SPEEDY wrote:If you shoot a lot of paper or LR then thin is king, but for hunting I like thick to give it better definition on game and for reliable low light use.
And no battery is required
A 10cm wide post covers enough of a pig at 250 m to encourage you to wait for it to get closer, especially if you're pointing a 7x57R, but it provides an awful lot of contrast to assist aiming under dappled moonlight.
The 2nd image plane red dot gives both the ability to see the aiming point in the dark and remain blissfully unaware how far
away the animal is
We are now coming full circle though, IR processors, red dots, SFPs and in built range finders
I would love and I mean absolutely love something that works like the Burris Eliminator III but with glass thats actually clear, I'd love Kahles or Swaro to bring I ut something that did as much and worked as well.
TBD, but a shame it only comes in 5-25x56 atm, I dont like or need that much magnification but something in a 2.5-10×50 or a 4-16×50 will probably wind up making it on my 308WIN, actually its probably a good reason to buy a 300WBY.
Gun Barrel Ecologist wrote:There's a .270 Weatherby barrel (R93) listed on Mialls website when I looked this morning
Magazine not included, thats a bit rough
No my spending is getting curtailed until after the move and I've settled into the new place.
I've got what I need and then I will work out what I want when I'm all sorted and settled in.
All reticles work, which one suits your needs best is always a matter of opinion. I at one time did not appreciate illuminated reticles and thought they were not worth the bother. That was because I mostly hunted the western United States and situations there were that by the time I could spot and stalk within range of a game animal in the morning it was already light enough to see any reticle well. And evening hunts I was usually hiking out by the time I could no longer see a standard reticle. Those were just the conditions I hunted.
However, now that I have hunted Europe for several years, I've learned to appreciate those lighted reticles, almost to consider them mandatory. They sure are nice in the low light conditions often encountered there, or more correctly here as that's where I am at the moment.
Of the lighted reticles I like the ones with a rheostat type intensity control better than the ones with push button controls. For night hunting I like the Zeiss 3-12X56HT with the #60 reticle best as it is very precise and just works very well. For daytime use I like my S&B with the firedot #7 best as it is bold and again intensity control is again by rheostat. My new Swarovski Z8i with the flexchange may prove to be the best all around illuminated reticle even though it has the push button intensity controls that I dislike for most situations it is great to just switch from daylight to nighttime intensity as needed. Time will tell but the more I use it the more I like it. Optically it is brilliant, not quite as good as my Zeiss at night but more than good enough for all other uses.
Anyway those are my thoughts on illuminated reticles, slowly, I have become more and more in favor of them.
Thanks everyone for your input.
I finally pulled the trigger on the illuminated reticle.
I think between my personal nature to regret not getting it and then subsequently buying the scope twice, along with the potential long term resale value consideration, it made more sense to buy the illuminated ret.
Even though I realize that the individual who started this thread (Mcardenal) has already made his purchasing decision, I'm coming to the thread late, and I wanted to point out something that I've noticed with regard to a particular illuminated reticle.
My opinions regarding reticles generally mirror Mr. Stokes' opinions - I like the rheostat-like brightness controls, and I like a fine dot (like Zeiss' #60 reticle in their HT series of scopes). Yet, I've really matriculated over toward the Swarovski scopes over the past few years despite their lack of an illumination rheostat and the fact that Zeiss' "dot" is finer than Swarovski's dot. The reason for this is that I find the Swaro glass superb, I prefer Swaro's generally large "eye box", I like that Swaros are generally light weight scopes (because I'm using them for hunting), and, lastly, I believe Swaro's ballistic turrets to be the best, most versatile of their type on the market.
Like Mr. Stokes, I really like the Z8i line of Swaro scopes, and I'm pleased with the versatility of the "flexchange" reticles on the 1-8x24 and the 1.7-13.3x42 scopes, in particular. However, and this is the reason for my contribution to this thread, the flexchange reticle isn't as bright as the simple 4-I or 4A-I reticles that are also offered. So, if you're just using the "dot" (rather than the "circle") on the flexchange, it won't be as bright as the regular version of that same scope. The only time I could see this being an issue is with bright daytime shooting, but I wanted to point this out to perspective buyers. I've never asked a Swaro rep as to why this is; maybe Pigeon can give some insights.
