Illuminated ret or not ?

[nick100]

I am seriously thinking about forking out on a new scope.
Looking at a Swarovski 2.5-15x56.

Is it worth having illuminated reticle or not ?
It's quite a bit more to have.

Using a Nickel 8x56 at the moment.
Its mainly lamping/high seat work, so weight not really an issue.

Also does anyone use the BT version? Just fancy being able to play at longer ranges too.

 

[2130martin]

Have just bought the same scope and glad i had the Ill ret,it is a very fine Ret otherwise and needs the Ill!!!..........

 

[ezzy6.5]

Just been through this myself. In my opinion the ret is just to fine without the Ilumination (I have the standard 4a but had a BR ret before that) Going from a 8x56 to the Z6i I have struggled to get my head around all the switches and adjustments but i'm getting used to it now. I had a 2.5x15x56 sent to me by mistake (wasn't illuminated when it arrived) that had the BT and I liked it a lot. In reality I would never use it and it was another dial to twiddle. As far as scopes go you wont be dissapointed with the low light capability of the Z6 range.

Ezzy

 

[nick100]

Going from a 8x56 to the Z6i I have struggled to get my head around all the switches and adjustments but i'm getting used to it now.

That does worry me slightly, come to take the shot and oh, it's not quite the right mag/illumination or whatever.

I feel the BT might be more of a toy than a real life aid.
But hopefully with a bit of practice those longer range shots could become successful.

 

[2130martin]

That does worry me slightly, come to take the shot and oh, it's not quite the right mag/illumination or whatever.

I feel the BT might be more of a toy than a real life aid.
But hopefully with a bit of practice those longer range shots could become successful.

when you are spending that sort of money,you best go the whole hog first as last,for resale value if nothing else.............thats my theory in life......

 

[caorach]

I can't believe someone is replacing a Nickel with a Swaro, have you lost your mind?

Wish I had the money to make you an offer for the Nickel.

I think the illumination thing really does depend on how thick the "crosshairs" are on the scope. I lay out a few weeks back and watched a hind and calf feeding until about 10 minutes after legal shooting time. By that stage they were nothing but a dark smudge against the vegetation in my 8X56 S&B and I certainly couldn't have shot them. I could, however, easily see the reticule. Given that I certainly don't need illumination with the thick retucle on the S&B but it will be different with other scopes.

 

[moses]

I have the Z6i 2.5-15x56, If I were to buy another scope tomorrow it would be exactly the same. 4ai ret is perfect for a hunting scope.

If you've never used an illuminated ret you won't miss it but, having had one I would not be without it.

 

[philross]

I have the Z6i 2.5-15x56, If I were to buy another scope tomorrow it would be exactly the same. 4ai ret is perfect for a hunting scope.

If you've never used an illuminated ret you won't miss it but, having had one I would not be without it.

+1

 

[teyhan1]

I worry when I hear the words "ballistic turret" and "illuminated reticule" used in stalking terms.
They are both generally items that fool the shooter into doing things they would not normally do.
Ballistic turrets encourage us to take longer shots that dramatically increasing the chance of wounding and illuminated reticules into taking shots that are too late in the day.
I have a Swarovski Nova 3-12x56 Illuminated that I have had for 15 years and have used the illumination maybe 5 or 6 times (when I remembered to screw it on). It won't make you a better shot. I understand if the crosshairs are too fine but choose a different reticule.
Familiarity with your rifle and its ballistics, and field craft, and knowing yours and your guns limits are a lot cheaper too.

 

[2130martin]

I worry when I hear the words "ballistic turret" and "illuminated reticule" used in stalking terms.
They are both generally items that fool the shooter into doing things they would not normally do.
Ballistic turrets encourage us to take longer shots that dramatically increasing the chance of wounding and illuminated reticules into taking shots that are too late in the day.
I have a Swarovski Nova 3-12x56 Illuminated that I have had for 15 years and have used the illumination maybe 5 or 6 times (when I remembered to screw it on). It won't make you a better shot. I understand if the crosshairs are too fine but choose a different reticule.
Familiarity with your rifle and its ballistics, and field craft, and knowing yours and your guns limits are a lot cheaper too.

Wheres the fun in that,we all love gadgets!!!!......

 

[al4x1]

I had a non illuminated Z6 with the 4 ret and had enough problems to sell it pretty fast. Its a very fine line and I was loosing it on dark backgrounds under the lamp when foxing. Missed a couple and just couldn't get on with it so sold it on and bought a 5-30x50 Z6i and not looked back same ret but when its near on dark the illuminated ret just makes life simple and you don't struggle trying to make out cross hairs.

 

[nick100]

I worry when I hear the words "ballistic turret" and "illuminated reticule" used in stalking terms.
They are both generally items that fool the shooter into doing things they would not normally do.
Ballistic turrets encourage us to take longer shots that dramatically increasing the chance of wounding and illuminated reticules into taking shots that are too late in the day.
.

I wondered how long it would be.
Believe me I am not at all interested in taking shots at deer much more than 100yds away.

Foxes and crows etc maybe a different story. Within reason obviously.
I have one or two spots where I can put a target up at reasonable ranges hence the higher mag and BT.

Martin, I agree with you really as to having all the bits.
To go that far and not bother with the "extras" seems a bit daft.
​Apart from that I think it looks good.



​

 

[teyhan1]

It was not me who wrote "But hopefully with a bit of practice those longer range shots could become successful."
And why should you treat any animal any different from a deer. Pot shots at longer ranges are not funny. Anti's love this stuff

 

[2130martin]

I wondered how long it would be.
Believe me I am not at all interested in taking shots at deer much more than 100yds away.

Foxes and crows etc maybe a different story. Within reason obviously.
I have one or two spots where I can put a target up at reasonable ranges hence the higher mag and BT.

Martin, I agree with you really as to having all the bits.
To go that far and not bother with the "extras" seems a bit daft.
​Apart from that I think it looks good.



​

Good man!!

the extra mag is good for checking shot placement when zeroing etc saves carrying a spotting scope.....also good for clarification of antlers etc.......

 

[2130martin]

It was not me who wrote "But hopefully with a bit of practice those longer range shots could become successful."
And why should you treat any animal any different from a deer. Pot shots at longer ranges are not funny. Anti's love this stuff

Simple answer,meat damage isn't an issue......

 

[libensvolenspotens]

I have a Z4i & am very happy. The illuminated reticule (Red dot) is a great aid in failing light and 10x mag is more than adequate. I couldn't see the value in spending a great deal more for 15x mag which i would never use.
IMHO illuminated reticule is well worth the extra.
Cheers,
​Dave

 

[Monkey Spanker]

The Swaro has a very fine reticle which is ideal for precision shooting and especially on the zeroing range as it doesn't obscure the target. The trouble with a fine reticle though is that it then disappears at low light!
However, an illuminated fine reticle gives you the best of both worlds! I'd rather take a shot at last light and be confident about my point of aim than have any element of doubt!
A lot of my work now is trying to get VERY difficult Fallow which only appear at VERY last light. The Illuminated Swaro gives me the extra 10 minutes or so which make the difference between success and failure! It is also sometimes possible to get a shot at a shy fox on a bright night without the need for a lamp! I wouldn't go back to non illuminated that's for sure!
MS

 

[teyhan1]

Simple answer,meat damage isn't an issue......

So your saying because you can't or won't eat it then it's perfectly acceptable to take a pot shot at any range with it's associated risk of wounding

 

[al4x1]

what he is saying is a vmax center mass doesn't wound, personally if we waited for every fox to be 100 yards away we wouldn't shoot many and neither would anyone else who lamps from a vehicle. With the right gear its not pot shots light fast varmint bullets with decent scopes mean 250 yards is pretty straight forward hit them anywhere chest area they don't go anywhere. Deer its very different you can rely on stalking in and then choose your shot, foxes muck about and wait too long you won't shoot many

 

[rem284]

I would say after shooting 1000's of deer over the years with scope with illuminated reticules I would say I could probably count on my fingers and toes the amount I have actually used the illumination. The ballistic turrets are a must if you intend to much beyond your zeroed range unless the reticule has usable hold over points