Trijicon vs Leica

[SOUTHERN WOODS]

Which of these two models would you recommend for low light hunting? My shots shouldn't exceed 300 yards. Have seen both models posted here before and just looking for some real feedback.

https://www.eurooptic.com/trijicon-t...-triangle.aspx

and

https://www.eurooptic.com/leica-er-5...cle-51071.aspx


Anything else worth considering for same price point?

[duckchoppin]

Leica by a long shot.

[Saltydog235]

The Trijicon for low light hunting. Glass is comparable in both, the Trijicon’s illumination sets it apart from the ER5. If you go to the ERi or Visus, then it’s Leica by a long shot. I have two of each and have compared side by side. You’ll still be able to see through legal time with the ER5 though. Honestly after my S&B, I’d rather have my 4-16X50 Trijicon.

[Coastal Woodie]

Trijicon is better in low light in my opinion. The 2.5-10x56 accupoint is going to be the best bet if you plan on shooting late. I know I can hunt later with my trijicon than I can my Leica 2-10x50 and the illuminated reticle in the trijicon makes shooting at dark a whole lot easier.

If you want a little more magnification I would go with the trijicon 4-16x50 like Salty said. I've been highly impressed with mine and I can't tell much difference in low light clarity between it and my 2.5-10x56.

[Whackumstackum]

Have a 3-15x56 Leica ER5 of the WSM and that scope will get your ass in trouble you can see so late, ask me how I know.......

[HERRINGBONE]

Have a 3-15x56 Leica ER5 of the WSM and that scope will get your ass in trouble you can see so late, ask me how I know.......

How do you know?

[thawhacker]

In the trijicon what color do ya'll prefer.
Also we have one of those green lights for hogs at night and i'm to the point of pulling the trigger and buying the accupoint but I got to thinking that the green dot may not be good if I want to use the green night light. Anybody have any insight on that.

[Saltydog235]

In the trijicon what color do ya'll prefer.
Also we have one of those green lights for hogs at night and i'm to the point of pulling the trigger and buying the accupoint but I got to thinking that the green dot may not be good if I want to use the green night light. Anybody have any insight on that.

My 4-16 has the green dot in the MOA reticle. My 5-20 has the Amber BAC reticle. I prefer the Amber over red or green but you can’t get it in every model.

[britton40]

Just buy a 50mm Swarovski and be done, forever.

eBay ran a 15% off deal about a week ago. $100 off max. You could have purchased a Swaro Z3 4-12x50 with a 4a reticle for $729 shipped.

[WoodieSC]

eBay ran a 15% off deal about a week ago. $100 off max. You could have purchased a Swaro Z3 4-12x50 with a 4a reticle for $729 shipped.

Dang, sorry I missed that.

[Saltydog235]

eBay ran a 15% off deal about a week ago. $100 off max. You could have purchased a Swaro Z3 4-12x50 with a 4a reticle for $729 shipped.

Swarovski Z3 with glass made by Meopta? Same deal in a bunch of places. I bought the Leica ER5’s, same scope pretty much.

[TheVisorGuy]

I’ve got one of the Leica er5s. It’s good but the new leupolds with the fire dot are the tits

[WoodieSC]

I've not used the Trijicon, but based on other's comments I'd go with it over the Leica.

I had a Leica ER5 2-10x50 and it was clearly a step below in brightness @ 400 yds vs a Swarovski Z3 2.5-10x50. It's also twice the weight with the Leica at about 25+ oz.

The Trijicon linked shows at 20+ oz, so that wins that test also.

[FLS]

You might want to take a look at the 56mm VX5. Great glass , maybe the best in its price range considering the features on this scope.
http://www.opticsagent.com/Leupold-V...ack_p_757.html

[Swamp Rat]

You might want to take a look at the 56mm VX5. Great glass , maybe the best in its price range considering the features on this scope.
http://www.opticsagent.com/Leupold-V...ack_p_757.html

Yep, I remember posting a while back on this glass. And the Leupold rep telling me that there was no real advantage to 56mm over the 42mm (?) in the 3-15x I was looking at. I wanted a smaller objective, but may end up forking over the extra $$ for the VX-6HD and split the difference with a 50mm.

[billyjack]

Do you think there is no advantage to 56mm over 42? I’ve never had a scope over 40mm.

[FLS]

In equal quality glass it’s minimal, but people tend to think bigger is better.

[thawhacker]

In equal quality glass it’s minimal, but people tend to think bigger is better.

so if I was going to buy a trijicon I don't need the 56mm. Save money maybe and go with a 50.
.

[Saltydog235]

so if I was going to buy a trijicon I don't need the 56mm. Save money maybe and go with a 50.
.

No, the 2.5X10X56 that people get is usually cheaper than the 50mm options they have. The 2.5-12X42 they have is a great optic as well. Hell, I put a 3X9X40 Accupower on the Ruger American I got my son, I was extremely impressed with what it did in low light. Now if I could just get the boy over the buck fever he'd kill everything.

[WoodieSC]

In equal quality glass it’s minimal, but people tend to think bigger is better.

Overall I totally agree with FLS on this statement.

I will note, however, that when I compared a Swarovski Habicht A & Z3 in the 2.5-10x42 to a Swarovski Z3 4-12x50, the 50mm scope was a shade brighter than the 42mm at 15+/- minutes after sunset. I was surprised enough to plan to put the 50mm on my 7-08 this year and move the 42mm to another rifle.

The 42mm was on par with the Leica ER5 2-10x50, IMO, and about 12 oz lighter.