Illuminated Reticle vs. Heavy Duplex?

[okie john]

I hunt the dripping tree farms of western Washington. Cloud cover is very heavy during hunting seasons. It usually rains during deer season and it always rains during elk season. The first and last hour of each day are gloomy, so legal hunting hours are far more generous than the weather and light allow.

I’m considering a scope with an illuminated reticle for use in these conditions. But a voice in my head says that a heavy duplex will do almost the same task. Shots would rarely if ever be farther than 300 yards. My average shot on game over the last 20-odd years has been about 90 yards, usually offhand because things need to happen with a quickness due to the dense brush.

What do you guys think—illuminated reticle or coarse duplex?

Thanks,


Okie John

[MistWolf]

For big game hunting in thick cover, neither is a poor choice. You have to weigh the pros and cons. The advantage of the thick reticle is that it never runs out of batteries. Battery life with most illuminated reticles is short. If I put my rifle in it's case without turning the illumination off on my Night force, the battery will be dead before I remember to attend to it.

The advantage to the illuminated reticle is that it's visible in more conditions. In some lighting conditions, even a thick reticle can get lost.

Personally, I'm shopping for a scope with an illuminated reticle. Leupold has scopes that turn off when idle and turn on automatically when raised to your shoulder

[DamonL]

I had a similar question and it seems the illuminated reticle is the way to go and you can get them with a duplex reticle.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ting-solutions

[bofe954]

For big game hunting in thick cover, neither is a poor choice. You have to weigh the pros and cons. The advantage of the thick reticle is that it never runs out of batteries. Battery life with most illuminated reticles is short. If I put my rifle in it's case without turning the illumination off on my Night force, the battery will be dead before I remember to attend to it.

The advantage to the illuminated reticle is that it's visible in more conditions. In some lighting conditions, even a thick reticle can get lost.

Personally, I'm shopping for a scope with an illuminated reticle. Leupold has scopes that turn off when idle and turn on automatically when raised to your shoulder

I use this one deer hunting:

https://www.leupold.com/hunting-shoo...r-1-25-4x20mm/

It's been good so far, have had it for 2 seasons so far. The dot isn't bright enough to make a 3 gunner happy, but in low light it's plenty. It is visible in normal light. Still on original battery, I might replace it this season just to know I have a recent battery. Glass seems decent and the 1.25x is fine for hunting. I will admit I have not been exposed to a lot of high dollar scopes though.

[Unobtanium]

Illuminated. Black reticle on dark animal in gloomy weather with black tree trunks as a backdrop...sucks.

[SteveB]

I have both and have used a heavy German #4 in a Leupold 2.5-8 for CT deer hunting for years. Having said that, there are times when only the IR will do. As my eyes have gotten older and IR's have gotten better, the IR is all I use now. As an example, hunting Russian boar in dense timber, not great light, fast-moving targets low to the ground, no way I would have had a shot without the IR.

[BJXDS]

FWIW, OP are you in a situation where you were able to see the game animal but could not see your cross hairs? The reason I ask is because where I hunt it is legal to hunt 30 min before and after sunrise/sunset. In an open field on a clear day I can see well enough o take a shot after that time period, even though it is illegal. However in thick cover during low light periods even during the legal period depending on the distance of the game I may not be able to make a good shot, ( see the animal clearly enough).

In short, I don't think the reticle I was using was the limiting factor. Under sub optimal conditions, ( low light/moving game) a heavier reticle or dot is easier for me to pick up now. I have thought about changing to an illuminated reticle for the same reason I prefer high def on my pistols, but I am not sure it ever really has made a difference. The cost of time and money to change optics, well, for me the juice aint worth the squeeze. But if I had to do it all over again I would most likely go with an illuminated or dot option. The biggest difference I noticed was the quality of the newer scopes in reference to clarity and low light visibility vs the older ones.

[coldcase1984]

I hunt the dripping tree farms of western Washington. Cloud cover is very heavy during hunting seasons. It usually rains during deer season and it always rains during elk season. The first and last hour of each day are gloomy, so legal hunting hours are far more generous than the weather and light allow.

I’m considering a scope with an illuminated reticle for use in these conditions. But a voice in my head says that a heavy duplex will do almost the same task. Shots would rarely if ever be farther than 300 yards. My average shot on game over the last 20-odd years has been about 90 yards, usually offhand because things need to happen with a quickness due to the dense brush.

What do you guys think—illuminated reticle or coarse duplex?

Thanks,


Okie John

The best answer for dark cover and average shots at 90 yards would be the S&B CQB Short Dots. They come very dear but are the finest tool for close hunting or self defense.

That said, Aimpoint Optics have ACET technology that lets them run for years before a battery change. I've only run the no magnification models thus far but believe they do make magnified models for hunting.

ETA: looks like they stopped making the 2x models last decade. They currently have 3x magnifiers for most models and a 6x.

[okie john]

FWIW, OP are you in a situation where you were able to see the game animal but could not see your cross hairs?

That's exactly the case. With our weather, it's impossible to see anything outside of legal hunting hours in the places where I hunt. My elk hunt last year was classic Pacific Northwest weather: intermittent rain all day, with thick, low cloud cover. Shooting hours ended at 1710, but it was too dark to see by 1630. I shot my bull just after 1600, well before legal hunting hours were over. He was on the ground and thrashing. He wasn't going anywhere with a broken spine, but I wanted to finish him off. I could see him with a SureFire and his eyes reflected light back at me, but when I turned the light off to shoot, I could barely make him out on the ground and my reticle was all but invisible.

The effect that light has on weather here is hard to explain if you haven't experienced it. You can see it if you fly into Seattle on a rainy day. At altitude, it's sunny and bright, but you hit a belt of clouds at about 2,500' AGL. You break out of them at about 1,000' AGL, and it's like dusk, even at noon. If you're a photographer, it's like losing 2-3 f-stops.


Okie John

[HCM]

The best answer for dark cover and average shots at 90 yards would be the S&B CQB Short Dots. They come very dear but are the finest tool for close hunting or self defense.

That said, Aimpoint Optics have ACET technology that lets them run for years before a battery change. I've only run the no magnification models thus far but believe they do make magnified models for hunting.

ETA: looks like they stopped making the 2x models last decade. They currently have 3x magnifiers for most models and a 6x.

The short dots were ground breaking but at over $2k IMHO there are now better options for less $$$.

Khales 1-6, vortex razor or PST II 1-6 and steiners. 1-4 and 1-5 options. None of these are cheap but they all offer improvement over the Short dot at lower prices.

Given the conditions described I would go IR.

Leupolds are good but the fire dot seems to be the worst LED dot for blooming if you have less than perfect vision.

The nightforce and Trijicon Accupowers are also worth a look.