I'm searching for my first exposed turret, long range scope and was wondering if illuminated reticles were a must-have? They're obviously a positive when shooting in low light but do they have a downside?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
Rifle Scopes Illuminated vs non-illuminated reticles
- Thread starter Ranger.RSA
- Start date
Cons: More complexity and stuff to go wrong
Pros: reticle will be easier to pick up at low light / dark background, higher contrast, possibly faster first shot
It really depends on what you’ll be doing. For a defensive carbine, I’d like to have it. For a precision rifle, maybe, maybe not.
Pros: reticle will be easier to pick up at low light / dark background, higher contrast, possibly faster first shot
It really depends on what you’ll be doing. For a defensive carbine, I’d like to have it. For a precision rifle, maybe, maybe not.
I have never used the illumination on any of my long range scopes. But I usually shoot at ranges that have hours of operation.
Thanks for the replies so far.
I absolutely use it, especially if it is a FFP scope. I tend to cross purpose my scopes for hunting and long range shooting. The illumination is very handy at dawn, dusk, and in shadows. The big factor for me is when using a FFP I tend to hunt with the scope on the lowest power and that reticle can be very small at the lowest power. The illumination helps me pick up the small "crosshair" at low power for a snap shot. If time permits I can then dial up the magnification to a desired level, and if I am lucky and I find a retarded elk I can dial elevation and take a clean shot. I make it a point to only cull retarded elk and deer in an effort to improve the game populations. Just doing my part as a conservationist. I leave the smart, fast animals as a selfless act for better hunters than myself.
Same here for the most part. If I'm shooting at a black bullseye target I sometimes use the illumination.
Last edited:
I started using rifle scopes over 50 years ago. I recall many times I could see and animal but not the reticule. Illumination would have helped with those tiny, thin crosshairs.
I now have many top end rifle scopes. With todays reticules I have no use for the illumination. Remember, it only illuminates the reticule which is never hard to see if you have light enough to see the target, you can see the P4f or H59 reticule. Illumination actually hurts your low light vision by constricting your pupils which obscures a target in a dark area. Most of my scopes have illumination but I also use many like the S&B Ultra Short that don't have it. I never use it even when I have it. And I do a lot of low light shooting.
I now have many top end rifle scopes. With todays reticules I have no use for the illumination. Remember, it only illuminates the reticule which is never hard to see if you have light enough to see the target, you can see the P4f or H59 reticule. Illumination actually hurts your low light vision by constricting your pupils which obscures a target in a dark area. Most of my scopes have illumination but I also use many like the S&B Ultra Short that don't have it. I never use it even when I have it. And I do a lot of low light shooting.
High magnification in daytime: never.
Low magnification or low light, it can help a thin reticle pop a bit more.
I prefer illumination controls that are entirely separate from the side focus dial. I find that I use the focus/parallax knob more than any other knob (reading wind), so I find it hugely annoying when the illumination control is located on the focus knob. I’d much prefer non-illuminated over one with illumination on the side focus knob.
Low magnification or low light, it can help a thin reticle pop a bit more.
I prefer illumination controls that are entirely separate from the side focus dial. I find that I use the focus/parallax knob more than any other knob (reading wind), so I find it hugely annoying when the illumination control is located on the focus knob. I’d much prefer non-illuminated over one with illumination on the side focus knob.
Like other member said, low light, yes. Low mag, yes. High mag, you see the line easy. I have 5 scopes w and 2 without illumination. Is it a must? No. Just nice to have.
As a guy who target shoots only so he can be a more effective hunter: it is absolutely worth it. Very much needed in many hunting scenarios. Never have seen a need at the range. Drawbacks? A more expensive scope than you need of all you’re doing is going to the range to shoot targets.
I lost an opportunity on a chocolate horned 150ish inch buck bc I could see him but I couldn't see the tremor 3 reticle in my 5-25 ATACR. As soon as I got home, I got rid of it and got an illuminated Mil-r reticle. I have vowed to never go hunting without an illuminated reticle again. for match rifle use, you'll probably never use it.
I'd go illumination and never look back. Sounds like you don't have a bunch of scopes so why not buy a scope you can use for range shooting and for your hunting rifles? I'd get a one piece mount (nightforce are light, spuhr are the best but heavy and waaaaaay expensive) so you can swap it without having to re-level the scope. If you record your point of impact changes from one rifles zero to another then the switches are easier. Good luck
Many thanks for all of your input. What I will take out of this thread is that it's not 100% needed and it won't be the deciding factor.
This scope will be going on a range only rifle. I'm pretty limited on budget (around $1400 in my local currency). The Vortex Viper PST Gen 2 5-25 FFP just just falls in there. I'm sceptical about it though as there seem to be varying reports on it and I wouldn't have the chance to view it before buying. I like the look of the Athlon ARES BTR, seems like a nice scope from online reports but there is very little backup in South Africa. The Bushnell DMR ii unfortunately does not make it in my budget as I think it would be an easy decision if it did.
This scope will be going on a range only rifle. I'm pretty limited on budget (around $1400 in my local currency). The Vortex Viper PST Gen 2 5-25 FFP just just falls in there. I'm sceptical about it though as there seem to be varying reports on it and I wouldn't have the chance to view it before buying. I like the look of the Athlon ARES BTR, seems like a nice scope from online reports but there is very little backup in South Africa. The Bushnell DMR ii unfortunately does not make it in my budget as I think it would be an easy decision if it did.
I'll chime in and add I have never used my illumination at the range or any competition.
I have however used it while hunting. When you need it, you really need it. So I would absolutely want it on a hunting scope. But mostly you don't.
I have however used it while hunting. When you need it, you really need it. So I would absolutely want it on a hunting scope. But mostly you don't.
I agree with posts above, I would get the illumination. I use it on all my optics, not every day but it has its uses for sure. I'ld recommend going with an option where its not an "upgrade" to get an illuminated reticle.
Most high end scopes come with it now so it's not really much of a consideration. But I've been rethinking it, and at night I either switch to PVS14 and a laser or a PVS30 in front of the scope. You CAN use the illuminated reticle with the night vision, but it's not necessary at all. So there's only this little window at dusk and again at dawn where it's helpful. However, dusk and dawn is when most activity is going on, both in nature and historically for military operations as well.
All my scopes are illuminated in one way or another, but it wasn't really an option, they just come that way. But if I were to get a new Hensoldt or something nice for my SR25 to replace the LR17, I'd give serious consideration to non-illuminated models these days.
All my scopes are illuminated in one way or another, but it wasn't really an option, they just come that way. But if I were to get a new Hensoldt or something nice for my SR25 to replace the LR17, I'd give serious consideration to non-illuminated models these days.
Have you looked into the Leupold MK5 Non-Illum? Just another option. Might be able to find one in in your price range.
FYI, I have (2) NF NXS and (1) Khales 6-24. All illuminated and I’ve never used the illumination on any of them. Nice to have but Definetly not a deciding factor unless my options are neck and neck in every other category. At that point maybe the illumination would be the deciding factor and only then.
Just a recent story. Took Mrs out to try her new tikka t1x. I have no issue shooting with Bushnell et3124fj scope and make sure it was still hold zero. But when she tried, her first question is “I can’t see the cross”. It was a black bullseye. I just turned on the illumination and she was happy and shot 10 rounds in 1 hole.
The moral of the story. It is better to have and not use it than need it and not available.
The moral of the story. It is better to have and not use it than need it and not available.
if you will hunt with a FFP scope, illumination is necessary. I missed out on some pigs because i had to put the scope on 3x to let enough light through to see the pigs, but my reticle was so thin I couldnt make it out. Illumination would have solved that problem. Of course a $250 3x9 Leupold with a duplex reticle would have as well. I prefer SFP scopes with thick reticles for hunting. Illumination is not required on a scope like that.
I have been increasingly reluctant to recommend any scopes that do not have illumination. With modern technology, more or less any scope above $1k should have it as far as I am concerned.
ILya
ILya
I agree I think haha with what you're saying, not that it matters if I agree or not ??
.But, I still think illumination can be useful in situations towards the end of legal hunting hours especially in thick brush or heavily wooded areas that are darker than something like an open field. If you have clearly identified an animal as one you want to harvest and it starts moving and the background is sort of dark, that's a situation where an illuminated reticle on one of the lowest visible settings is going to help a lot compared to non-Illuminated.
I have illumination in one of my precision rifles: I never use it. I have/use illumination on my AR's with assorted dots and chevrons (love me an ACOG TA31RCO).
You listening Leupold?
As others have said in low light it can make a world of difference, especially with an FFP scope.
No real downside other than a little extra weight, but as most tactical/precision/long range scopes these days have it as standard, you'd be a bit daft to not buy a particular scope due to not wanting illumination.
No real downside other than a little extra weight, but as most tactical/precision/long range scopes these days have it as standard, you'd be a bit daft to not buy a particular scope due to not wanting illumination.
Speak from my own operational experiences...I've been on many night time and low light hunts. The max range has been about 200 yards whereas the closest has been perhaps 50 yards... while I have a scope with an illuminated reticle, I've never needed it or used it. There was always a backdrop of some kind that made discerning the reticle easy. Granted, this always involved a vehicle or some type structure. All my years of deer hunting I've never used illuminated reticles despite having them. I would not call a scope w/o illumination useless... but it's like all other things... better to have it and not need than need it and not have it.
Lol, just saw this. It was in the morning, RIGHT after legal shooting hours began, so it would have been good to go if I could've seen my reticle. No problem seeing him chase a doe at 125 yards.
Similar threads
