Page 2 of 2

Re: Illuminated Reticle

Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:48 pm
by Tackleberry
the the S-TAC is $888us + $58 at 4scopes so just over the g to ya door

Re: Illuminated Reticle

Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 6:33 am
by adamjp
$1150 rec retail here in Australia.

Some can do better deals than that.

Re: Illuminated Reticle

Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:07 am
by CZ550
Great info thanks fellas,

Your thoughts are mirroring what I was thinking, but dad won't believe what I say. It appears the roles have been reversed from when I was a teenager!

I too believe that his eyes and lack of magnification are the limiting factor for shooting at night, not the fact the reticle is not illuminated. Good quality optics and plenty of magnification will be the go in this situation.

The Sightron will definately get a plug when I talk to him next. They have an awesome reputation with their users on this sight. I can tell he has a hankering for a Euro though - will see what turns up I suppose.

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter and very interesting discussion.

Regards,

CZ550

Re: Illuminated Reticle

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:51 am
by davegh2o
I have an illuminated reticle and love it. I use it quite often. On steel, with darker paint or an overcast day, I turn it on ever so slightly so I can place the crosshair easily. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with my eyes.

Having said that, it is not the full reticle that is illuminated, just the one Mil square crosshair, and adding to that, it is on a rheostat so I can have it on but somewhat dim, just to set a difference between the dark target and the dim red reticle. This makes it less overwhelming than the whole reticle on fire.

Scope is a Kahles K624i. Mil4 reticle.

Re: Illuminated Reticle

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 1:58 pm
by Tezza
I have to say that I found the illuminated dot on my Schmidt and Bender Zenith quite handy when hunting thick bush on dusk where the canopy is bloking out a lot of the remaining light and making the cross hairs hard to see, don't know whether I'd do any worse without it, but if better to have and not need than to need and not have.