Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Tactical reticles in a hunting scope

Trying to judge reticles (or "glass" for that matter) through pictures or video is an exercise in futility. Have worked on it a lot and you just do not get the true perspective.


While I'm sure someone somewhere wouldn't be able to use a WWII German post reticle even if it was illuminated, I have never seen someone not be able to see/hit with either of those reticles in those scopes of the can identify the target. From 80 year old grandmas to 6 year old girls.


As an aside, fixed 16x sucks in every scope. Truly.

I like the standard mil-dot.

I have a hard time with the mil-quad in low light.



Travis

Especially for "woods" hunting

Eyes out of focus and blurry is not the fault of the scope...

I hunted with the 3-9x42 SWFA, low light, in the woods multiple times last year. I didn't have a problem seeing the reticle.

David

Thin reticles are harder to see in low light. That's just the way it is.

The thin part of the LRHS is .06 mills, or so says Bushnell, I figure that to be .2 inch at 100, the Zeiss 60 that I have is 1 centimeter or .4 inch, this is not the best in low light but it is illuminated. When I looked at the video I looked at the relative contrast of the thicker posts to the center almost invisible center, everything is relative, it probably could work, just as the rapid Z can work, but it's really designed for something else.

I'm not mature enough to blame myself.

That's why I cussed my son so bad on top of that mountain.


Travis

Sooner or later you are going to have to actually look through one to decide.

Doing math to compare what you think it will look like, coupled with exhaustive research on youtube, won't tell you squat.

I plan on getting a fixed super chicken to look thru before gettin into it for over a grand. This was just about soliciting opinions from those who have used them east of the Mississippi

The fixed SWFA 6x mil quad is noticeably thinner than the 3-9x42 SWFA, even when comparing 6x to 6x.

David

With the LRHS, woods ranges in low light are a non issue. The fat part of the retile is very bold and you can easily bracket vitals with it at woods ranges. My issue with the LRHS is using the long range features of the reticle at SS +30. I loose the mil marks on the reticle against a dark background when it starts to get that late. Same with the Fixed X SWFAs.

John

Maybe you should try turning the turrets instead of trying to use the hashmarks when it's that fugging dark....

I have not seen the 3-9 but I have a fixed 10x mil quad and yes in low light the reticle is harder to see than a regular duplex. It is most useful when you can see it but doesn't stand out.

It's funny in the past a lot of guys were suggesting illuminated reticles or heavy duplex's for low light yet the swfa guys now say the mil quad has no problems. I love my super chicken and the mil quad reticle but it is not a do it all combination.

Been playing with my Leupold VXR TMR in lowlight. Hashmarks could be a problem but with the firedot reticule I could just dial up my needs. Low profile scope that will start out on my campfire Montana Rifle Co 260 Rem.

I prefer to dial elevation and hold off for windage.

John

No, it's that long range and low light don't mix. If it's dark enough to not be able to see the thin portion of the reticle then it's too dark to be shooting far enough for it to matter. If it's that dark then they are close enough that using the outer thick posts as a bracket works well enough.


I guarantee that any one of the detracts could and would hit a vital sized target at 50-75 yards in the woods in the last 30 seconds of legal light with both the 3-9x Milquad and the LRHS if it had a $100 bill taped to it.

jimmy don't let the wizards of smart try to tell you what your noticing is wrong. This is actually the same thing I have been saying for quite a while. is the reticle a good low light reticle?? FFP or SFP?? the answer is it depends. I would say the biggest thing is what power range is the scope. for example, I love the MOAR reticle in my nightforce NXS 3.5-15 model. however I have the same reticle in my NF SHV 3-10 model and I don't think I like it. I have hunted with it once and found myself worried if it would be bold enough in all situations I might encounter. the reticle in the lower powered SHV is totally different its actually 50% smaller at low power than in the NXS.

low power is where your hunting scope will spend most of its time. even if you intend on it being used as a long range scope. There is some very critical hunting I do that is at very first legal light, that is often when the best animals are out. these are usually encountered at shorter ranges when you are carefully positioning yourself for a good vantage point, heck perhaps its in the very middle of the trial your driving your 4 wheeler on. you want low power and a reticle that will get the job done.

The video you pointed out of the LRHS is the same thing I have been saying there is simply NOOO reason for that scope to have been a FFP optic. if your going to take a long range shot and need the features of the reticle is there ever a situation where 12x max power has a problem with mirage?? umm no, further why take a shot at long range on an animal without being at max of 12x?? you wouldn't. if the scope was SFP the reticle would be much larger at low power and usable instead of being that small. further if the FFP reticle in that scope is needed to stay the same at all powers so the subtensions remain the same, oh wait a minute the subtensions wash out at low power, oops.

FFP should be reserved for scopes of higher power, IMO I say something 6-24x or more. FFP also works best in a mil scope because the subtensions work better with it.

bottom line don't listen to what people tell you find out what works for you. If you get a higher powered nightforce the MOAR reticle is awesome. not so much in a low powered scope. I am probably selling my SHV sadly the IHR reticle they offer doesn't look any better and the larger 56mm models are too big and clunky for my need.

at 8X I am sure you could see the $100 and the reticle even after last legal light at 100 yards and hit the benjamin image with a rest, at 3X I am sure you could make out the $100 and the darker outer posts. All good I guess unless your trying to find a spot to shoot thru some branches and such.

I have a spare 6X with mil-quad in the house. I can send it to you when I get back from Poland.



Travis