Scope advice needed

[masan]

jstalford may be (probably is) correct, the wording had me thinking it was. I have the BTR reticle (ET3124FJ) which is illuminated.

[SteveL]

I gave Bushnell a call and the G2 model is not illuminated. I'll also look into the mount recommendations. Thanks to everyone for your help.

[Warg]

I gave Bushnell a call and the G2 model is not illuminated. I'll also look into the mount recommendations. Thanks to everyone for your help.

Could have saved you a call. I rarely use illumination outside of shooting at dawn/dusk or heavily forested areas.

[SteveL]

No big deal. The call only took about 2 minutes and I got a definite answer. I had hoped to get an illuminated reticle, but if it's not really a big deal I won't worry about it.

[Hunt3r]

I gave Bushnell a call and the G2 model is not illuminated. I'll also look into the mount recommendations. Thanks to everyone for your help.

I personally would not bother with the LRS. I tried it out and immediately had to return it because of how tight the eyebox is even at 3x.

[Warg]

I personally would not bother with the LRS. I tried it out and immediately had to return it because of how tight the eyebox is even at 3x.

This is certainly a topic worthy of consideration for Steve, particularly in conjunction with his optic mount selection.

I've found the eyebox a bit tighter compared to other optics with the 3-12x44 LRS, but perceived it as very workable and more generous than, say, the NF 2.5-10x32 compact. Certainly shooting position, optic mounting position, buttstock choice, optic mount, and time of day (due to pupil diameter) will have an effect. That is, using a 20 MOA mount will affect eyebox as you essentially shift a horizontal "cylinder" of viewable area to a cylinder with a 20 MOA decline (need higher cheek weld further away and lower close-in).

[SteveL]

This is certainly a topic worthy of consideration for Steve, particularly in conjunction with his optic mount selection.

I've found the eyebox a bit tighter compared to other optics with the 3-12x44 LRS, but perceived it as very workable and more generous than, say, the NF 2.5-10x32 compact. Certainly shooting position, optic mounting position, buttstock choice, optic mount, and time of day (due to pupil diameter) will have an effect. That is, using a 20 MOA mount will affect eyebox as you essentially shift a horizontal "cylinder" of viewable area to a cylinder with a 20 MOA decline (need higher cheek weld further away and lower close-in).

It's interesting you bring this up. I was planning to use a "standard" mount with 0 cant built in. I've always been under the impression that 20 MOA mounts were beneficial at longer ranges, like 1000 yards and out.

[Koshinn]

I like the PST 2.5-10x32.

The reason you don't see christmas tree reticles at 10x is the size of the reticle itself. You would barely be able to make out any of the individual hashes at such a low magnification.

It's pretty easy to use a 10x at 600m IMO... dial elevation, hold for windage, drop rounds on target.

I'd consider the nightforce ultralight one piece base for a mount.

[SteveL]

I like the PST 2.5-10x32.

The reason you don't see christmas tree reticles at 10x is the size of the reticle itself. You would barely be able to make out any of the individual hashes at such a low magnification.

It's pretty easy to use a 10x at 600m IMO... dial elevation, hold for windage, drop rounds on target.

I'd consider the nightforce ultralight one piece base for a mount.

With regard to the statement in bold, I was starting to think this must be the case. Thanks.

Unfortunately for me, nowhere close by ever has any of the scopes I'm interested in in stock. It looks like whatever I buy will be based exclusively based off what I read online.

[Hunt3r]

This is certainly a topic worthy of consideration for Steve, particularly in conjunction with his optic mount selection.

I've found the eyebox a bit tighter compared to other optics with the 3-12x44 LRS, but perceived it as very workable and more generous than, say, the NF 2.5-10x32 compact. Certainly shooting position, optic mounting position, buttstock choice, optic mount, and time of day (due to pupil diameter) will have an effect. That is, using a 20 MOA mount will affect eyebox as you essentially shift a horizontal "cylinder" of viewable area to a cylinder with a 20 MOA decline (need higher cheek weld further away and lower close-in).

I've heard that the LRHS is fine by comparison so it's really just an optical design problem. The NF should be fully capable of having just as good an eyebox in theory, but it's possible that they just had to make some optical compromises to hit their weight/size targets.