Convince me I am wrong

[Macintosh]

I’ve never been in a scenario where that was an issue.

It was brought up earlier that the reticle shouldn’t have to depend on illumination at lower magnification.
I asked @Johnwell why he thought that and @Macintosh said he didn’t want to depend on batteries in the cold.

That was where my question about batteries in cold weather came from.

Alkaline batteries do not handle cold well. That is a fact. Lithium batteries do much better in cold. Im not super up on the coin batteries as used in most scopes. I haven’t had cold weather issues with illumination, but I also don’t own scopes that require illumination, so I really couldn’t prove it one way or another. I have had plenty of battery problems in cold weather with other equipment (rangefinders, headlamps, transceivers, radios, etc), which is where my skepticism comes from. Please note that I was quick to say that my preference may be emotional, and not based in fact. I simply haven’t tested scope Illumination enough to get over my skepticism. I have found a few ffp reticles that are easily usable at lowest magnification without illumination, so I haven’t really needed to test it.

Ultimately this nightforce scope is being discussed mostly because it is reliable. I hope those who consider reliability important can at least appreciate my skepticism on relying on a battery-powered system, after having had numerous problems with batteries in cold weather. It may very well be that the likelihood of the illumination failing is very low, but since I don’t need it at all with other reticles it seemed a decision on balance that others might appreciate even if they dont necessarily take the same approach.

 

[Johnwell]

What’s the issue with needing illumination on the lower magnification?

For me, I don’t like the idea of needing to remember to turn the illumination on/adjust the brightness, etc. Sometimes a deer surprises me at dawn or dusk and I would rather just be able to see my reticle and not have to worry about illumination.

If it seems like I’m being picky it’s to try to ‘convince the OP he’s wrong’ as he requested.

 

[BLJ]

Alkaline batteries do not handle cold well. That is a fact. Lithium batteries do much better in cold. Im not super up on the coin batteries as used in most scopes. I haven’t had cold weather issues with illumination, but I also don’t own scopes that require illumination, so I really couldn’t prove it one way or another. I have had plenty of battery problems in cold weather with other equipment (rangefinders, headlamps, transceivers, radios, etc), which is where my skepticism comes from. Please note that I was quick to say that my preference may be emotional, and not based in fact. I simply haven’t tested scope Illumination enough to get over my skepticism. I have found a few ffp reticles that are easily usable at lowest magnification without illumination, so I haven’t really needed to test it.

Ultimately this nightforce scope is being discussed mostly because it is reliable. I hope those who consider reliability important can at least appreciate my skepticism on relying on a battery-powered system, after having had numerous problems with batteries in cold weather. It may very well be that the likelihood of the illumination failing is very low, but since I don’t need it at all with other reticles it seemed a decision on balance that others might appreciate even if they dont necessarily take the same approach.

Fair points and taken as such. Thanks.

My way of thinking is that I put a $3 battery in the scope every September and not worry about it.
I believe that in my experience and the conditions that I’ve had them out in the batteries are either functioning properly or the cold they’ve been in (single digits) weren’t cold enough to effect them.

And I believe batteries are at the point of being that reliable enough to be maintained regularly and forgotten about.

I’ve also gotten to the point that the illumination being on and on the appropriate setting is part of hunting for me.
In a lot of cases I prefer it.
I can have wide FOV red dot (basically) and a usable reticle for hold overs or wind in the same scope.

 

[HuntHarder]

The illuminated green NF reticle was great on my elk hunt this year. Of course my shot opportunity was right at legal light. The green made it easily visible at 260 yards on the elk's vitals. I even zoomed in a little from the 5x I typically walk around at. I'd have to check, but id bet i was somewhere near 10x @ 260 yards.

I am sure instructors see issues with zoom scopes, but I've yet to have the issue. I do see scopes with zoom being harder for novice. I am constantly telling my 7 y.o. to back down the power to find the target, when he shoots my gun.

 

[Johnwell]

The problem with the internet is you have no idea who's making that claim.

Personally, the majority of people I hear pining over "hunting reticles" are people best served by a red dot, because all they want is something impossible to not see for their 30 yard 300 WM shot on a 150 lb southern whitetail. And a red dot is probably the best thing for them then.

I completely agree with you on a red dot (and I have one I like to use on my .357 mag lever if I know I’ll be walking), but there are some drawbacks that I’ve found with them.

For context, I hunt in the northeast, and the majority of the shots are well under 250 (probably even under 150) yards; which I would be willing to shoot with a good red dot on a reasonably flat shooting rifle.

However, they aren’t like a magnified optic that can make the image appear brighter than the surrounding lighting. In fact, many of them have a slight tint to make the dot appear brighter which, in turn, makes the image appear slightly darker. Apparently green dots typically have less tint, but I don’t have any experience with them. Older trijicon RMR’s look like you’re looking through a blue marble.

It’s really not a big deal except for barely legal light, particularly in goldenrod fields—it’s really hard to get enough contrast to see the outline of the deer, a more conventional scope with magnification can pick them out no problem.

I also hesitate to use it if I know there’s going to be a chance for longer shots; I feel much more comfortable with variable power optics for 300+ yard shots. That said, I could probably make a 1-4 work for the 80% of my usage..

But back to convincing the OP he’s wrong—the ATACR is just too heavy. Clearly you need the rokscope

 

[77TMK]

I completely agree with you on a red dot (and I have one I like to use on my .357 mag lever if I know I’ll be walking), but there are some drawbacks that I’ve found with them.

For context, I hunt in the northeast, and the majority of the shots are well under 250 (probably even under 150) yards; which I would be willing to shoot with a good red dot on a reasonably flat shooting rifle.

However, they aren’t like a magnified optic that can make the image appear brighter than the surrounding lighting. In fact, many of them have a slight tint to make the dot appear brighter which, in turn, makes the image appear slightly darker. Apparently green dots typically have less tint, but I don’t have any experience with them. Older trijicon RMR’s look like you’re looking through a blue marble.

It’s really not a big deal except for barely legal light, particularly in goldenrod fields—it’s really hard to get enough contrast to see the outline of the deer, a more conventional scope with magnification can pick them out no problem.

I also hesitate to use it if I know there’s going to be a chance for longer shots; I feel much more comfortable with variable power optics for 300+ yard shots. That said, I could probably make a 1-4 work for the 80% of my usage..

But back to convincing the OP he’s wrong—the ATACR is just too heavy. Clearly you need the rokscope

I shoot red dots with both eyes open and don’t experience any dimming effect.

 

[StupidLightweight]

I shoot red dots with both eyes open and don’t experience any dimming effect.

Compared to magnified scopes, red dots lose out in low light by minutes each morning and evening. This is a fact.

 

[77TMK]

Compared to magnified scopes, red dots lose out in low light by minutes each morning and evening. This is a fact.

Well so do my eyes. Large objective lenses augment what your eyes can see already. Red dots just don’t, but they’re not exactly taking away light, just not accumulating beyond your normal vision.

 

[Dave Thomas]

When you get older a red dot for hunting won't work except for extremely close shots. With corrective lenses i can not see good enough for a precise aiming point on a deer without magnification even at 100 yards and I'm only 51.

 

[Dave Thomas]

I also don't want to have to rely on illumination to be able to see my reticle. I don't mind having it so it shows up better in low light but I want to be able to use at the lowest magnification without needing it.

 

[Chris in TN]

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a reticle I couldn’t hunt with.

Most reticles have a bunch of stuff that is literally useless though, like 8 mils of wind hashes and 5 mils of hold-under, so it’s ridiculous and puzzling why nobody will just make a ffp reticle that’s usable through the whole magnification range.

That is a crude (drawn in MSPaint) but fairly decent idea of what I would see as a usable, functional, but not overly crowded, FFP reticle. Thick enough where it matters to be useful at low light in low powers (the weakness of most FFP scopes). Thin enough where it matters to be precise at distances. It *still* has more windage than I've ever needed and I'd be very open to any suggested changes if I could just get this reticle in a quality scope.

Or I'd buy a Burris 3-15 with their Ballistic Plex E1 FFP reticle, if they'd make the veracity pass a drop test:

Ballistic Plex E1™ FFP (2-10x and 3-15x) | Burris Optics

www.burrisoptics.com

After a lifetime of hunting with SFP reticles I have never, ever felt the need for illumination at dawn/dusk with SFP scopes and decent reticles. I just accept that those reticles generally aren't great for longer distances.

I put a NF SHV on my kids' rifle this summer and looked through it at dusk a few times the other day. The illumination is usable, but it still annoys me because I'd rather just have a design that didn't depend on such an easy failure point (battery/electronic gadget).

(ETA: RE: The picture I posted of a hypothetical reticle: I'd happily forgeo most or all the elevation marks if the scope had decent turrets)

(ETA2: I like the Burris reticle because it's tapered. I'm not endorsing the extra gadgetry it has. I just like that it's tapered)

 

[alexnelon]

View attachment 957898

That is a crude (drawn in MSPaint) but fairly decent idea of what I would see as a usable, functional, but not overly crowded, FFP reticle. Thick enough where it matters to be useful at low light in low powers (the weakness of most FFP scopes). Thin enough where it matters to be precise at distances. It *still* has more windage than I've ever needed and I'd be very open to any suggested changes if I could just get this reticle in a quality scope.

Or I'd buy a Burris 3-15 with their Ballistic Plex E1 FFP reticle, if they'd make the veracity pass a drop test:

Ballistic Plex E1™ FFP (2-10x and 3-15x) | Burris Optics

www.burrisoptics.com

After a lifetime of hunting with SFP reticles I have never, ever felt the need for illumination at dawn/dusk with SFP scopes and decent reticles. I just accept that those reticles generally aren't great for longer distances.

I put a NF SHV on my kids' rifle this summer and looked through it at dusk a few times the other day. The illumination is usable, but it still annoys me because I'd rather just have a design that didn't depend on such an easy failure point (battery/electronic gadget).

(ETA: RE: The picture I posted of a hypothetical reticle: I'd happily forgeo most or all the elevation marks if the scope had decent turrets)

(ETA2: I like the Burris reticle because it's tapered. I'm not endorsing the extra gadgetry it has. I just like that it's tapered)

I'd prefer something like this, or close to it. ~2 mils of wind on each side, 4 mils of holdover, and 1.5 mil under. It's not "to scale" but you get the gist.

 

[Chris in TN]

I'd prefer something like this, or close to it. ~2 mils of wind on each side, 4 mils of holdover, and 1.5 mil under. It's not "to scale" but you get the gist.

I could live with that as long as I could remove the top thick part.

 

[alexnelon]

I could live with that as long as I could remove the top thick part.

Yeah the 4th post isn’t strictly necessary. I wouldn’t want hashes going all the way up though. Just 1.5ish mils of hold under and then nothing.