Just a caveat when viewing videos like these: a camera is incapable of accurately representing what human vision can discern in high contrast scenarios. In fact, even the best consumer digital cameras are only capable of rendering detail in about 1/10th the range of light intensity (contrast) compared to human vision. The unilluminated reticle shown in the video was most likely much more visible than depicted.
At least in my case (and assuming an adequately
BOLD reticle), by the time illumination becomes of any assistance to me seeing the aiming point, the light level is already low enough to make PID of a target very difficult without the use of artificial light. Once the target is lit up, an etched reticle becomes much easier to see.
Of course if I'm equipped with NV gear in a combat role, then the illuminated reticle is a
requirement. This is where I suspect much of the advocacy for reticle illumination comes from.
One other note of interest: before illuminated reticles became commonplace, heavy reticles (such as the German #4) were used to give them better visibility in low light conditions. One potential drawback to today's illuminated scopes is that many models use a very fine reticle, which is good for precision in daylight conditions but becomes a challenge in low light should the illumination fail for any reason. An interesting take on this subject
here that IMO is worth the read.
For my civilian recreational use and enjoyment, reticle design is more important than whether it is illuminated or not. If I'm ever forced into night time combat operations, I'll melt down a credit card for one of
these.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Backspin
