Trijicon Credo 3-9x40 vs 2.5-10x56

[lpearce290]

Hi, long time lurker, but just registered.

I hunt the southeast, and do a lot of tree stand/ground blind stuff with typical shots being a less than 200 yards. I want a decent scope for an old .270 Savage 111 (eventually want to upgrade to a Tikka, but good glass is first priority. Lit reticle and low light performance are two of the biggest factors for me, and weight isn’t a huge deal.

I can get the 3-9x40 with a moa or mil reticle on Europtic for around 540. I have also found a 2.5-10x56 with the duplex somewhere else for around 640. I would rather have another reticle, but if the large objective lens makes a HUGE difference, I would consider spending the extra money regardless.

Basically just hoping to hear some opinions on whether or not the large objective is worth spending the extra money even with the duplex reticle. Or if the 3-9 performance in low light is good enough that I should just go that route.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts!

 

[lpearce290]

TLDR: would you rather have a 3-9x40 with a more useful reticle, or would a 2.5-10x56 of the same scope have enough of a light gathering/eye box advantage to be worth having a less preferred reticle?

 

[SloppyJ]

Go with the reticle you want. I haven't found that a small bump in objective lens size is that huge of a deal. One of the best light gathering scopes I have is a 40mm leupold. I have the same 3x9 creedo and it's great. Haven't hunted with it yet so I don't know about light gathering but I have high hopes.

 

[Macintosh]

Why are you concerned about a duplex reticle if shots are 200 yards or less? The answer to that might help inform my own decision were I in your shoes.

 

[lpearce290]

Why are you concerned about a duplex reticle if shots are 200 yards or less? The answer to that might help inform my own decision were I in your shoes.

I’m not necessarily concerned about it, it’s just not my preference out of the options available. If I’m spending the money already, I wouldn’t mind having something I could learn to to dial with/target shoot at further distances than I hunt/be able to use it if I ever hunt a different environment

 

[WKB]

If those were my two choices and I was a tree stand/blind hunter and my shots were primarily 200 or less I would def get the 56mm objective. 40mm to 56mm is a 40% jump in size. with a similar power range/exit pupil logically that should make the 56 mm significantly more bright

 

[KenLee]

56mm definitely