Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Illuminated Reticle vs. Heavy Duplex?

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

Most of the heavy duplex reticles aren't very good for low light, a German #4 is much better. An illuminated will let you hunt longer than any of them, but a good #4 will get you a long ways.

I used to be a firm believer in a heavy reticle like a Zeiss or Swaro #4 and used them with very good results. Back then, the illuminated reticles not only were too bright, but the lit-up portion often covered enough surface area that even the lowest setting would negatively affect one's vision in poor lighting conditions. But all that has changed.

There are several scopes that offer traditional reticles in which a dot in the center illuminates. They are small, non-obtrusive and offer quicker target acquisition than the standard reticle alone -- at least in my experience.

Cameraland currently has the Leica ERi 2.5-10x42/4-a at a huge savings...something like 899 shipped. I ran a 3-12x50 through the paces, and I can tell you that these truly are alpha optics and compete with the best of the best. And the illumination system is one of the best as well. There are several others worthy of mention, including Kahles, SB, Zeiss and Meopta, but for the price of the Leica, there is no better value available in the alpha category.

The Leupold VX-R and VX-6 don't quite match up from a purely optical standpoint, but they are still very good and likely would serve you well also.

Just a thought but I would want something with aqua lens coatings as well as ill reticle. The leica ERi has both. I don't think the Leica ER5's has an aqua coating and only thge ned VX6 HD has it.

I've used a German #4. I like it except that the thick portions of the bars tend to end too early--I'd like to see them continue much closer to the center.


Okie John

If using a non-illuminated reticle I'd try a first focal plane scope with a heavy reticle.

I cannot imagine a situation in which a heavy duplex or heavy #4 reticle in a FFP scope won't get you to the end of legal shooting hours with good glass. I use them and can always get to the end of legal hours (1/2 hour after sunset). Even under very heavy oak canopy with a buck thorn under story.

With a little moon or a low cloud deck and a city within 10 miles there is plenty of light to hunt all night.

I find that even on the lowest settings the illuminated reticles wll actually make it harder to see the target as well.

That definitely used to be the case but no longer is. Also keep in mind that in the scopes I am referring to, ONLY a small dot lights up -- not the entire reticle. Those in which the entire reticle lights up are rather useless to me as they negatively affect my vision in extremely low light.

I can assure you that scopes such as the Leica ERi, Kahles CSX, Schmidt Bender Polar and the Duralyt, Conquest DL, Victory VariPoint and Victory HT from Zeiss (all with #60) will adjust to rather dim levels and not negatively impact your shot opportunity. The Zeiss dots at the lowest settings are the brightest of the bunch, and I wouldn't mind them being just a tad dimmer. But they can get by with it due to their smaller size (app. .33 MOA/10x/100 yds).

The Leica and Kahles are the best in that regard as they adjust more dimly than the others. Most of my opportunities are moonlight shots on very dark targets (hogs), so I am extremely picky when it comes to optical performance. I used to use FFP #4s with good results, but the illuminated reticles make things much easier under the poorest of lighting conditions.

I should point out, though, that most of my nighttime shots are longer and in the 150-170 yard range, another factor that makes the lighted dots more useful. If I still had mobility and could stalk closer, then a non-illuminated FFP #4 would still be in the mix.

I will admit that I originally had a hard time convincing myself to give the newer technology a try because I knew how some of the earlier illuminated system looked and did not care for them. But distinct improvements have been made in this regard. And now, I don't think I could go back.

Owning a couple of Leupold's in 3 x 9 with the Heavy Duplex, and Heavy German Number 1.... I love these scope reticles...

but from a quick view in low light...I would bet the Lighted Dot is a heck of a lot quicker visual acquisition... your eyes will naturally focus on it instantly...

In low light conditions your eye will immediately go to the brightest image in its field of view...

I wish the German #1 was still available. There is not a better non ill low light reticle. It's a shame American hunters were too dumb to know a good thing when it was around.

The #1 is still available from Leica and S&B.

I've used and still use Heavy Duplexes in my Leupold 6X42's. I've used the German No.1, the 4a and the Post & Duplex.
Assuming your eyes are up to using such optics, the first problem is seeing the reticle. I've had my 6X42's in heavy timber on full cloud cover nights and could still see the reticle. The German No.1 is even better, BTW. Not just once, but many times.
The other problem is seeing far enough. So a scope with enough magnification is a must. Such scopes only work if you enough exit pupil for the magnification present. That means a 4X scope, or varible set on 4X needs at least a 5mm exit pupil. More brings a brighter image. But a 6X assuming same exit pupil size will allow you to see 50% further under the same light conditions.
I'm of the opinion that illuminated reticles will certainly work, but one must be careful to set them on the dimmest setting that allow you to see them. That will vary as it gets darker, etc. If you don't, it reduces your ability to see the target clearly. The other problem is running out of battery power at the wrong time.
I don't think they are necessary in a hunting rifle. But it's your call. E

I did not know what I was missing until i bought one. No pun intended.

I have a victory 1.5-6 with #60 IR, Leupold 1-6 with IR, two SWFA reticles with IR.
I rarely use the illumination. The Leupold thick reticle or a good #4 works for me.

My results from making actual comparisons mirror Bobby Tomek's. In very low light, I prefer the traditional non-illuminated heavy reticle for closer ranges and an illuminated dot or cross that can be dialed way down both in size and brightness for distance. My experience is deer only.

When the light gets very low I dial up as much magnification as I can get away with which right up to 10x. Personally speaking, in terms of making the shot, maximum exit pupil is overrated, with an EP of 5 or slightly less working just fine for me. Getting out there at 150 plus yds at the close of the day in fading light, critters get pretty small and their form is not as defined against the background. An illuminated dot or crosshair with the smallest subtension I can get and set at an intensity just bright enough to see it, improves the precision in aiming...for me anyway.

I'm not trying to step on anybody's baby here...saying that I fail to see the logic behind dots subtending 1/2" or more and unable to dial the intensity down to barely perceptible. And while I'm on a rant, it wouldn't hurt to mention that with around 1/3rd of the male population red/green color impaired, what is the reason for promoting daytime usage?

I like how this line sums it up. The past few years before TRACT, I was using VX6's. I very much liked their illuminated reticles and how dim they became yet still visible and useful in the early and late shooting hours. having that slight color variance made it easier for me to confirm the target...and quite frankly was just a nice feature to have when you wanted it.

necessary? Nah... but I did like having the option.

Illuminated. When you try one you never want anything Else.

Try a Nikon shotgun scope.

I have a 1-4x Monarch with turkey reticle which is a duplex with a diamond surrounding it for fast recognition. Also have a 1-5x Slughunter.
Both these reticles are coated with a high viz substance. No, it don't glow at night; but it does give luminescence in low light, even if you're using a Butler Creek black flip-up in the down position.

The Trijicon ACOG pioneered the Bindon Aiming Principle. The Nikon shotgun scopes, and maybe their other Nikoplex reticles can also use BAP.

I am using these on heavy recoiling .375 ruger mag and an 870 slug gun.

Also have an IOR-Bucuresti 6x with German #1 reticle. Scope has great contrast, much like Zeiss Dialyt 1,5-6x I owned for many years. Steel tube, great optics and covered finger click turrets.
Much visibility in dim conditions.

Nothing trumps a properly designed illuminated dot in lowlight conditions. You can never lose a dot in lowlight.

My sentiments exactly. Particularly like the rainy/gloomy the OP hunts, furthered exasperated by darker-than-normal color of wet animals.
Can a HD work in these conditions? Heck yes, but with so many great choices in illuminated centers (to include the Trijicon for the battery arguementists), there's no reason to not "aim fine".