Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Is Illumination Worth It?

I do my spring bear hunting with a Ruger 77RLS Ultralight .30-06. These days it is scoped with an old 2-7x32 Nikon Monarch UCC. It's a good scope and I have no complaints. I have been looking at an online ad for a Leupold VX-R 2-7x33 with the Firedot Duplex. I have wondered how much it would help with faster target acquisition with a moving bear or with simply seeing the point of aim precisely when it is 10 minutes left in legal shooting light and the canopy of leaves is robbing what little light there is. Any opinions from those who use similar scopes?

I've used them mainly when we get past legal light here by a few minutes and you see a pig. In that instance, the center of many reticles isn't visible on the black hide but you can still make out the animal's basic outline. That's when center illumination, like on a VXR or Accupoint can lend a hand. I prefer this sort of illumination to a "whole reticle" illumination, which can be too much distraction for a precise placement. When it's so dark that I need illumination, I don't need extra aiming points, as I'm not going to shoot that far.

I agree whole-heartedly with Jpro.
When light gets bad or contrast between the reticle and target is poor, illumination really helps.

For my eyes and low light, I prefer no illumination having 2 Z6 Swaro's to compare, one with illumination, one without.

I'll take the quality of glass over-illumination any day.

I wanted to like illuminated scopes, tried to like them, but my preference is no illumination after testing and trying things out on a number of scopes of several years.

There are others like me who also set the hype aside and truly tested illumination out for themselves with no bias and came to the same conclusion.

I think that on lower quality glass the illumination actually does help a little bit in low light though.

I would choose that old 2-7x32 Nikon Monarch UCC over the Firedot any day of the week.

Interesting, as I'm on the fence as to illumination myself. I have the Z6 3-18x50 BT-4W (non-illum) and have been pondering buying another, or keeping my eyes peeled for a used (not abused) illuminated version with the BT-4W reticle.

My experience with illumination includes scopes in quality up to March.

This past big game season was the first time that NY state stretched out legal shooting hours from 30 min. before sunrise to 30 min. after sunset. Had a Vortex 1-8x Strike Eagle 24mm on a 30 mm tube with illuminated reticle that wasn't on anything so I put it on my Marlin .30-30 to be able to handle low light situations better. Played around with it before the season at dusk and it seemed to help out a lot. It sure is nice in low light to have a definite aiming point that you can see clearly against gathering darkness. Filled an antlerless tag with it set on 3x at 75-100 yards. Except this occurred at 3:23 P.M. in broad daylight and I never had it turned on. Maybe next year. Although I am real happy experimenting in low light with it. I've shot deer in low light with non-illuminated reticles and it sure looks like a more visible reticle reticle would make my life easier.

I've been playing with a lot of scopes/reticles in low light the past several years. A lot has been just testing, not shooting....and a fair amount has been killing. I can live with it or I can live without it and a lot of things factor in for me.

If too large of an area of the reticle is illuminated or the illuminated area is too bright then illumination can make it tough to see the target in low light.

If it's a very small area illuminated and the illumination level is light/low enough that it can barely be seen then it can be helpful in low light.

I prefer good glass and a well designed reticle that has 4 bold posts equally spaced from the center to illumination. Basic mildot spacing of 10 mils (far post to far post) is the widest I want to use and prefer less than that in low light.

4 posts help more than 3 in wooded areas or areas with broken backgrounds. In open areas with a solid backgrounds it matters a lot less and it's a lot easier to center a target in low light.

The lower the light, the closer I want to be to the target. I don't ever want to have to hold off windage in low light.

I appreciate illumination the most in a FFP scope at lower powers...and it doesn't have to be low light in all cases.

I used to have a Bushnell with their Firefly reticle. It was mainly a x-hair that you charged up with a flashlight and it was good for maybe 30 min which was plenty. It helped for the 1st or last 15 min of legal shooting light. It's problem, though, was that the x-hairs were too thick and they blotted out the target for longer shots.

I think a small dim red dot works great at first/last light but also in dark timber, especially during cloudy/rainy days - which is every elk season in Western Washington. You'd be surprised how dark it is in the timber if you're not from the PNW. Good non-lit reticles work, like the old conquest 3-9 duplex and Leica #1, but z6i, vx6 LRD, and razor LHT just make it a little easier.

I have illuminated and non-illuminated. I can see the advantage that an illuminated reticle can potentially have. If that illumination is geared towards Low light. Some are not.

My opinion / my eye; In areas of undefined shooting hours, the illumination can definitely help with the actual aiming point. And sometimes when in the timber and the sun is already behind a mountain, I can see it being helpful.

I have never used it to shoot with, but have played with it enough in very low light to acknowledge that it could be an advantage in some circumstances.
I avoided illumination for years, preferring heavier 1st focal plane reticles. But, even they became difficult to find without illumination.

I've never found it useful. Have found it hindering at times when trying it.

That said eyes changing as I age and I can appreciate the light during daytime shots at this point. No need for it, but can appreciate it.

That said my Zeiss Diatal still has no battery in that compartment. Tried it once. Just was happier without light.

if I need light I grab the thermal.

In a word, no.

But the need to find different ways to market the same thing, you get illuminated reticles and 6.5 Creedmoors.

Seeing the target is job number one.

Trijicon!

+1

I have that same UCC Monarch 2-7x32 scope and it's done everything I need, out to as far as I will shoot. But now I need an iPhone connected scope, with bullshit knobs?

Very early hours and very late hours coyote calling are the times I've found illumination very valuable.

I find it really important for a FFP scope at close range in low light conditions.

Yeah it is worth it, the problem is in most cases there are not a lot of scopes that have a suitable dot that does not overwhelm your eyesight.