Rifle Scopes illuminated vs non illuminated reticles, discuss

[Opticsspecialist]

this is a little article i wrote last week, i was considering illuminated reticles vs nonilluminated reticles. what do you guys think?

While looking at some scopes the other day, I started to wonder about the advantages and disadvantages of illuminated and non illuminated reticles. Oh the one hand an illuminated Reticle in a scope like Nightforce NXS rifle scopes makes the Reticle easy to see in low light and overcast conditions, this would be difficult other wise because it has such a fine Reticle suited for long range use. On the other hand you have scopes like the Swarovski Z6 which would work very well in low light despite not being an illuminated Reticle. The argument used to be against illuminated reticles because they were too bright and ruined night vision; however this has been corrected with dimmer illumination and variable illumination for the reticles. Illuminated reticles now can allow hunters who prefer fine reticles to see targets in very dim conditions and still be able to engage them. As I said before, they can make a long range finer Reticle more feasible for low light hunting. A disadvantage is you would have to change batteries, because there isn’t a Walgreen’s in the back woods this could be problematic if you forget your spares. It would seem with all the advances the illuminated Reticle have got the non illuminated reticles beat, but there are some advantaged to non illuminated reticles. You don’t have to worry about batteries would be one big advantage to me. Another is your working with time tested tried and true reticles that work in low light without illumination like the number 4 Reticle or the number 7 like in this Schmidt & Bender zenith 3-12x50 or Leupold VX7. You also have the advantage of working with the same scope in any condition, and keeping it simple and consistent. Cost always being a factor, reticles without illumination reticles tend to be cheaper than the illuminated counterparts. The choice is yours and boils down to personal preference. Just be sure to choose what works well for you and what you are comfortable with. That’s the word from sportoptics.com

 

[blklabs]

Re: illuminated vs non illuminated reticles, discuss

I prefer illuminated reticles on my scopes. They see dual purpose as both target and hunting rigs. In low light conditions I do not want to pass up a shot because the reticle blends into the target. My dedicated hunting rigs wears a 2.5x10x56 Trijicon Accupoint. Its the best of both worlds, fiber optic and tritium, there are no batteries to change. My target/hunting/whatever rig has a USO on it and I just keep a few spare batteries in my stock pack.

It works for me, ymmv.

 

[Lindy]

Re: illuminated vs non illuminated reticles, discuss

Aside from the cost issue, there is no disadvantage to an illuminated reticle - if you don't need it or like it in a particular situation, turn it off.

 

[brand692]

Re: illuminated vs non illuminated reticles, discuss

Well stated. I agree with every statement, with the exception of worrying about batteries. While it is correct that illuminated reticles use batteries that can die on you and you may find yourself between a rock and a hard place, the run times on the illuminated reticles is insane. I'll openly admit I don't have as much trigger time behind illuminated reticles as a lot of the shooters here, but my NXS has never required a new battery. The technology is there now to support the insane run times.

I just purchased my first non illuminated reticle in a long time, a SS. However, if it was offered in an illuminated reticle design, I would drop the change to have the upgrade. That being said, having a scope offered in both configurations is nice for a budget minded shooter.

Great write up. Hopefully the new guy buying his first scope will read it and be able to make a more informed descision.

 

[Opticsspecialist]

Re: illuminated vs non illuminated reticles, discu

yeah, i hear you on those long battery lives. some of the Aimpoint scopes have like a 10 year battery life which is insane. i would love a good Eotech with that kind of battery life. as far as the batteries in illuminated hunting optics, i had to try to find some disadvantage.

yall just wait for my write up on the ND5 laser designator.

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: illuminated vs non illuminated reticles, discu

Better to have and not need, than to need and not have.....

 

[Ritten]

Re: illuminated vs non illuminated reticles, discu

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Better to have and not need, than to need and not have..... </div></div>

+1

 

[cwshooter]

Re: illuminated vs non illuminated reticles, discu

Along the lines of needing and not having...
two weeks ago I was hunting, and became concerned that my zero was off. long story.
anyway, my chance to confirm zero was at night, since i needed to be hunting in the morning. so, i hung an empty feed bag on a fence an taped a glow stick up to it. i backed off a lasered 350 yards. it was then that i remembered that i don't have a lit reticle on my hunting scope. it's on my "long range" hunting rifle, afterall, and i'm not supposed to be taking shots in the dark on deer. well, i found myself right in the middle of an exception to the rule... and without an illuminated reticle. i could see the glow sticks just fine, but no crosshairs.
i ended up using a little red led squeeze light, and shined it into the back of the scope. it worked alright. i've shot better groups, but the rifle was on, and i cut the glowstick with one of the 3 rounds. problem solved, but it sure was a pain in the butt. of course, i could also have gone down range and propped up a flashlight pointed at the target; but a lot of targets dont give that kind of opportunity.

 

[vman]

Re: illuminated vs non illuminated reticles, discu

cwshooter, would have been much easier to just push that button or pull on the turret (NF) and have the problem solved ey.

I figure, if your spending the money on high quality glass, glass that enables better night shooting, why not have the iluminated reticle?

Ive read about guys comparing two scopes at night and claiming that one scope allowed a positive sight picture over the other compared scope and that had they have not had the better quality scope they would not have been able to shoot said animal... If the glass is whats making the difference in this scenario why not make it that little bit easier on yourself and just opt for an illuminated reticle.

One i wouldnt be overly fond of is the Bushnell that requires you to "charge" the reticle using a torch... seems like a pain in the butt to me.

 

[cwshooter]

Re: illuminated vs non illuminated reticles, discu

I've got lit reticles on pretty much everything else. There's a NF on my rifle I shoot for matches.
Yes, it sure would have been easier.
CW

 

[858]

Re: illuminated vs non illuminated reticles, discuss

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Opticsspecialist</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what do you guys think? </div></div>

I didn't see the original article so maybe its just the way it is cut and pasted to this forum but paragraphs would make it easier to read.