Hello,
I've been looking at the MK5 3.6-18 with much interest to put on a new LMT MWS I just picked up. I was curious if anyone can comment on the Tremor3 non-illuminated vs the Tremor3 illuminated options if they happen to have used one or both? I'm mostly curious how usable this reticle is at the lower 3.6x range if not using an illuminated version of the Tremor3 reticle? As an example scenario, if you were attempting to bang steel (or fillintheblankhere with any object) at under 50yrds in a Red-Dot like scenario.
Also, I'm also curious of peoples thoughts on if the seemingly very few illumination dots offered on the illuminated version of the Tremor3 are even worth the extra price? It appears they have gotten a bit stingy on the illumination of this version of the optic given the up charge compared to say the illuminated TMR which lights up like a Christmas tree.
I probably wouldn't even consider the Tremor3 if I didn't know any better about how useful all those windage marks are as distance increases but since I still own an older Horus Vision scope (Falcon 4-16 x 50 Scope w/H25 Reticle) from back in the day. I've come to really appreciate the reticle design over the years of using it but the difference here is that it appears that my older scope lights up in a much more usable way unlike what this Tremor3 appears to offer on the MK5HD.
Current H25 Reticle Illumination on my Falcon
View attachment 7268540
If folks say that they have no issues seeing the reticle without illumination in a more up close and personal situation then I can sleep better just skipping that extra cost.
Thanks for your thoughts