Daylight bright illuminated scopes

[fastarget]

Fastarget - I own a Meopta ZD and have looked through a couple of Swaro Z6i scopes with the BRT reticle. It's definitely a superior reticle to the Meopta's, but as some else mentioned above, it's not $1,400 nicer. Believe me, I thought hard about it, but just couldn't justify that extra cost. The 6X magnification would be great too, but there's a lot of guys finishing very well in big matches with scopes that are 4X on the top end.

+1

JGC, thanks for the input. Ordered one ZD should be here next week. Honestly, was very impressed with the vortex brand, nice glass, quality build, useful reticles. But as others said, they washed out for me in the light, the PST was better than the razor as far as the reticle illumination only. OK, that said, they would not work for me, I needed that well illuminated dot in the center.

It is a personal preference. It will make my eyes see very a familiar dot in all my optics that I use, so I do not have to relearn what to look for instinctively. The dealer was out of Z6i, put me on the list to look at them when they come in after new year. Wife might sell her TA11 for one however, wears swaros too.

Edited December 10, 2011 by fastarget

[esskay]

I fell the same about a good bright reticle. Spent time behind aimpoints and would like to shoot something with a similar view if possible so I do not have to readapt from gun to gun. The Ideal scope would look like an aimpoint up for up-close, but have magnification for distant targets all in one optic.

What you've described is the Swaro Z6i or S&B Short Dot. The entire reticle of the Meopta is illuminated. I'm sure you'll like it though.

[gm iprod]

I have a 18" AR that I have tried a bunch of illuminated scopes. The two that work by far and away the best in all light conditions are as follows.

Trijicon 1-4x24 (30mm Tube) Post and Triangle GREEN. Zero it at 200M, that way tip of Triangle is also bangon at 50M. Hold under 2" at 100M. If targets present at longer range and you have time, adjust knob +3MOA for 300M zero. After that any target is less than easily seen and identified with 4X. So I just fudge it some.

Trijicon ACOG TA33, better for shorter range and has better eye relief than 4X ACOG. Green Horseshoe. Bullet Drop Comped out to 600M. Less than you desire at the top end. But I can go fairly quicly with teh fixed 3X.

Beaware all ACOG are more expensive than most 1-4 variables.

Burris and Millet not so flash. I like most Burrises but I think they are not brilliant at this job. Good pricing though.

Swarovski Z6i really really nice, just too expensive.

Leupold, not better enough in bright light and they eat batteries unless you have the new auto off on the VXR. Dot is still lost on really bright targets or when set bright enough to find, it flares when suddenly confronted with going to dark cover or inside from bright outside.

Swaroski less affected, Trijicon seems better to my eyes.

I really like the Green, con't seem to lose it and better inside and or at night than Red or Amber.

I dismissed the 4x ACOG as the eye relief is not forgiving enough for my tastes. Plus I am not going into combat any time soon.

3.5x ACOG is a little big but with Chevron reticle you get fast acquisition, wide field of view and BDC included, eye relief way betterthan 4x. 3x just the way I like it. I have one on a M4 copy.

Not enough experience with Zeiss to be certain of my opinions. S&B wat out of my packet. Meopta and other zero experience.

I hate battery powered magnified scopes, That is why I am a huge fan (you would never guess) of the Trijiocn. 1x Aimpoints etc OK well made realiable, but electrics on a scope have always worried me. I have broken a few Aimpoits but they have always stood behind the product. Anything Asian made with Electrics is to be avoided if you are rough or shoot lots.

Edited December 10, 2011 by gm iprod

[fastarget]

nice review,

have looked throught the TR24 and like them, The acog 3.5 is most excellent, I just could not shoot it with both eyes open unless occluded, then I would consistently shoot low on small close up targets in hoser stages .

[barrysuperhawk]

It is a personal preference. It will make my eyes see very a familiar dot in all my optics that I use, so I do not have to relearn what to look for instinctively.

When I started looking I was only looking at if the reticles were Illuminated ... now I am paying more attention to what the reticles are, and how bright they are. I have had a Vortex 1-4, a Konus 1-4, and a half dozen pieces of chinese crap that I won't even ennumerate here. The screwed up part is that some of the chinese crap had more of the features that I liked than the real scopes. How is it that $49 pieces of chinese junk are consistently brighter in the daylight than $300- $500 Quality scopes? That feature is useless considering their faults, but at least they get *one* thing right... How is it you can spend Ten times as much and not get even similar performance?

[P.E. Kelley]

I understand that the poster wants what he wants, but can you guys tell me what the big deal is about daytime illumination???

I get that IF your paying for it you should damn well get it..But...

I have had no problem with Irons (no illumination) and took the batteries out of my 1st generation IOR PitBull and have yet to

find and instance where I said "gee I wish I had a lit reticle"

I could understand if your scope had a reticle where you could not see it or was difficult to see without it, but most of the

scopes you are talking about work rather well sans the "glow"

Before you jump on me for lack of optic knowledge...I own and have used the Swaro BRT, Leupold 1.5x 5 CMR2 , Weaver 1 x 3, USO SN-4, IOR PitBull 1st Gen and now the 3rd Gen.

Just curious and would like to understand how so many have played this game so well without this illumination thing.

Within the context of 3GUN...What say you?

Patrick

Edited December 10, 2011 by P.E. Kelley

[P.E. Kelley]

No problem with scopes but apparently I do with double posting

Edited December 10, 2011 by P.E. Kelley

[barrysuperhawk]

I understand that the poster wants what he wants, but can you guys tell me what the big deal is about daytime illumination???

I get that IF your paying for it you should damn well get it..But...

I have had no problem with Irons (no illumination) and took the batteries out of my 1st generation IOR PitBull and have yet to

find and instance where I said "gee I wish I had a lit reticle"

I could understand if your scope had a reticle where you could not see it or was difficult to see without it, but most of the

scopes you are talking about work rather well sans the "glow"

Before you jump on me for lack of optic knowledge...I own and have used the Swaro BRT, Leupold 1.5x 5 CMR2 , Weaver 1 x 3, USO SN-4, IOR PitBull 1st Gen and now the 3rd Gen.

Just curious and would like to understand how so many have played this game so well without this illumination thing.

Within the context of 3GUN...What say you?

Patrick

The difference is contrast. Most every 3 gun match I have been to has used steel targets at anything past 100 yards or so , and after a few hits, they are a mottled dark Gray camoflauge in front of a dirt and foilage background. Most squads try to let their iron sight shooters go first

but with a black reticle I have found I have the same issue as with a black front sight post. Having Illumination available might mean the difference between a hit and a miss if the target backers are crappy or non-existent. Having illumination gives the shooter a way to increase the contrast between the target and the reticle. Obviously, running it 100% full brightness won't be the answer all of the time, but it's another tool in the collection, as it were...

As far as how so many have done so well without illumination, that's easy. 10 years ago, if you wanted illumination, you had like 3 choices in a magnified optic, and they all sucked. [yes, that is an exaggeration, but you get my point]. Scopes are getting brighter and clearer and manufacturers are learning how to make illuminated scopes that are good for something other than shooting at a deer at dusk. Another advantage of a scope that goes really bright is speed up close. If you can get it bright enough to see using both eyes open without having to focus on the reticle itself, you can blaze away at close range.

[P.E. Kelley]

I understand that the poster wants what he wants, but can you guys tell me what the big deal is about daytime illumination???

I get that IF your paying for it you should damn well get it..But...

I have had no problem with Irons (no illumination) and took the batteries out of my 1st generation IOR PitBull and have yet to

find and instance where I said "gee I wish I had a lit reticle"

I could understand if your scope had a reticle where you could not see it or was difficult to see without it, but most of the

scopes you are talking about work rather well sans the "glow"

Before you jump on me for lack of optic knowledge...I own and have used the Swaro BRT, Leupold 1.5x 5 CMR2 , Weaver 1 x 3, USO SN-4, IOR PitBull 1st Gen and now the 3rd Gen.

Just curious and would like to understand how so many have played this game so well without this illumination thing.

Within the context of 3GUN...What say you?

Patrick

The difference is contrast. Most every 3 gun match I have been to has used steel targets at anything past 100 yards or so , and after a few hits, they are a mottled dark Gray camoflauge in front of a dirt and foilage background. Most squads try to let their iron sight shooters go first

but with a black reticle I have found I have the same issue as with a black front sight post. Having Illumination available might mean the difference between a hit and a miss if the target backers are crappy or non-existent. Having illumination gives the shooter a way to increase the contrast between the target and the reticle. Obviously, running it 100% full brightness won't be the answer all of the time, but it's another tool in the collection, as it were...

As far as how so many have done so well without illumination, that's easy. 10 years ago, if you wanted illumination, you had like 3 choices in a magnified optic, and they all sucked. [yes, that is an exaggeration, but you get my point]. Scopes are getting brighter and clearer and manufacturers are learning how to make illuminated scopes that are good for something other than shooting at a deer at dusk. Another advantage of a scope that goes really bright is speed up close. If you can get it bright enough to see using both eyes open without having to focus on the reticle itself, you can blaze away at close range.

You have not made a convincing case my friend. I have got better than 10 years in the 3 gun game and have probably seen everything you have.

Most every scope in discussion works very well without illumination as they have large center elements that are fast up close.

I really think this is more a matter of want more than any need.

Again it does not mean we should not ask for and get it.

Maybe I too am asking for an answer to a question that I don't need and answer to, but somehow I don't think shooter "X" "Y" or "Z" will best me

at a match because they did or I did not have illumination. Way to much more to it than that.

I am still curious as to the clamor for this trait.

Respectfully

Patrick

[gng4life]

Pat,

I don't nearly have the experience you have nor am I anywhere near your level but for me, there is a consistency between shooting Open USPSA and shooting an illuminated scope for 3Gun. I have trained my eye to pick up the dot, press, and go. For the close in targets, I have noticed that when I did not have an illuminated ret, it took me a little longer to pick up on the ret and break the shot. Now that I have something that is pretty decent in daylight, I feel a little bit faster with my shots. On the longer shots, I really haven't noticed a difference yet.

Maybe not a convincing case either but it's what I like and I plan on staying with it. However, this is not my primary concern for a scope (crisp/clear glass), only secondary. I do plan on upgrading to the Short Dot next year.

[P.E. Kelley]

Pat,

I don't nearly have the experience you have nor am I anywhere near your level but for me, there is a consistency between shooting Open USPSA and shooting an illuminated scope for 3Gun. I have trained my eye to pick up the dot, press, and go. For the close in targets, I have noticed that when I did not have an illuminated ret, it took me a little longer to pick up on the ret and break the shot. Now that I have something that is pretty decent in daylight, I feel a little bit faster with my shots. On the longer shots, I really haven't noticed a difference yet.

Maybe not a convincing case either but it's what I like and I plan on staying with it. However, this is not my primary concern for a scope (crisp/clear glass), only secondary. I do plan on upgrading to the Short Dot next year.

You sir have illustrated a very good reason and one that would not have crossed my mind, hence the query.

Thank you.

Patirck

[Doug H.]

I agree, I could shoot without the dot, but having a red dot on my rifle, shotgun and pistol that are very similar makes it easier for my small brain to transition between platforms and makes my sight picture the same on all 3 guns. I use the Swaro 1-6 BRT and C-More STS on my rifle, Aimpoint H-1 on my shotgun and C-More Slide Ride on my Pistol which all have a single dot in the center. On the close stuff I don't have to think very much, which is my default mode. Perhaps not a need, but a very big want for me. I can't shoot as fast as you Pat, but I don't have anywhere near as much time behind a rifle either.

Doug

[P.E. Kelley]

Doug,

You'll just have to learn to shoot like I do...with my eyes closed!

You OPEN guys make a very good point. Perhaps someday I too will dabble on the "dark side"

Thanks guys.

Patrick

[fastarget]

[JGC, thanks for the input. Ordered one ZD should be here next week. Honestly, was very impressed with the vortex brand, nice glass, quality build, useful reticles. But as others said, they washed out for me in the light, the PST was better than the razor as far as the reticle illumination only. OK, that said, they would not work for me, I needed that well illuminated dot in the center.

It is a personal preference. It will make my eyes see very a familiar dot in all my optics that I use, so I do not have to relearn what to look for instinctively.

Well explained Doug....

Edited December 10, 2011 by fastarget

[Doug H.]

Doug,

You'll just have to learn to shoot like I do...with my eyes closed!

You OPEN guys make a very good point. Perhaps someday I too will dabble on the "dark side"

Thanks guys.

Patrick

Pat,

Please wait as long as possible, it will just move me down one more place.

Doug

[mpeltier]

Doug,

You'll just have to learn to shoot like I do...with my eyes closed!

You OPEN guys make a very good point. Perhaps someday I too will dabble on the "dark side"

Thanks guys.

Patrick

I'm not an open shooter, but much prefer a daytime lit reticle for consistancy among my 3-guns as I have red fiber optic on my pistol and shotgun. This is not the only reason for me. I think it may simply be a matter of perspective and perception, with a little bit of individual experiances mixed in to form an opinion. I have shot Irons, and non-illuminated and Illuminated optics extensively in 3-gun for over 10 years and would not even consider a scope now without daytime Illumination, and for me it MUST be red. There have been stages at big matches where bright illumination may not have been as import as any illumination, but I will give a few examples of instinces where I had much more confidence because I had illumination, and for me confidance is a strong selling point in my equipment, whether its real or not as perception is reality.

First example was a stage at Area 6 3-gun a few years back that had a number of totally enclosed shoothouses with only a window to shoot thru. From a distance and it was absolutely pitch black in to the shooting area with the targets. At load and make ready I put the scope up (Meopta 1-4) and could not see ANY of the reticle prior to turning it on. Many of the shooters without lit reticles on our squad had many misses, but who knows if they missed for other reasons.

Next example was at BRM 3-gun a couple years ago on a stage that has what I called the rabbit barn. There was much darkness and the targets were difficult to see, especially when first entering and your eyes had not adjusted yet. Heard several comments of "crap, I forgot to turn my illumination on and really had to slow down to line everything up". My Trijicon jumped right out at me and said "here I am" even without dark adapted eyes.

In Missouri at the FN tournament a while back was a rifle stage in a little valley in the woods. it was an extremely sunny day and shadows were dancing all around and over the targets. To the point that my eyes were having a real hard time picking out all the deatils of the targets and shooting area. I found it a very challenging stage because of this. I again was using the Meopta, and at load and make ready, shouldered the rifle, looked thru it and was strugling to difine the reticle distinctly with all the very dark shadows. Turned on the reticle and it changed everything for the better.

I have more examples from many other tournaments but all will start sounding the same. Did having bright illumination change anything in the overall results? Does it matter? I had more confidence with it and thats a good enough reason for me.

Edited December 10, 2011 by mpeltier

[Rob Boudrie]

Fastarget - I own a Meopta ZD and have looked through a couple of Swaro Z6i scopes with the BRT reticle. It's definitely a superior reticle to the Meopta's, but as some else mentioned above, it's not $1,400 nicer. Believe me, I thought hard about it, but just couldn't justify that extra cost. The 6X magnification would be great too, but there's a lot of guys finishing very well in big matches with scopes that are 4X on the top end.

I was tempted to get a Z6i, but I just couldn't get past the fact that, unlike many far cheaper scopes, the warranty is limited to two years - something I consider very important on any optic with an electronic component.

One would expect that a $2200 Swarvoski could match the warranty of a $500 Vortex, but such is not the case.

[Chills1994]

I understand that the poster wants what he wants, but can you guys tell me what the big deal is about daytime illumination???

I get that IF your paying for it you should damn well get it..But...

I have had no problem with Irons (no illumination) and took the batteries out of my 1st generation IOR PitBull and have yet to

find and instance where I said "gee I wish I had a lit reticle"

I could understand if your scope had a reticle where you could not see it or was difficult to see without it, but most of the

scopes you are talking about work rather well sans the "glow"

Before you jump on me for lack of optic knowledge...I own and have used the Swaro BRT, Leupold 1.5x 5 CMR2 , Weaver 1 x 3, USO SN-4, IOR PitBull 1st Gen and now the 3rd Gen.

Just curious and would like to understand how so many have played this game so well without this illumination thing.

Within the context of 3GUN...What say you?

Patrick

The difference is contrast. Most every 3 gun match I have been to has used steel targets at anything past 100 yards or so , and after a few hits, they are a mottled dark Gray camoflauge in front of a dirt and foilage background. Most squads try to let their iron sight shooters go first

but with a black reticle I have found I have the same issue as with a black front sight post. Having Illumination available might mean the difference between a hit and a miss if the target backers are crappy or non-existent. Having illumination gives the shooter a way to increase the contrast between the target and the reticle. Obviously, running it 100% full brightness won't be the answer all of the time, but it's another tool in the collection, as it were...

As far as how so many have done so well without illumination, that's easy. 10 years ago, if you wanted illumination, you had like 3 choices in a magnified optic, and they all sucked. [yes, that is an exaggeration, but you get my point]. Scopes are getting brighter and clearer and manufacturers are learning how to make illuminated scopes that are good for something other than shooting at a deer at dusk. Another advantage of a scope that goes really bright is speed up close. If you can get it bright enough to see using both eyes open without having to focus on the reticle itself, you can blaze away at close range.

You have not made a convincing case my friend. I have got better than 10 years in the 3 gun game and have probably seen everything you have.

Most every scope in discussion works very well without illumination as they have large center elements that are fast up close.

I really think this is more a matter of want more than any need.

Again it does not mean we should not ask for and get it.

Maybe I too am asking for an answer to a question that I don't need and answer to, but somehow I don't think shooter "X" "Y" or "Z" will best me

at a match because they did or I did not have illumination. Way to much more to it than that.

I am still curious as to the clamor for this trait.

Respectfully

Patrick

We're gear queers.

How's that Pat?

[Chills1994]

gm iprod wrote:

....I dismissed the 4x ACOG as the eye relief is not forgiving enough for my tastes.....

I have an ECOS model.

I know when I have the eye relieve correct when the rear "rain sight" pushes into my forehead. It acts like a (depth) stop of sorts.

which is about the only thing the "rain sight's" are good for on ACOG anyways.

Maybe I posted it here in this thread already, but I thought Trijicon was supposed to come out with a 1 to 4 like a TR24, but also include a BDC reticle on whatever ______ focal plane.

What would be cool would be to have it on one power where it is just a glowing dot, triangle, chevron, horseshoe, small crosshair, etc....and then flipping to 4 power a BDC reticle is exposed or becomes visible.

[dchang0]

I have a 18" AR that I have tried a bunch of illuminated scopes. The two that work by far and away the best in all light conditions are as follows.

Trijicon 1-4x24 (30mm Tube) Post and Triangle GREEN. Zero it at 200M, that way tip of Triangle is also bangon at 50M. Hold under 2" at 100M. If targets present at longer range and you have time, adjust knob +3MOA for 300M zero. After that any target is less than easily seen and identified with 4X. So I just fudge it some.

Trijicon ACOG TA33, better for shorter range and has better eye relief than 4X ACOG. Green Horseshoe. Bullet Drop Comped out to 600M. Less than you desire at the top end. But I can go fairly quicly with teh fixed 3X.

I ran a TA33 for most of my 3-gun "career." Excellent choice, and the light weight is truly luxurious when I occasionally switch back to it. I shot better with this optic than I do now with my 1-4X, though it really limited my abilities past 300yds. If the 4X ACOGs had more eye relief, I'd be all over those.

Three friends in my squad used to shoot the Accupoint triangle-post. They found it limiting because of the lack of stadia lines or BDC; two switched to Z6is and saw their scores jump.

How is it that $49 pieces of chinese junk are consistently brighter in the daylight than $300- $500 Quality scopes? That feature is useless considering their faults, but at least they get *one* thing right... How is it you can spend Ten times as much and not get even similar performance?

It's because the Chinese scopes have little regard for:

a) battery life

wide range of settings

c) voltage and current regulation to protect the circuitry and ensure more consistent illumination even as the battery wears out

d) illumination "splash" or "bleed"

They pretty much hook the battery straight up to the LED, and it blasts light into the reticle.

Just curious and would like to understand how so many have played this game so well without this illumination thing.

It's certainly possible to play this game well with even iron sights--zero illumination whatsoever. But for most people, they will see measurable gains by using scopes, then more measurable gains on top of that by using daylight bright reticles. By measurable, I mean that some of my friends have actually used a shot clock to time their transitions as a way of evaluating scopes. I have not measured myself yet, but it has definitely been the case where I notice myself searching for my reticle when shooting on the move and it's bouncing all around or when having to pop my head up to locate a target, then pop back down and find the reticle. I do know that I shoot better with my super-bright 3X ACOG than with my Vortex 1-4X PST that washes out so badly it is effectively a black reticle. Technically, the Vortex should have the edge because it's 1X for close up targets and 4X for the long range, but I still got better stage times with the ACOG.

[barrysuperhawk]

How is it that $49 pieces of chinese junk are consistently brighter in the daylight than $300- $500 Quality scopes? That feature is useless considering their faults, but at least they get *one* thing right... How is it you can spend Ten times as much and not get even similar performance?

It's because the Chinese scopes have little regard for:

a) battery life

wide range of settings

c) voltage and current regulation to protect the circuitry and ensure more consistent illumination even as the battery wears out

d) illumination "splash" or "bleed"

They pretty much hook the battery straight up to the LED, and it blasts light into the reticle.

Yeah, that sounds like it's straight out of an expensive scope's marketing brochure, and just because it's likely all true, but it can't require a scope as expensive as a Z6i just to match the performance of $49 Chinese junk.

Just curious and would like to understand how so many have played this game so well without this illumination thing.

It's certainly possible to play this game well with even iron sights--zero illumination whatsoever. But for most people, they will see measurable gains by using scopes, then more measurable gains on top of that by using daylight bright reticles. By measurable, I mean that some of my friends have actually used a shot clock to time their transitions as a way of evaluating scopes. I have not measured myself yet, but it has definitely been the case where I notice myself searching for my reticle when shooting on the move and it's bouncing all around or when having to pop my head up to locate a target, then pop back down and find the reticle. I do know that I shoot better with my super-bright 3X ACOG than with my Vortex 1-4X PST that washes out so badly it is effectively a black reticle. Technically, the Vortex should have the edge because it's 1X for close up targets and 4X for the long range, but I still got better stage times with the ACOG.

Isn't that the same thing I described, but Mr Kelly did not believe?

[dchang0]

Yeah, that sounds like it's straight out of an expensive scope's marketing brochure, and just because it's likely all true, but it can't require a scope as expensive as a Z6i just to match the performance of $49 Chinese junk.

LOL--you know as well as the rest of us that you get a lot more than just a bright LED in a Swaro Z6i. That GLASS, man, is AMAZING, and of course the 1-6X is sa-weet, and the reticle is one of the few perfect for our game. All this adds up! (I may sound like a Swaro supporter, but I declined to buy one offered to me at a great price--it is not durable enough for me.)

[barrysuperhawk]

Yeah, that sounds like it's straight out of an expensive scope's marketing brochure, and just because it's likely all true, but it can't require a scope as expensive as a Z6i just to match the performance of $49 Chinese junk.

LOL--you know as well as the rest of us that you get a lot more than just a bright LED in a Swaro Z6i. That GLASS, man, is AMAZING, and of course the 1-6X is sa-weet, and the reticle is one of the few perfect for our game. All this adds up! (I may sound like a Swaro supporter, but I declined to buy one offered to me at a great price--it is not durable enough for me.)

I am all about Durable, hell I am the guy that broke a Holland rear sight off a FAL during a 3 gun match. I'm not sure I could be pursuaded to spend over $2k on glass for a rifle I intended to toss into plastic barrels.... I might buy it, but then be too afraid to take it out of the safe...LOL.

[fastarget]

time to list most to least durable, and illuminated?

[dchang0]

LOL--yeah, durability would be a good list to have. I know a buddy that broke his Z6i's zoom ring, and he says he knows someone else that also broke the Z6i--after asking around about it.

The Short Dot is supposedly tougher because of its military pedigree, but one 3-gunner in the know said on some other forum that S&B sub-contracted out their construction to another firm to meet contract requirements and that they've not been durable in the sandbox. He was a huge ACOG fan, along with the rest of his unit. He also endorsed the Aimpoints and Eotechs issued, though to a lesser degree. Of course, he was talking about guys loaded down with gear diving for cover and routinely smacking their rifles into obstacles and even landing on top of them...

So I'm sure most of these military scopes are good enough for what we do. And part of the exorbitant prices we pay for optics covers the cost of warranty repair--S&B will fix most any scope they make for life and will try to provide you with a loaner while they fix yours.

I can't imagine the Chinese scope companies offering that sort of coverage...

Keep in mind that the lower-cost and lighter-weight scopes tend to be considered hunting optics, not military optics.

Edited December 12, 2011 by dchang0