Illuminated or not

von dreyse

Now that I am on line could I ask what is the general consesus on scopes for lamping? Is the illuminated reticle best suited for low light conditions rather than darkness ? The plan is either a 204 or a 223:) some good threads on that one !

Tackleberrywho

von dreyse wrote: »

Now that I am on line could I ask what is the general consesus on scopes for lamping? Is the illuminated reticle best suited for low light conditions rather than darkness ? The plan is either a 204 or a 223:) some good threads on that one !

In Low light (no lamp) a Illum ret is brilliant

Under a lamp, does not make much difference.

I have my reticle that it is just a little bright so not to destroy your own nght vision

Glensman

It has to be on quality glass or it's just a nuisance...

Tackleberrywho

Glensman wrote: »

It has to be on quality glass or it's just a nuisance...

Nightforce



As seen in this months Sporting Rifle!

von dreyse

Thanks Tac.
When you look at the price of some of the top range scopes even second hand its a decision you want to get right.

Tackleberrywho

von dreyse wrote: »

Thanks Tac.
When you look at the price of some of the top range scopes even second hand its a decision you want to get right.

The best Quality scope at a low price is a Nikon 2.5-10x56 for low light and Under a grand new.

I'd imagine one could be picked up second hand for ~€350

Tackleberrywho

http://www.nikonhunting.com/products/riflescopes/monarch_gold/2.5-10x56_Side_Focus_Nikoplex/6622

Best Non Illum


Best Illum
http://nightforceoptics.com/nightforcescopes/SCOPES_OVERVIEW/3_5-15x50___3_5-15x56_/3_5-15x50_-_3_5-15x56.html
With the NPR-2 reticle

clivej

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

The best Quality scope at a low price is a Nikon 2.5-10x56 for low light and Under a grand new.

I'd imagine one could be picked up second hand for ~€350

The best Quality scope at a low price IMO is the 3200 and 4200 range of Bushnell scopes I have two 6-24x50 on both my 302 and 223 and they are the dog's dangles. I can only comment on these scopes 'cos thats what i use.
I have use an illuminated reticle and find its not required on the scopes I have, if the light is good enough to see the target you can see the reticle as well. Under a lamp you don't need the illuminated ret.

zeissman

I have a illum ret on one of my zeiss scopes but never use it.
They might be usefull when stalking with a scope with a very fine ret like a nightforce.
You wont need it for lamping.
In my scope if its that dark that I cant see the ret then I cant see the deer either.

Tackleberrywho

clivej wrote: »

The best Quality scope at a low price IMO is the 3200 and 4200 range of Bushnell scopes I have two 6-24x50 on both my 302 and 223 and they are the dog's dangles. I can only comment on these scopes 'cos thats what i use.
I have use an illuminated reticle and find its not required on the scopes I have, if the light is good enough to see the target you can see the reticle as well. Under a lamp you don't need the illuminated ret.

I never rated bushnell over Nikon and I have used both

The clarity of a Nikon 2.5-10x56 is amazing and the reticles are very visible in almost no light (unlike bushmill's :pac:)

zeissman

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

http://www.nikonhunting.com/products/riflescopes/monarch_gold/2.5-10x56_Side_Focus_Nikoplex/6622

Best Non Illum


Best Illum
http://nightforceoptics.com/nightforcescopes/SCOPES_OVERVIEW/3_5-15x50___3_5-15x56_/3_5-15x50_-_3_5-15x56.html
With the NPR-2 reticle

I dont think so.
Nikon and Nightforce are ok but they dont even come close to a zeiss or schmidt & bender for optical quality or low light performance.

Glensman

zeissman wrote: »

I dont think so.
Nikon and Nightforce are ok but they dont even come close to a zeiss or schmidt & bender for optical quality or low light performance.

That's a BIG +1!

Tackleberrywho

zeissman wrote: »

I dont think so.
Nikon and Nightforce are ok but they dont even come close to a zeiss or schmidt & bender for optical quality or low light performance.

Nikon for under a grand are a serious scope
http://www.opticsplanet.net/nikon-riflescope-monarch-gold-2-10x56.html

Nightforce are a serious all rounder

Zeiss are on the very expensive range

http://www.opticsplanet.net/zeiss-victory-6-24x56-riflescopes-30mm.html

to make a fair comparison Nightforce ticks more boxes in my opinion
http://www.opticsplanet.net/nightforce-nxs-5-5-22x-56mm-zs-high-speed-zero-stop-tactical-riflescopes-with-np-reti.html


Bushmill's are what they are
http://www.opticsplanet.net/bushnell-elite-6500-2-5-16x50-riflescope.html


In regards illlum, the NPR2 reticle is amazing for precision shots in low light including headshot bunnies!

landkeeper

having had both s&b and nightforce you will not beat the s&b in low light conditions there is just no comparison in the two
the nightforce is a great scope for daylight shooting
as far as bushnells etc are concerned they are what they are is a good way of putting it tack
nikon scopes are very good having also had one in the past it was a good lamping scope and very usefull on low power in the evening but i would still pick as&b anytime

Tackleberrywho

landkeeper wrote: »

having had both s&b and nightforce you will not beat the s&b in low light conditions there is just no comparison in the two
the nightforce is a great scope for daylight shooting
as far as bushnells etc are concerned they are what they are is a good way of putting it tack
nikon scopes are very good having also had one in the past it was a good lamping scope and very usefull on low power in the evening but i would still pick a s&b anytime

I do more day than night and I love my NF scopes. The fact that I can shoot 8-32 or 5.5-22 is my pref, others used fixed power and love them too.

In relation to illum ret I do believe the NPR2 ret is hard to beat, bang for buck so to speak

Good article in this months sporting rifle featuring one on a .17rem foxing

td5

I use both S+ B and Nightforce scopes . And cant fault 5.5 x 22 nxs with n2 DD reticle for lamping foxes . Its not called the Dot of Death !!!! for no good reason

von dreyse

Thanks for the answers there guys, I am trying to budget for a second hand S&B or Zeiss and just wanted to be sure about the illum ret.

Breachloader

I made the mistake of paying the extra money for an illuminated over standard S&B once and wont again. In the last four years, hunting both deer and fox I have never turned it on. It saw some use the first few weeks I had the scope but the novelty soon wore off. With the thichness of the cross hairs it is not necessary. They stand out in all but total darkness and you wont be shooting something or somewhere you cant see anyway.

Great choice of scope though, you wont regret it.

BR

von dreyse

Breachloader wrote: »

I made the mistake of paying the extra money for an illuminated over standard S&B once and wont again. In the last four years, hunting both deer and fox I have never turned it on. It saw some use the first few weeks I had the scope but the novelty soon wore off. With the thichness of the cross hairs it is not necessary. They stand out in all but total darkness and you wont be shooting something or somewhere you cant see anyway.

Great choice of scope though, you wont regret it.

BR

Thanks BR
I was 90% sure before but am 100% sure now.

Tackleberrywho

Breachloader wrote: »

I made the mistake of paying the extra money for an illuminated over standard S&B once and wont again. In the last four years, hunting both deer and fox I have never turned it on. It saw some use the first few weeks I had the scope but the novelty soon wore off. With the thichness of the cross hairs it is not necessary. They stand out in all but total darkness and you wont be shooting something or somewhere you cant see anyway.

Great choice of scope though, you wont regret it.

BR

That backs my point Nightforce use a very narrow laser etched reticle

as a result in vrey low light can be hard to see, so you give her lume

In day conditions and night you have a more precise point of aim
Yes I only turn on illum every now and then, but it's as handy as a pot under a bed when shooting in woodland and scrub on a winters afternoon

Teh S&B heavy reticles are fine for body shot deer, but if you want to shoot head/neck or charlie they can make shot placement harder

It's all personal preference after that what reticle you use IMO

landkeeper

why would you want to head or neck shoot foxes your not going to eat it and even at 3oo yards the head on a fox is much bigger than the xhairs on my s&b a7 reticule
put the x hairs on the biggest bit of red you can see and pull the trigger

Tackleberrywho

landkeeper wrote: »

why would you want to head or neck shoot foxes your not going to eat it and even at 3oo yards the head on a fox is much bigger than the xhairs on my s&b a7 reticule
put the x hairs on the biggest bit of red you can see and pull the trigger

to make Fur coats of coarse

FISMA

von dreyse,
I would stay away from the illuminated reticules unless you have a specific need.

1) Note that many manufacturers do not offer a lifetime warranty on any scope that has electronics.
2) More stuff to go wrong.
3) Glare off of the red light in certain instances (like Glensman alluded to)

Put your money towards better glass.

What kind of scopes have you owned? What are you looking to spend?

Decisions, decisions.

It wasn't me!

I have the finest reticle S&B make bar perhaps their No. 6 which just appears to be a very pale crosshairs. Part of the magic of top end optics is making a reticle stand out though, and despite how fine it is, it's clearly visible at night. You'll have no issue with visibility, whatever you want to do with it.

Tackleberrywho

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I have the finest reticle S&B make bar perhaps their No. 6 which just appears to be a very pale crosshairs. Part of the magic of top end optics is making a reticle stand out though, and despite how fine it is, it's clearly visible at night. You'll have no issue with visibility, whatever you want to do with it.

http://www.schmidtbender.com/reticlesillum.htm

Even these guys like illum

It wasn't me!

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

http://www.schmidtbender.com/reticlesillum.htm

Even these guys like illum

Just because I don't think it's necessary doesn't mean I won't sell it to people. Also, those are effectively red dots for driven game in some cases, and provide aiming points for shooting game under moonlight (rather than the lamp) which is common on the continent, and the reason for the popularity of top end glass.

Tackleberrywho

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Just because I don't think it's necessary doesn't mean I won't sell it to people. Also, those are effectively red dots for driven game in some cases, and provide aiming points for shooting game under moonlight (rather than the lamp) which is common on the continent, and the reason for the popularity of top end glass.

Fallow deer black, Reticle black;)

Deer in woods look black, reticle black

A non illum ret would work well on this, rolleyes (ignoring the lack of backstop, when he goes into the wood or gives a shot where is the aim point?)

It wasn't me!

This is the problem guys have. They think you look at the centre junction of the crosshairs and that's your aim point. In the above, take the vertical crosshair and draw a line down the deer behind the shoulder with it, then take the horizontal crosshair and draw a line through the deer about a third of the way up, now you're where you need to be, easy sight picture. You could easily make neck shots the exact same way. You're not looking at the centre of the crosshairs. That is a mistake.

Edit: Here, shoddy line drawing aside, this indicates how you use sight picture, rather than staring at the centre of the crosshairs.

Tackleberrywho

It wasn't me! wrote: »

This is the problem guys have. They think you look at the centre junction of the crosshairs and that's your aim point. In the above, take the vertical crosshair and draw a line down the deer behind the shoulder with it, then take the horizontal crosshair and draw a line through the deer about a third of the way up, now you're where you need to be, easy sight picture. You could easily make neck shots the exact same way. You're not looking at the centre of the crosshairs. That is a mistake.

How many deer have you shot this way?

It wasn't me!

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

How many deer have you shot this way?

none, doesn't mean it's not the right way to shoot. Nice snide comment though. I can't see a 10.4mm ten ring at 50m either, but I can hit it, with iron sights, because that's what it's about, sight picture. Look at the edited picture. You going to tell me that sight picture isn't going to end in a dead deer?

Tackleberrywho

It wasn't me! wrote: »

none, doesn't mean it's not the right way to shoot. Nice snide comment though. I can't see a 10.4mm ten ring at 50m either, but I can hit it, with iron sights, because that's what it's about, sight picture. Look at the edited picture. You going to tell me that sight picture isn't going to end in a dead deer?

End in a botched job, deer running for miles and dying requiring a dog to try and find.

Illum is an option, if you feel you don't need it don't switch it on.

If you want to be precise, don't imagine where you think the reticle is. Look at it

I only use illum 25% of the time, but it's there when I need it, quality scopes have adj illum so glare is not an issue.

On my scope you would not see that the illum was on unless it was low light as it is fully adjustable, just a hint of red on a black target makes all the difference

It wasn't me!

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

End in a botched job, deer running for miles and dying requiring a dog to try and find.

No it bloody well won't and well you know it. That deer is good and dead from that shot and if you can't see exactly where the junction of the crosshairs is from that, you have serious problems relating to space. Also, for what it's worth, my S&B reticle will still be visible against that background from the sharp edges of its etching, but, well, that's part of what you pay for. How much precision do you need to hit the heart/lung region on a deer?

Tackleberrywho

It wasn't me! wrote: »

No it bloody well won't and well you know it. That deer is good and dead from that shot and if you can't see exactly where the junction of the crosshairs is from that, you have serious problems relating to space. Also, for what it's worth, my S&B reticle will still be visible against that background from the sharp edges of its etching, but, well, that's part of what you pay for. How much precision do you need to hit the heart/lung region on a deer?

I "try" not to shoot heart lung deer if at all possible, illum still retains head/neck shot ability in low light.

So OP draw your own conclusions, I tried several scopes and reticles out before I chose one for stalking

Yet I know several stalkers that use cheap rifles and equipment and get as many kills ; if not more by going stalking more often.

I personally like to have the best scope,rifle and ammo I can afford to suit the situation.