the "illuminated" Burris Scopes had what they call Electro Dot. It was just a single illuminated dot in the center of the regular Duplex reticle. Don't know if they have changed from that format or not.
I seem to remember they had Off, Low and High intensities, or they were not variable over a range of intensities.
Two questions; 1. How do you know when the scope is canted with just the Dot illuminating?
2. What do you base the "gimic" status on? Not arguing with you, trying to learn about them.
...
Quote: The best lit reticle I have ever owned, was a S&B L7. Probably the best scope I ever owned too...
Hey Sakofan, I'd appreciate it if you would tell us a bit more about it too. What made it so good?
Posts: 9920 | Location: Carolinas, USA | Registered: 22 April 2001
Hot core, the S&B L7 was good to me, because you still have the nice thick reticle, but only the small cross in the middle was lit. Didnt cover the target. MHO...sakofan..They are the cats a$$ of lit reticles.......
Posts: 1379 | Location: North Carolina | Registered: 11 March 2003
HotCore, out of due respect for the elderly I won't respond about that comment from the fellow that posted right before you.
The two that I had were both the 4.5-14 X 50's one was a 1" tube and 1 a 30mm tube. It seemed that the slightest sunlight would wash out the illuminated cross hairs, sort of turn it a gold color.and really almost make it disappear. I found that a standard mil-dot was just as good if not better. As stated above the are not allowed in Washington for big game hunting.
The second part I can only blame on operator error you guessed it, I just never could remember to turn off the battery switch.
Posts: 1605 | Location: Wa. State | Registered: 19 November 2001
I never even owned a scope until a few years ago, and found that the #2 post & crosshair in a low power most resembles the iron sights that I am familiar with.
Well I guess I will jump in. Frankly I've had trouble with the leaupold standard duplex in low light. But, I still got the game. Any how I had lepould install a # 4 which has three posts and a crosshair in a 2x7x33 last week. It is getting very dark right now in my backyard so I just pulled it out of the safe and took a look at a dark stump in some brush behind the house and it looks very promising. the lack of the fourth post lets in more light than a heavy duplex. But I still hope my bear this Spring shows up early.
Posts: 367 | Location: Farmington, Mo | Registered: 07 July 2002
My favorite right now is the old "Safari Post" offered by Burris in the Signature select line. Top of the post is about 3 moa and has a horizontal hair right below the tip of the post. Vary fast and gives a clear view.
I just ordered a Leupold with wide duplex. It will be interesting to see if it is of any advantage.
Posts: 185 | Location: IL | Registered: 25 March 2004
Quote: I take it then , the "posts" on a german 4a are much heavier than on a standard duplex ?
Yes, this has certainly been true on all scopes I have handled. Although, the German #4 comes with a number of different subtensions depending on manufacturer. But even Leupold puts heavier outers on the #4 than on its Heavy Duplex.
Note: the #4 is (slightly) different from the #4a - the #4a has a larger distance between the heavy posts. Some people prefer this, as they say the heavy posts obscure less of the target. I tend to like the #4, as the closer the heavy posts are (within reason), the more they help me in low light, where I don't see the crosshairs anyway. - mike
Posts: 6653 | Location: Switzerland | Registered: 11 March 2002
Quote: ...(HEAVY Duplex) Not so ideal for range work, but fine for hunting. - mike
Hey Mike, What kind of Target are you shooting?
Yes, I think we have discussed this before. I have heard of people having good results with the heavy crosshairs when lining up to a "corner" of a target. I must admit to not having tried this myself. I'm not that imaginative in the use of targets. If the reticle covers more (larger subtension), I usually stick on a larger round sighting dot. It is very likely I could do better with other targets. Educate me?? - mike
Posts: 6653 | Location: Switzerland | Registered: 11 March 2002
Quote: ... It seemed that the slightest sunlight would wash out the illuminated cross hairs, sort of turn it a gold color.and really almost make it disappear. I found that a standard mil-dot was just as good if not better. As stated above the are not allowed in Washington for big game hunting...
Hey Jimmy, Thank you! I "REALLY" understand the "gold flare". It has cost me shots before on regular reticles.
Posts: 9920 | Location: Carolinas, USA | Registered: 22 April 2001
Quote: ...The only scope that ever got it right was the old B&L ones that would just have a tiny dot light up when they were switched on. If I found a model like that I would recommend it but otherwise they are pretty much a useless gadget.
Hey Mark, When I went to the 2000 NRA Convention all the "illuminated" Burris Scopes had what they call Electro Dot. It was just a single illuminated dot in the center of the regular Duplex reticle. Don't know if they have changed from that format or not.
I seem to remember they had Off, Low and High intensities, or they were not variable over a range of intensities.
Two questions; 1. How do you know when the scope is canted with just the Dot illuminating?
2. What do you base the "gimic" status on? Not arguing with you, trying to learn about them.
Hot Core, I'll answer the second question first.
To me, a feature has to work in the application I have for it or it is just a gimmick. For things like coyotes and racoons when you are shooting at night and it is too dark to see the crosshairs is really the only time that I find a use for the illuminated feature, otherwise if you can see the crosshairs why bother? Now, when it is that dark it is also difficult to see the target usually, and if the particular scope also illuminates the entire crosshairs it will wash out the picture to where you cannot see what you are aiming at, as the background will have a red glow to it. A tiny red dot, the smaller the better, is the least noticeable yet effective way to minimize this. Remember you still have to identify your target and all that stuff, so an illuminated scope needs to have more of a hunting accuracy approach than a target accuracy approach.
At these ranges I have not found canting to be a factor.
Mark
Posts: 7786 | Location: Between 2 rivers, Middle USA | Registered: 19 August 2000
Quote: ... Yes, I think we have discussed this before. I have heard of people having good results with the heavy crosshairs when lining up to a "corner" of a target. I must admit to not having tried this myself. I'm not that imaginative in the use of targets. If the reticle covers more (larger subtension), I usually stick on a larger round sighting dot. It is very likely I could do better with other targets. Educate me?? - mike
Hey Mike, We must have discussed this before. You are correct about snugging up to a corner of a black square is what I have good luck with. When I do this, I'm only having to focus on the small white portion(verticle and horizontal) of the target between the crosshair and the black square. Just as the crosshair joins the corner, the bullet is on it's way.
I do have buddies who prefer the round orange dots. But when I use them, I have to check 4 quadrants to be sure I'm centered. For me that creates more eye movement and delays my "Trigger Yanking" .
Might not help you at all, but it might eliminate some wierd fliers and close your groups a bit.
Best of luck to you!
Posts: 9920 | Location: Carolinas, USA | Registered: 22 April 2001
I like a standard duplex although I would prefer a heavier duplex for a dangerous game rifle, or any rifle that I would potentially be using at very close range. Mil-dots are great for shooting at things way out there, but I try not to take shots at game that require that much hold-over.
Posts: 991 | Location: AL | Registered: 13 January 2003
Quote: ... when you are shooting at night and it is too dark to see the crosshairs is really the only time that I find a use for the illuminated feature, otherwise if you can see the crosshairs why bother?
Completely agree!
Quote: Now, when it is that dark it is also difficult to see the target usually, and if the particular scope also illuminates the entire crosshairs it will wash out the picture to where you cannot see what you are aiming at, as the background will have a red glow to it.
That has been my concern ever since I looked at the first one I saw.
Quote: A tiny red dot, the smaller the better, is the least noticeable yet effective way to minimize this. Remember you still have to identify your target and all that stuff, so an illuminated scope needs to have more of a hunting accuracy approach than a target accuracy approach.
At these ranges I have not found canting to be a factor.
Hey Mark, Thank you! You addressed all the original concerns I had.
With the HEAVY Duplex and 50mm Objective I can pick up 15-20 minutes of extra "legal" hunting on each end of a SC Lowcountry day. That only leaves 15-20min more legal time and I generally use that heading to or from the truck. So, the Illuminated Reticle would have an extremely limited use for me anyhow.
All in all, I'd say you gays saved me a good bit of money with your input. Thanks.
...
Oh by the way, one of my NC buddies has one of the Leupold "LPS" scopes that is 4-5 years old. I'm pretty sure it is a 3.5-14x, 50mm, HEAVY Duplex, with a 30mm tube. We ran a very unscientific test with it, a VariX-III, VariX-II and a Burris Fullfield II a few years ago about 30min after sunset.
Gotta admit that "LPS" was a clear winner when looking into a woods about 75yds away. Even though you are looking through them with one eye, the "LPS" gave you the impression of depth perception. Didn't make sense to me then and still doesn't today that you can perceive depth with only one eye.
No intention of starting a "Best Scope" discussion. Just wanted to mention that LPS and it's reticle as being amazingly clear in twilight conditions.
Posts: 9920 | Location: Carolinas, USA | Registered: 22 April 2001
I have a Bushnell Banner from 1972 with a flat top post and horizontal cross-hair. This is the best hunting reticle I have owned. If the new VX111's had been a biigger improvement I would have ordered a 1.75-5X32 from Premier Reticles with this reticle. Mark
Posts: 277 | Location: melbourne, australia | Registered: 19 October 2002
.
