I want to say thanks in advance for all the knowledge invested by SH members into this forum. I think I have learned enough about optics to have come to a final decision based on the MANY, MANY hours of reading posts here. 
I have been looking at my FIRST scope purchase (other than 1-4x Burris Tac30 and several Aimpoint red dots) for a mid-range AR-10 platform shooter. I plan on shooting local competitions that will range from 100 to 650 meters, and maybe take it out into the desert and go for 1000. The life of this rifle will be spent at the 350 to 600 meter range. That being said, I have narrowed down my selection to first focal plane, scopes that have illuminated reticles for better reticle contrast against distant steel targets. I'm looking in the $1300 to $1500 range after deciding that NightForce F1s were just too much for a first scope for me.
I've settled on two scopes:
1) The soon to be released IOR Valdada 4-16x50 FFP Illuminated here: http://www.libertyoptics.com/index1.html
and the:
2) SWFA Super Sniper 5-20x50 Tactical (which really needs no introduction because it seems well known here) here:
http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-5-20x50-Tactical-30mm-Riflescope-P51642.aspx
My quandry is that I am torn because of the illumination of the reticles. My eyesight isnt that great any more.
The IOR has only the center dot illuminated and I feel that this would be a great benefit for distant targets where you would not want the crosshairs obstructing your target. The downside is that the 1 mil and 1/2 mil marks are not illuminated and may get lost in the background when trying to holdover targets in timed competition where using the knobs is not practical.
On the other hand, the SWFA is fully illuminated but seems like it may have too much illuminated and may block the distant targets with the crosshairs in the middle.
It seems that both manufacturers have had a large improvement in quality of glass over the past few years, so I'm really torn.
As a newbie, what is more important? Full illumination or just the center dot? What do you distance shooters say? How do other manufacturers do their illumination?
Thanks.
I have been looking at my FIRST scope purchase (other than 1-4x Burris Tac30 and several Aimpoint red dots) for a mid-range AR-10 platform shooter. I plan on shooting local competitions that will range from 100 to 650 meters, and maybe take it out into the desert and go for 1000. The life of this rifle will be spent at the 350 to 600 meter range. That being said, I have narrowed down my selection to first focal plane, scopes that have illuminated reticles for better reticle contrast against distant steel targets. I'm looking in the $1300 to $1500 range after deciding that NightForce F1s were just too much for a first scope for me.
I've settled on two scopes:
1) The soon to be released IOR Valdada 4-16x50 FFP Illuminated here: http://www.libertyoptics.com/index1.html
and the:
2) SWFA Super Sniper 5-20x50 Tactical (which really needs no introduction because it seems well known here) here:
http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-5-20x50-Tactical-30mm-Riflescope-P51642.aspx
My quandry is that I am torn because of the illumination of the reticles. My eyesight isnt that great any more.
The IOR has only the center dot illuminated and I feel that this would be a great benefit for distant targets where you would not want the crosshairs obstructing your target. The downside is that the 1 mil and 1/2 mil marks are not illuminated and may get lost in the background when trying to holdover targets in timed competition where using the knobs is not practical.
On the other hand, the SWFA is fully illuminated but seems like it may have too much illuminated and may block the distant targets with the crosshairs in the middle.
It seems that both manufacturers have had a large improvement in quality of glass over the past few years, so I'm really torn.
As a newbie, what is more important? Full illumination or just the center dot? What do you distance shooters say? How do other manufacturers do their illumination?
Thanks.
