illuminated compared heavy post and crosshair reticle for low light shooting

[philipbrousseau]

for the people who have used both in very low light conditions is one superior to the other? hunting farm fields i've used the heavy leupold and s-b but never an illuminated reticle. comparing scopes of about equality and light transmission to be fair. thank you

 

[bob4]

I have gone to a lighted reticle for farm fields myself. Last yr I had a chance at a shot and light was going fast. We are allowed to shoot 1 hr after sunset where I hunt. I could see the deer but I opted out of the shot because I could no longer see my cross hairs. That little lighted dot bought me another few minutes of hunting.

 

[FEENIX]

I have gone to a lighted reticle for farm fields myself. Last yr I had a chance at a shot and light was going fast. We are allowed to shoot 1 hr after sunset where I hunt. I could see the deer but I opted out of the shot because I could no longer see my cross hairs. That little lighted dot bought me another few minutes of hunting.

If you can no longer see your reticle that means you cannot also not see what's behind your target, esp. at an hour pass regular shooting time. I too have permission to hunt a friend's alfalfa fields and have illuminated reticle scopes.

There were plenty of times that I can still see the deer (but most of the time not the rack) and my reticle half an hour pass the regular shooting time but not what's behind and for safety reason, I do not take those shots ... but that's just me.

 

[Greyfox]

i have not been a fan of lighted reticles for reasons mentioned, preferring a moderately weighted(>.080) unlighted reticle. I have used various styles of lighted reticles over the years when hunting from elevated positions at short range. Under those circumstances I prefer a lighted reticle style that is as small as possible and not too bright, avoiding the washing out of the aiming point on the animal.

 

[philipbrousseau]

i have an ss-hd 5x20x50. the reticle is pretty fine for low light but the illuminated reticle makes it usable. i took it out to my bench and looked through it as it got dark a couple days ago and was pretty happy with it. i've yet to compare it to the 2.5x10x56 s-b with the heavy reticle. and i agree that you want to know that bullet is going into the ground behind your target. thank you all for the replies.

 

[middleofnowhere]

I use illuminated reticles or a dot for depredation work. I can shoot without using a spot light in very low light and at night. It's key that you can dim the illumination very low.

 

[bob4]

I too certainly agree you have to know where your bullet is going. The fields and woods I sit I do know what's beyond. I also have places that this sort of shot isn't an option. This is totally user discretion. Just because it's physically possible doesn't make it a responsible choice. But any scope that may buy you that extra 5 minutes at dusk/dawn may prove it's worth someday.

 

[Never ffp]

Since I started using leupold vxr for field hunting it almost feels like cheating .i have had several brands of scopes with illuminated reticles and leupold firedot is a game changer.i will not buy another scope that not illuminated but the ones that light up the whole reticle are **** near useless in a low light hunting situtation .

 

[86alaskan]

I'm in the process of trying to switch to the firedot style reticle for hunting. I can say for sure that i passed a shot in safe conditions because I couldn't see the reticle any more. I was using a swarovski 5-25 Z5, had plenty of light but the hair was fine enough that I couldn't make it out for a clean shot. that fire dot would have resulted in a dead deer. I'll be investing in a VX-6 before next season. I think most all hunting style scopes should integrate the simple fine center dot, it just helps so much.

 

[milkie62]

Since my afternoon hunting is always farm fields I much prefer the illuminated reticle for shots that are against a woods line. All my shots are under 250 yds. As of right now and please do not laugh too hard is a Tasco 3-9x40 illuminated reticle that I paid $58 for at Natchezz ss. It has 11 settings and yes the bright ones wash everything out. But at the lower settings it is perfect. This year I needed it and it bagged me my biggest buck to date. One of my guns will always have an illuminated reticle of some sorts.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Since my afternoon hunting is always farm fields I much prefer the illuminated reticle for shots that are against a woods line. All my shots are under 250 yds. As of right now and please do not laugh too hard is a Tasco 3-9x40 illuminated reticle that I paid $58 for at Natchezz ss. It has 11 settings and yes the bright ones wash everything out. But at the lower settings it is perfect. This year I needed it and it bagged me my biggest buck to date. One of my guns will always have an illuminated reticle of some sorts.

Laugh? I could be a Tasco salesman! To me they are the absolute best bang for the buck. I have a Trajectory 6-24X model that tracks as well as anything I have every used. Better than one that cost a lot more. This from a guy who switched from Tasco only because their low light performance doesn't compare with the way more expensive optics.

When I went to Alaska the first time I installed a Tasco World Class 4-16X40 on both the .300 Weatherby and the .375-.416 Rem Mag. The Tasco is still on the .300; but I rebarreled it to a .340.