Glow in the dark sights for hunting??

[Alaska_Lanche]

This is probably best left to asking the wildlife troopers, but figure I'd ask on here to see if anyone already has.

I figure battery operated red dot sights are not legal due to electronics and artificial light??

If that is the case what about tritium sights like on a glock or I'm looking at maybe picking up a Bushnell 3200 with the firefly reticle but don't want to be accused of using "artificial light". These don't run on electronics, but......

Thoughts?

 

[.338 mag.]

I don't think the Firefly or Trijicon scopes are a problem since they don't project an artificial light to illuminate the target, they just make the reticle easier to see. Leupold's 1.5 x 5 with illuminated reticle has been in use up here for quite awhile. A heavier reticle is a good way to go for low light shooting and works fine for almost any real world hunting situation. I have been thinking about getting a tritium dot installed on my 16" barreled Marlin 1895 45-70, since it is mainly a truck, camp and hiking gun.

 

[anchskier]

Here is a good thread that addresses your question somewhat. It is focused on bowhunting, but does include discussion of rifle hunts. There was also a question about this specifically in the "ask a trooper" forum that you might want to check out.http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com...d-Sight-Argument?highlight=lighted+sightsHere is the "ask a trooper" thread:http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com...-style-scope-legal-to-take-Big-Game-in-Alaska

 

[Alaska_Lanche]

Thanks Anchskier, so "for now" red dots even w/batteries are legal. Cool looks like a bushnell with firefly reticle is more than good to go. Too!!!

Thanks.

 

[MyTime]

Alaska Lanche,

I'm a big fan of the red dots. They're easy to see, adjustable, can take a beating, and the batteries can last a long time. I have an Aimpoint M2 with the double-battery module, 4 MOA dot and I can assure you that its batteries last a long time and it's tough. It has a 4 MOA dot but I prefer something tighter. I also have an EoTech 552 and I like that more; it has a more fine dot and it takes AA batteries. I think the Vortex red dot optics are fairly tough too and their price is definitely more of what a sane person would want to spend (versus what I've spent in case I needed optics on deployment). In case you aren't too familiar with these red dots, most are 1x power, not magnified at all. There are magnifiers available for the Aimpoint and the EoTech ($$$). There are lower-end magnifiers available like the 3, 5, or 7x magnifiers for the red dots (http://swfa.com/Sightmark-5x-Tactical-Magnifier-P50787.aspx) for $100-140 bucks. Yhe swing to the side mounts are the way to go if you get a magnifier. JP Enterprises makes a little red dot too. Burris makes a 3x red dot tactical sight (http://swfa.com/Burris-3x32-AR-332-Tactical-Sight-P12619.aspx) and it had 3 colors, not just red. If you look at SWFA'a website, select Riflescopes, then click on every brand to see if they have red dots, you'll have something to do for an afternoon. Have fun.

MyTime

 

[LuJon]

I believe the ask a trooper handled this one a while back. You are good to go as long as it doesn't cast light on the animal.

 

[FurFishGame]

you can use light and battery pewered night vision scopes and stuff if you are hunting predators after november 1st, during the trapping season of the animal you are persuing, and you have to have a trapping licence.

 

[twodux]

The Board of Game, in their infinite "wisdom", are idiots. There are more reasons than affecting game populations or unfair advantage to discourage people from taking shots in low light conditions.

#1 is safety! If you cant see your sights, how are you supposed to identify your target? In other words, is it an animal or a human? Is there anyone behind the animal? In short, You can't be sure you're making a safe shot. Is it worth a few more dead hunters to take more animals in marginal conditions?

We just read about a hunter back east who was shot 1 1/2 hrs before legal light. I wonder what kind of sights the guy who shot him was using?

The #2 reason would probably be game loss or unnecessary wounding of animals. A bad hit (going to be a lot more of those in bad light) and you've got a lot of wounded animals getting away in the dark.

#3 Is it the species you're hunting? Is it a legal specimen? Male or female? Spike/fork/50"/3 browtines, full curl?

Hunters should be discouraged from taking animals in low light conditions, not encouraged.

 

[AKDoug]

Hunters should be discouraged from taking animals in low light conditions, not encouraged.

The same argument can be made using a $100 BSA scope vs. $1000 Zeiss glass. As can the argument of iron sights vs. scopes in many conditions. An illuminated retical (have you shot one?) makes sighting a bit easier, but it sure doesn't make the view of the animal any easier. The Trigicon illuminated post is a wonderful sight to use, regardless of light conditions, especially with my rapidly deterioration vision.

 

[LuJon]

I agree Doug! My Zeiss scope makes animals crystal clear and the crosshairs stand out fantastic while my buddies redfield is useless! Plenty of scopes out there can resolve the animal clearly but the reticle doesn't stand out so accurate sighting is impossible. The illuminated reticle is a good solution to this problem that doesn't cost a fortune.

 

[stid2677]

I have a Swarovski Z6i 1-6x24 Riflescope with BRT-I illuminated Reticle, on my Sako Kodiak and I can say that I really like the lighted dot, it allows me to very quickly get on target and not loose the cross hairs in the dark background that is common when hunting bears in cover. The illuminated dot is very useful even with hours of shooting light left. The BRT ranging reticle also allowed me to make kill shots on deer over 300 yards out even with the 21 inch tube and 300 grain TSXs in 375H&H.

It is very common to be able to ID game in the scope, but not have the light to see the cross hairs, the lighted dot just makes it so quick to get on target.

 

[FurFishGame]

The Board of Game, in their infinite "wisdom", are idiots. There are more reasons than affecting game populations or unfair advantage to discourage people from taking shots in low light conditions.

#1 is safety! If you cant see your sights, how are you supposed to identify your target? In other words, is it an animal or a human? Is there anyone behind the animal? In short, You can't be sure you're making a safe shot. Is it worth a few more dead hunters to take more animals in marginal conditions?

We just read about a hunter back east who was shot 1 1/2 hrs before legal light. I wonder what kind of sights the guy who shot him was using?

The #2 reason would probably be game loss or unnecessary wounding of animals. A bad hit (going to be a lot more of those in bad light) and you've got a lot of wounded animals getting away in the dark.

#3 Is it the species you're hunting? Is it a legal specimen? Male or female? Spike/fork/50"/3 browtines, full curl?

Hunters should be discouraged from taking animals in low light conditions, not encouraged.

If they are not gonna follow the rules they prolly would use a flashlight. which, by they way, is an excellent way to light up your scope or Iron sights, for iron sights, put the light on the side of your rifle so enough light hits your fornt sight, for scopes put it under the stock, and typically, with a 10/22 (only gun with a scope) anyway, the beam is right about where the cross hairs are.

 

[Wet eNuf]

Good shooting light for one may not be the same as for the next guy. IMO Swarovski, Schmidt & Bender, Nightforce are nice if you have the opportunity. One may not think the difference is that much (and then justify to themselves why they can save a few dollars) when looking through glass at the gun stores.... however, if one has the opportunity to hunt with them (when its cloudy, foggy, rainy, near sunrise or sunset)....one will then understand the difference.

Combine illuminated reticles with good glass ... and you have an effective combo.

 

[knikglacier]

The lighted or illuminated reticle is an AID in hunting, not a substitution for ethics and safe shooting practices. As long as legal shooting hours are obeyed, it is a great asset for some.

 

[anchskier]

The lighted or illuminated reticle is an AID in hunting, not a substitution for ethics and safe shooting practices. As long as legal shooting hours are obeyed, it is a great asset for some.

No such thing as "legal shooting hours" in Alaska. That is where some of the concern is based. Because there is no set shooting hours, people may be enticed to take shots they shouldn't, well before light or past dark when they otherwise wouldn't. I agree fully that it is an aid and not in any way a substitution for normal hunting standars. It's just that that isn't always utilized.

 

[martentrapper]

especially with my rapidly deterioration vision.

Using dux reasoning.............wouldn't an ethical hunter stop hunting once his vision had deteriorated to a certain point?

 

[stid2677]

Using dux reasoning.............wouldn't an ethical hunter stop hunting once his vision had deteriorated to a certain point?

Should a lame man stop walking, when he could use a cane?? I think not. I support anything that helps keep someone in the field longer.

Being unable to see the fine cross hairs and being able to ID game, are two different things Sir.

Thing about getting old, is it happen to us all, if we live long enough.

Steve

 

[MyTime]

Should a lame man stop walking, when he could use a cane?? I think not. I support anything that helps keep someone in the field longer.

Being unable to see the fine cross hairs and being able to ID game, are two different things Sir.

Thing about getting old, is it happen to us all, if we live long enough.

Steve

Well said Steve.

I think AKDoug's comment "The Trigicon illuminated post is a wonderful sight to use, regardless of light conditions, especially with my rapidly deterioration vision." simply proves that he has found something that works well for him. Vision changes with age, that's an undeniable truth. A friend of mine is 73 years old and his vision is not what it used to be but he shoots accurately and safely, he's a good shot, and he lives to go shooting. I wouldn't even think about stopping him from doing something he loves that much. In fact, I hand-load for him and give him free ammo every now-and-then because he it makes him happy (he's on a fixed income). I'm 50 and my vision is not what it used to be but I shoot accurately. The Army issues EoTech, ACOG, and Aimpoint sights, all illuminated and all produce a greater 1st shot hit potential over non-illuminated reticles for all ages of shooters. Illumination can be more effective regardless of your age. I'm with AKDoug with this one...I really appreciate the illumination.

MyTime

 

[AKDoug]

Using dux reasoning.............wouldn't an ethical hunter stop hunting once his vision had deteriorated to a certain point?

LOL..my vision is not that bad, but you sure notice that after spending a lifetime at 20/15 and then going to just barely 20/20 in a two year period is shocking to say the least.

I shot a Trijicon for the first time this year at the range and I haven't switched yet.

 

[twodux]

Using dux reasoning.............wouldn't an ethical hunter stop hunting once his vision had deteriorated to a certain point?

Hmmmmm now where did I mention the word ethical? I believe the word I used was safety.

But heck I'm all for blind people hunting. Just not so much for them shooting.