Rifle Scopes Bushnell reticle thickness G3 illuminated vs non illuminated

[Stbob238]

Does anyone know if there is a difference in thickness between the standard G3 reticle and the illuminated version? Or are they the same?

 

[bluebu70]

The non-illuminated reticle is thinner in the center. I am not sure by how much, but I think the thinner section extends out .5 mil from center in each direction. The rest of it is the same.

 

[lennyo3034]

That's a big deal for me. I never use illumination, but really like the thinner center like the G2.

 

[Stbob238]

So it is thinner....thanks

 

[USMC 308]

This is the Illuminated, on 18x at 100 yards. Pic of non illuminated anyone?

 

[Stbob238]

Oh yeah that would be a nice comparison.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Just received this from Bushnell about the G3.I notice that it has hollow crosshairs of 0.06 mil, but the center section is solid and 0.03 mil. The illuminated version appears to be solid the entire length, and I'm curious if that is 0.06 mil or 0.03 mil...

 

[Stbob238]

Very interesting, I'll know for sure when they send one back. I changed for non illuminated model and proper parallax numbers. Turret area was too busy and very wide, plus I was hoping to get thinner reticle. The illuminated version reticle was beefy all the way. We'll see, thanks guys.

 

[Jordan Smith]

Snapped a pic of the non-i version. Despite Bushnell assuring me that it's the same reticle in both the illum. and non-i, you can clearly see the thinner centre section on the non-i...

 

[Stbob238]

Yes! Thank you. I tried to speak with bushnell, they said same thing.

 

[USMC 308]

Non Illum....definitely thinner.

Is that pic the 3-12 or 4-18?

 

[Stbob238]

I'm having a hard time waiting for the return unit, was hoping to have it back by the weekend for some range fun. It's only been a week so I'm hoping they are getting it out soon.

 

[Jordan Smith]

non illum....definitely thinner.

Is that pic the 3-12 or 4-18?

DMRII

I had the DMRII-i before, and the reticle looked just like USMC 308's pic.

 

[Stbob238]

I got it, illuminated model sent back after a month. They didn't give me the non illuminated return. OH well. JUST gonna run it.

 

[Three-Oh-Hate]

I have the non-illuminated DMR II with the G3 reticle and it's definitely thinner .5 mil from the center.

 

[rain164845]

Is there any chance of posting these again? Photobucket isn't allowing it to show.
thanks!

 

[Blazin]

I have the non-illuminated DMR II with the G3 reticle and it's definitely thinner .5 mil from the center.

+1. Buddy and I couldn't get pics, but the illuminated reticle seems more usable on low power, yet thick on high power, but non-illum reticle seemed mo betta for precision work at high power. With that said I have no problems shooting 3/4" dots at 100 yards with my illuminated models.

 

[Glassaholic]

I only have the DMR IIi (illuminated) with G3 so I don't know about the non-illuminated reticle; however, I also have a non-illuminated LRTS with G3 reticle and it is definitely thinner, I assumed because it is a different optical formula, here's a quick comparison of the two, but remember one is a DMR IIi and the other an LRTS:

 

[lennyo3034]

My non-illuminated DMRII has thinner crosshairs in the center .5 mil than what is pictured above.

 

[spife7980]

My non-illuminated DMRII has thinner crosshairs in the center .5 mil than what is pictured above.

Than both of them?
The top pic for the nonilluminated LRTS does show the thinner .5 mil vertical and 2 mil horizontal section (though its kind of hard to tell against the tree)
The bottom pic shows the thicker centered illuminated with consistent thickness the entire way through.
Could you get a pic of yours if it is indeed different still? That would be a third option that no one has discovered yet.

 

[lennyo3034]

Than both of them?
The top pic for the nonilluminated LRTS does show the thinner .5 mil vertical and 2 mil horizontal section (though its kind of hard to tell against the tree)
The bottom pic shows the thicker centered illuminated with consistent thickness the entire way through.
Could you get a pic of yours if it is indeed different still? That would be a third option that no one has discovered yet.

Whoops sorry, I meant the DMRII pictures above. Not the LRTS.

ETA: Now that I think about it, the thinner section is 2 mils on the horizontal section, not .5. I think the old G2 was only .5 which IMO made it easier to use on low magnification. IMO the G2dmr>G3.