I just picked up a new-to-me rifle for next years deer season, and it needs a scope.  Since this rifle is chambered in 6.5x55, I'm probably going to go for something along the lines of 3x-9x, 2x-10x, etc., but I can't decide if I want an illuminated reticle or not.  All the optics I currently use are either magnified scopes with standard reticles are unmagnified red dots.  I think an illuminated reticle could be useful for early morning/late evening shots, but there's definitely a cost associated with it, and it's not as common in scopes once you move past low power variable.  

From what my research is telling me, there are some very good deals right now on higher end glass, where I could get a lot of scope for a very good price.  Or I could spend about the same money and get a scope with illumination that will be lower quality glass. Advice as to which way I should go?

I have a couple that are illuminated but I never shoot at dusk so I never turn on the illumination. Better to have it and not need it I guess.
I have looked through them at night out of curiosity and it would definitely help if that was your intended use.

I have a Nikon Monarch with an illuminated reticle. I have never needed it. I got a good deal on a trade for it or I wouldn't have it.

Several of my rifles have illuminated reticles, I like them for hunting after dark or in low light conditions.  The other advantage is for help in training someone who has never shot before, telling them to put the dot on where they need to aim and having them understand it is easier than trying to get a 6 year old to find the crosshairs.

I just replaced the Nikon M308 scope on my AR10A2 clone with a Primary Arms 4-14X44 FFP Scope with illumined Reticle.   I missed a nice buck because I couldn’t see the cross hairs.   Too dark in the shadows.   And buy the way the primary arms scope was half of what the Nikon was, plus it has a three year warranty.

Wolf

Natchezss.com has SMOKING deals on Nikons right now.

Illumination isn't necessary, IMO, but if the added weight doesn't bug you...  How can it hurt ?

I do.  There are many bucks and does I wouldn't have bagged without and illuminated reticle.

If you can't see the crosshairs with a decent scope, it's probably WELL after or before legal shooting light.........just saying.

I don't find illuminated recticles a must unless its a 1-X low power scope that I may be shooting both eyes open at moving targets. I've never had an issue seeing the recticle in any of my Nikon's within shooting hours. If you plan on hunting varmints or something at night though, might as well buy once cry once.

Don't see the need for one.

Yes, and some great deals on Weavers as well.  Natchez is part of my dilemma.  I have a limited budget to work with, so I can either spend my money to buy a nice piece of glass that at normal retail prices would be out of my price range, or I can go with a lesser quality optic, for example a Vortex Crossfire II, that has illumination.  I'm not finding a whole lot of deals on illuminated optics in the higher variable scopes.  If I had the cash available, I'd probably just go with a Leupold 3-9x VX-R with the FireDot reticle, but that's a $500+ optic.

Vortex Viper PST FFP 4-16 EBR2C



I have the 6-24 on my 300 win mag.

Here's the reticle

Looks like awesome glass.  I checked SWFA, and it's way out of my budget though

I agree 100%.  I have no problem shooting after time with my Leupold VXIII or my II, and thats only $300 and $500 glass... no I dont shoot after time but could.   For hunting you dont need it.

Illumination is awesome if conditions start combining any of these:  dusk, dawn foggy, hazzy, heavy overcast, dark shadows, strong reflections....ect etc

the leupold vx-r 3-9 with illumination is about the perfect hunting scope for me

I disagree.
If you're in a field with a clear sky, sure no IR is needed as moonlight will give a good picture right up to the end of legal shooting time.  But if you're deeper in the woods, and/or there's little or no moon, and/or it a cloudy sky, then you may see the silhouette of your game, but have a very hard time finding the reticle. This is where the IR is worth the money you spent on it.

For hunting deer in low light I feel good glass is just as valuable as illuminated reticle. I have a Zeiss Conquest on my deer rifle (also a 6.5x55; love the swede) and I love it. Have taken many game in low light and always felt confident in the shot/target identification.
That being said I have a leupold firedot on my Pig rifle and I love it; works good in low light but mainly because I have an easier time tracking a moving target with an illuminated reticle.
Just my 2 cents

I could see that, and I agree with the deep woods and light.

I want to add on the times when I can't see my reticle I also couldnt tell what I was shooting at.  I don't shoot at silhouette's I want to know for sure, buck, doe, spike or button etc.  Dont get me wrong I am not really a trophy hunter I hunt for meat first but I won't take a shot at a target I can't 100% confirm.

I had two hunting rifles mounted with scopes with IR but took them off after few seasons.
One thing to consider is that a good quality scope will collect enough light to see a standard reticle during legal hunting hours.  When it's too dark to see the reticle then it's too dark to identify your target so you should not be shooting.  Another thing I noticed is that when you are shooting some decent distance (150+ yards) the point of impact changes when the IR is on vs. just using the reticle without the IR.  I think it has to do with the way your eye see the cross hair but I'm not sure.  With my scopes the change in point of impact was about 3" at 200 yards...enough to make a difference on deer size target.
 

Different strokes for different folks.  I don't shoot any bucks unless I'm culling the herd, putting an injured out of commission, or it's bigger than the biggest I've ever bagged.

But the biggest buck I ever bagged I could only see a silhouette. He walked past me on the way back to the truck after dark.  His eye's sparkled from my headlamp, so I knew it was a critter and not a person.  I took a gamble and it paid off.

I see you're in NC.  What county?  I used to hunt in Anson.

different strokes for different folks for sure.    I live in Currituck, hunt and play on family farm in Northampton Co.

And just so i read what you typed right, you shot your biggest buck walking back to your truck after dark (past legal time), using your headlamp (basically)?  So we have an illegally bagged  animal.

You assume a lot.  I give you a D+ for your attempt to categorize me as a spot lighter. And give myself a D for not providing adequate context.

1. On that day I forgot my overalls and was forced to come out of the stand early because of the cold.  If you're familiar with the regulations as you imply then you know that it's legal to harvest game up to 30 minutes after sunset.   99% of people would agree that 29 minutes after sunset is "after dark."

2. The headlamp was turned off long before I fired.  I wear a low output headlamp for safety, I don't want to get shot.  The instant I saw the sparkling eyes I stopped in my tracks and turned the lamp off.  I didn't want to alarm the animal and I wanted my pupils to dilate ASAP.  The buck walked up on me while I was standing still.  Once it got close enough the silhouette revealed what it was. In the scope I could see the animal but not the crosshairs.  The illuminated reticle made the harvest possible.

3. If you think shooting with a headlamp turned on is effective, then I would encourage you to put on a headlamp and try to use a scope, or any type of optics, in the darkness with it turned on.

Thanks for clearing that up.  

Ever heard of crop depredation permit?  it allows the farmer and he can assign another shooter to shoot wildlife from eating his crops  365 24/7. I have taken a few deer after dark with headlamp, but thats my headlamp...I use green L.E.D streamlight.

I actually recommend you try one if you are using a low power white light..not for illegal activity but for safety.  The green can be seen by other hunters much better than white, it doesnt mess with your eyes and doesnt seem to spook animules.

Be sure to get a scope with a good objective size.  40mm-44mm works great for collecting lots of light.  Plus depending on your hunting location, yes get an illuminated reticle.  Open fields, not needed.  Dark depths of the woods, definitely.

Vortex has a good line of them as well as others on sale (Leupold, Nikon, etc)

couple of years ago I killed a doe with 3 mins left of legal shooting time.  It was deep in the woods and I could only barely make out the deer.  At that moment it would have been nice for a little light up.  But I still got it done.  That was with an 15year old 0-4x pentax scope (made by burris at the time)  

It would be nice to have, but Id spend more money on better glass.

I agree at first and last light, they are incredibly useful!

Thumbs up on all of this except for use of the word - 'harvest'.

You stopped a beating heart.

You killed it, and I'm really good with that.

I've taught my kids this is NOT a bad thing.  It is a serious and necessary thing, but not a bad thing.

Call it what it is.

Glad to find I'm not the only one that finds the word "harvest" annoying.



 

Seeing how many people on here shoot at "deer sillouettes" they can barely see, makes me remember why I am primarily a bow hunter. YIKES

That's why I hunt private land only.

yeah I'm sure your creeping around on all fours without blaze orange or flashlight during legal shooting times munching on the forest floor.

No shit.

The poster in question even said his headlamp lit up the buck's eyes.  That doesn't happen with humans when I shine the light at them...

Not knowing if it's a doe or buck doesn't translate to not knowing if it's man or beast.
Geez.People trespass every day. It was a big problem on the private land that I leased.  That's why I verify it's not a human before I fire.The (unedited) money quote:

When exactly is after time?  I use my guns at night, in the dead of winter, shooting yotes.  With an illuminated reticle I can shoot them on a moonlit night with no light.

A little under $900 OTD at my LGS.

We were talking Deer or the topic turned to deer er this is in the deer hunting section and legal shooting time is 1/2 hour after sunset.   yeah yotes and hogs is a 24/7-365 operation.  In which yes, illuminated scope is nice

I obsessed over this question last spring when I was scoping a new .270 XCR II. I ended up buying a Leupold VX-L 3.5-10x with the illuminated duplex. Truth be told, this was the first illuminated scope I ever purchased for a hunting rifle. Prior to this, all of my deer hunting was done with a .270 Win M70 with a Nikon 3-9x. Both the rifle and scope were purchased by my grandfather in 1970, thus no illumination. I have been out with the XCR II on a few occasions now and killed two does with it, never once having turned on the illumination. That said, the illuminated reticle can be dialed up extremely bright. It's a pretty awesome feature

Gonna do a Trijicon Accupoint on my Beowulf when I get the credit cards paid down a bit, love the idea of having the reticle illuminate on its own. Once a deer comes along after I've spent 1-7 hours in the woods, holding perfectly still in 20-30 degree weather, I don't mess with the illumination control. But then again, I don't hunt in areas with long ranges where I can move around and expect the deer to wait on me. At 20-100 yards, they will see you blinking and run, at 300-500 yards, it may be a different story.

I'll talk a bit to this question.  I hunt exclusively in Virginia, and most areas I hunt would be I think what writers like to call "thick timber" or "dark timber".  Heavily forested often with signficant undergrowth.  Occasionally I have an option to hunt over an ag field, but that's unusual for me.  I have shot deer that were visible clearly as silhouettes but without full detail within legal shooting times.  If you combine being in heavy forest with overcast weather, between 30 minutes prior to sunrise until even an hour after can be very dark.  Any shots I've taken in this time have been under very specific conditions.  Namely, I'm in a stand or shooting down from elevation, so the Earth is my backstop.  I know where all hunters (if any) are in relation to my position and I'm not shooting anywhere near them, nor at their location.  Any shots in this little light are only when I'm hunting with both antlered and antlerless tags, with a legal option to use either.  

When I say I've shot in low light at a silhouette, there was absolutely no doubt in my mind whether my target was a deer or something else.  However, one one occasion I did not recognize the deer had very small spikes, and initially thought it to be a doe.  Since I had tags for both and was hunting at a time and place where harvest of either antlered/antlerless was legal, I took the shot and ended up using an anterled tag.  Still meat in the freezer and that spike has tasted pretty good.  

My point is in certain conditions you can have a legal, ethical shot at a deer where you can clearly identify the target as a "deer' while still being dark enough that a normal reticle isn't the easiest to see.  From what I've read, I think having an option for illumination in these times would be useful, but this comes at a price.  Scopes with illumination look to be a bit heavier and more expensive than a comparable scope without illumination.

I had the same type of thinking as you when looking at the firedot series. As said before, I can see the cross hairs in my scopes until it is past legal shooting hours, and even when using a red dot on pigs I've found that I have to keep adjusting the setting so that the dot isn't too bright and wash out the target. The illumination causes more problems for me as the light is fading. If you are worried about low light shooting get the biggest objective you can, and look through your friends scopes at dusk to really get a feel for which brands work better than others.

Years ago, my first experience with illuminated optics was reflex type (Aimpoint/EoTech) sights. After years of using standard rifle scopes, the illumination really hooked me. From there I went with a Trijicon Accupoint 1.25x4. It had awful glass, but the illumination was awesome. Nowadays, if the reticle isn't lit, I don't want it. My last scope purchase was a Burris MTAC 1-4. This thing is off the hook. Because Burris has them built overseas, you get a $399 dollar optic with fantastic glass, brightly lit reticle (no tritium to dim either), and a cool BDC capability. I love the thing. It has been dropped, dragged through dense woods, and survived rain on various wild hog hunts. The illumination is great back in the shadows of the deep woods. I'd suggest that you look at the MTAC line too. You can get it all for a very reasonable price.

I've got one Trijicon TR-21 with the post reticle Amber & it's nice for poor light shooting. Another option that works better than you may think is a heavy duplex reticle. I have one in straight 6x Leupold I've used on a muzzleloader and a couple of other rifles. It really makes a difference in low "Primetime" light. It doesn't disappear as quickly as finer lined reticles against a dark hog or deer.

Good point.  I do think reticle choice makes a difference in lower light, and the Leupold heavy duplex is pretty significant was far as reticle "thickness".

Even that isn't safe if you are close to a road because of road hunters.  

It has come in handy at last legal light on an overcast day more than once.

Depending on your hunting area, they can be very useful.  My main stand is in some thick shit and around sun up/down the crosshairs can blend into the trees beyond.  Ymmv