I put an Aimpoint 2X red dot on my Garand just because of the situation you mentioned, being in the dense underbrush near dusk, seeing game but not being able to see the irons well enough to take a good shot. Won't be a problem anymore 
Red Dots or other Illuminated scopes on hunting rifles?
- Thread starter Lone_Gunman
- Start date
- Status
Maverick223
Member
Another thought for those that want to be able to see their sights a bit better without using optics is a tritium front sight (I find a tritium rear to be too bright and distracting).
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
That being the case, then there's no downside really to battery-reliance. And I think you're right - a quick fall and emergence from the creek probably won't affect most products. You're still gonna want some magnification however.
In some instances, maybe. Usually not. But I have a scoped match pistol -- not a red dot, a scope -- because in very low light, the scope really does improve my ability to see and hit a target.
What hunters really DON'T need at 100 yards is a 1X red dot, apart from maybe chasing rabbits with a .22 semiauto. They limit your field of vision, obscure the target in low light, add weight and complexity to a rifle, and they offer no accuracy that someone who can shoot a rifle with irons can't get.
Red dots are great for NRA Bullseye Pistol timed and rapid fire, and for SWAT/urban warfare/home defense with a carbine. They may have some merit for camp defense cannons like Guide Guns, but I'm not entirely convinced.
Seems some people have never heard of a "cheek weld."
Last edited:
Lone_Gunman
Member
Doesn't a regular scope have all of those same drawbacks?
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Yes, they do, but they actually have UPSIDES to make up for it (magnification and light-gathering), unlike 1x dot sights.
No. It has some, but also offers advantages that the red dot doesn't.
A decent one improves low-light target visibility, and you can hit something with a fine crosshair and 9X magnification that you can't even see with irons or a 1X red dot.
Unless you're shooting moving targets or acquiring them very quickly at close range, a red dot has the downsides of irons and the downsides of a scope, and the upsides of neither, in addition to the downsides of requiring batteries and making low-light targets even harder to see.
Maverick223
Member
Agreed, I have never understood the reflex/red-dot trend, perhaps it worked well for others, but I do just as well and about as fast with irons, and my irons are like the energizer bunny...the batteries just keep going and going. I do like a scope for the extra magnification, faster target acquisition (on lower powers), and the added usefulness during low light conditions. I am just not cool enough for a red dot sight.
The only time I've really found a red dot to be helpful is Bullseye. You can center the red dot on the black dot downrange, squeeze the trigger and shoot an X.
I haven't used one on an "entry" carbine; I can imagine it would work well for that, for the same reasons.
If I have a cheek weld on a properly-fit full-size rifle or shotgun, though, I don't need a reflex dot. The reflex dot's greatest asset is that the gun need not be pointed straight for it to work. For hunting, this is moot, the VAST majority of the time.
I haven't used one on an "entry" carbine; I can imagine it would work well for that, for the same reasons.
If I have a cheek weld on a properly-fit full-size rifle or shotgun, though, I don't need a reflex dot. The reflex dot's greatest asset is that the gun need not be pointed straight for it to work. For hunting, this is moot, the VAST majority of the time.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Is a fine cross hair and 9x mag going to matter shooting deer at 100-150yds?
ROTFLMAOMany reflect sights don't block your field of view much, if at all. My Burris will also auto-adjust its brightness dependent on the lighting level beyond it. Also, many batteries like cold (but not extreme cold) temperatures. Leaving a laptop battery in the freezer as a means of preventing it from losing its range of charge is perfectly viable storage. I'm blessed by being in Western Washington, where 32f is about as cold as it gets in all but 2 weeks out of the year
Though this is coming from a non-hunter. I like my scopes for shots that have to be right the first time. A 3-power seems ideal for shots in the 100-150 yard range, so would be going for magnification (even unlighted) over a dot.
Though this is coming from a non-hunter. I like my scopes for shots that have to be right the first time. A 3-power seems ideal for shots in the 100-150 yard range, so would be going for magnification (even unlighted) over a dot.
Lone_Gunman
Member
If you will go back up and re-read the very strict criteria I set at the begining of the thread, you will see why I asked how your last post was relevant. I am not talking about hunting in general. I am talking about a very specific situation: Hunting for deer at ranges less than 150 yds, in poor light, and moderate cover, from a fixed position.
I specifically tried to be very specific so that the thread would not drift off on tangents. Discussion of 9x scopes does not seem applicable to my situation.
I realize that is is a lot more to hunting than this. But that does not matter.
Both of my Marlins in .45-70 have 1.5 - 5x scopes (Leupold "SPR" reticle) on them and I find that range to be perfect for 0 to 200 yards ... about the effective range of the .45-70. Neither scope has an illuminated reticle (I wish they did though) but on 1.5x with both eyes open I have all the peripheral vision I need, basically the full field of view that H2O MAN was alluding to. I have three scopes with illuminated reticles and I like the options/flexibility that illumination offers and will always "upgrade" if illumination is available.
Have you considered this scope?
http://swfa.com/Bushnell-125-4x24-Elite-4200-Rifle-Scope-P11605.aspx
I would think that the Bushnell would make a great 150 yard hunting scope. The heavy duplex reticle will show up well against different backgrounds, plus you have the option to turn on the illuminated dot if needed.
Another similar scope that I'm considering for an AR15 is this Burris.
http://swfa.com/Burris-1-4x24-Xtreme-Tactical-XTR-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P10975.aspx
Have you considered this scope?
http://swfa.com/Bushnell-125-4x24-Elite-4200-Rifle-Scope-P11605.aspx
I would think that the Bushnell would make a great 150 yard hunting scope. The heavy duplex reticle will show up well against different backgrounds, plus you have the option to turn on the illuminated dot if needed.
Another similar scope that I'm considering for an AR15 is this Burris.
http://swfa.com/Burris-1-4x24-Xtreme-Tactical-XTR-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P10975.aspx
Maverick223
Member
^That Burris above looks to be ideal for the given circumstances.
Lone_Gunman
Member
I think I have decided what I am really looking for is an illuminated reticle scope, and not a red dot. As I stated previously, I want to be able to use this in the same way a regular scope is used, and not a red dot.
The Bushnell and Burris shown above are approximately what I am interested in. I like that they are both low power, as I would probably only use 2x hunting at the ranges I am talking about.
Leupold and Trijicon also make very similar scopes like those two, and they are really not much if any more than the Burris listed above.
Does anyone know how the quality of Leupold and Trijicon illuminated reticles compare?
The Bushnell and Burris shown above are approximately what I am interested in. I like that they are both low power, as I would probably only use 2x hunting at the ranges I am talking about.
Leupold and Trijicon also make very similar scopes like those two, and they are really not much if any more than the Burris listed above.
Does anyone know how the quality of Leupold and Trijicon illuminated reticles compare?
Lone_Gunman said:
The two 1.5-5x scopes on my Marlins are both Leupold Mark 4s with the SP reticle (SPR). I have zero regrets and would buy those scopes again in a heartbeat. They're sitting on .45-70s so they get hammered under recoil without any issues, they're very clear, compact, light, and the reticle is excellent. That said, the Burris or Bushnell above would make good choices too. I would think that the Bushnell would suit your needs for relatively close range hunting since you're not worried about holdovers or wind drift at 100 yards with a .308. I would recommend that you calculate maximum point blank range (MPBR) and zero the scope accordingly.
The three illuminated reticles that I have are all Leupold Mark 4 scopes with TMR reticles so obviously, I like their illuminated reticles.
Before some members come along that seem to make a huge effort to bash Leupold every chance they get, there are many good scopes available these days from numerous manufacturers. Once you get above a certain price point, try to base your decision on the features that you want/need and not the brand name. Warranty is important and the ability to have your scope serviced/repaired in the US can be a big deal. I had to send my brand new $1000 Swarovksi range finder back to Austria to get repaired ... in other words, I'm without it for more than three months.
Last edited:
My M21A5 EBR wears a Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x40mm LR/T M2 Illuminated TMR Reticle and I am
considering the Mark 4 1.5-5x20mm MR/T M2 Illuminated TMR Reticle for one of my MK14s
considering the Mark 4 1.5-5x20mm MR/T M2 Illuminated TMR Reticle for one of my MK14s
Burris just scored some CS points with me yesterday.
I sent an e-mail because I wanted clarification of how to use their Ballistic Plex reticle in a scope I have. I just developed a load and I've been practicing with the gun at 300+ yards, and I'd noticed that the drop lines didn't seem to work as I thought they did. I wanted to get that straight before I started blasting money into the dirt at 400.
Problem solved, I got an answer in 5 minutes via e-mail. Then the guy asked me what load I was using, and said he'd send me some numbers. I told him what I was shooting, and he sent back a complete custom chart of ballistics for my handload, with the bullet I was using, at the velocity I am loading for, and a chart of how this corresponds with the Burris reticle.
Cool stuff, and I didn't even ask for it. He offered it.
My next scope will probably be a Burris.
I sent an e-mail because I wanted clarification of how to use their Ballistic Plex reticle in a scope I have. I just developed a load and I've been practicing with the gun at 300+ yards, and I'd noticed that the drop lines didn't seem to work as I thought they did. I wanted to get that straight before I started blasting money into the dirt at 400.
Problem solved, I got an answer in 5 minutes via e-mail. Then the guy asked me what load I was using, and said he'd send me some numbers. I told him what I was shooting, and he sent back a complete custom chart of ballistics for my handload, with the bullet I was using, at the velocity I am loading for, and a chart of how this corresponds with the Burris reticle.
Cool stuff, and I didn't even ask for it. He offered it.
My next scope will probably be a Burris.
cougar1717
Member
You are obviously free to do whatever you wish, but I would suggest a low power scope as a first choice, a tritium or illuminated front sight second, and a red dot third. Here's my reasoning: the first two require no maintenance (or very little). I have an eotech and I find myself buying batteries for it every year. I don't know about the aimpoint, but my eotech pulses and lets me know when it's going dead. Although there was one time that I got to the range, only to find out that the battery was gone. Even so, I personally would not rely on battery operated sights in a hunting situation and exposure to cold tempartures decreases useful life. Secondly, a major benefit for red dots is that they decrease the time of target aquisition, but from a fixed position hunting situation, I don't really see the benefit. It's not like you're going to shoot at several different targets. The target is going to come into view. You're going to wait for a single, humane shot and take it. Thirdly, your accuracy when using the sight. My eotech has a 1 moa dot and I can shoot approximately 2 moa with it at best. Feel free to correct me, but don't aimpoint sights have a 4 moa dot? Anyone worth their salt should be able to shoot relatively equivalently with either a 4 moa dot or irons. So I don't see any real advantage there. Don't get me wrong, I think red dots are great for assault rifles, .22's, carbines, muzzleloaders, and handguns, but for your situation, I really think a low power scope would work best.
- Status
