Illuminated vs non illuminated scope

Illumination in a scope is a lot like 4wd. You don't always need it but it's sure nice to have when you do. I much prefer a dimly lit center dot vs an entirely lit reticle. Leupold actually nails it with the firedot reticle. Which is amazing to me as ive had absolutely horribly luck with Leupold scopes and will never own another. Granted they repaired or replaced the 2 VX5HD's that shite the bed on me. I'll never trust another to dial reliably. A center dot thats barely illuminated is money in the right circumstances. Go with the Trijicon. Good scopes, pretty good glass, and they hold zero and dial like a scope should

I have an accupoint 2.5-10x56, and a VX6-HD 4-24x52 with a firedot reticle. The accupoint is a much better low light scope. It’s not even close. I like the green dot in my accupoint, because it’s just there without having to turn anything on or adjust brightness settings. I never turn on the illumination on my vx6.
I have a Leica Magnus in the safe for when I get my new rifle back. Anxious to try it out, because it’s supposed to be the best low light scope around. Read a review that said it was between the Leica and a Blaser, and the Blaser was over my budget. The Leica has 60 brightness settings so it doesn’t wash out the view in low light.

So to answer your question, I would say the $200 is worth it for the accupoint, but not the firedot reticle.

Trijicon accupoint is an excellent scope but the illumination is a fringe benefit. Theyre very heavy duty scopes with great glass and practical reticles.

An illuminated reticle for deer hunting is something Ive never wanted. I like it for a LPVO since it needs to be able to function as a red dot sight. On a normal deer stand rifle with a SFP scope I wouldnt worry about it one bit.

Both scopes in the OP will work great well past legal shooting time. I cant imagine using a 56mm scope.