Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Reticle selection and performance

In the safe I have a number of Leupold scopes and several reticle styles. While in the field, I appreciate the heavy duplex and like the way it is so easy to pick up in heavy brush. However on the range I find i shot my best groups with a scope with the Leupold dot. The old saying of aim small, miss small works. I use a 1inch target dot and cover the dot with the dot in my scope or just set the reticle dot on top of my target.

When using the heavy duplex, the crosshairs cover my 1 inch target dots. When I strp up to the 2 inch dots my groups are not as small.

Is there a compromise out there that I am not aware of? I am considering sending a couple of the 6x42's into Leupold and having the Leupold dot installed. Since this scope is so bright, it should not be problem losing the dot.

Suggestions and comments welcome...

I cain't like the heavy duplex,though I'm guilty of having my share,even on some 6x42's.

My favorite killing reticle is the tapered crosshair dot. For some reason,the stars magically align with it and it just seems faster/easier/betterer to me. It can be lost in heavy cover though and I believe it takes a smidge more concentration in that application.

The standard duplex is a tough act to follow IMHO and I MUCH prefer it to it's fatter cousin in direct comparison...........

Is it a target gun or a hunting rifle you want to put it on??

You could do your load devlopment with a higher powered scope, then once you prove the load, shift to the heavier reticle.

You could try shooting at a colored diamond say 3" on a side with a white diamond in the center. I find that I can shoot 1/2" to 1" groups with fixed 4x and 6x Heavy Duplexes when using that target. Your wires will bisect the white center and its easier to see than a solid red dot.

You could try the german reticles from Premier. They have heavy main wires but thinner centers than the Leo HDupe.

Course, if your eyeballs are young enough, you may not need the thick wires, but I won't buy another scope without 'em.

JimF

I use the German No. 1 reticle allot and it is as fat as they come without a crosshair. Still I have shot some bragging groups with it.

Go with a six inch circle/square/diamond or better yet, get some "Dead Center" targets from Thompson Target Technologies.

Since you already own the scopes why not try some other target dots. Maybe the ones made by Birchwood Casey or just stationary types by Avery might be better. I don't know what ones you are using now.

This seems to be an eyesight issue and one must walk in anothers shoes to appreciate it but I have never been a big fan of the now standard duplex reticule. I still use the single plane crosshairs that come with the old fashioned target scopes. Most of my hunting scopes are duplex now of course.

I have a couple of scopes with the tapered post and horizontal crosshairs and they are cool. I aim at say 100 yds with the top of the post splitting the target and at longer range the post and crosshair intersection. Therefore your always right on. These posts are very easy to see.

Contact Premier Reticules and see what they have and send a couple of scopes to them for what Stick and I suggested and see what you like best.

I really don't like dots for hunting however. They disappear on the game.

What Jim said... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

rdinak,

Like you, I don't particularly like the Hvy Dpx for shooting targets. However, I do what JimF suggested; do my load workup with a higher powered scope and then switch scopes. In spite of all that, I have shot some respectable groups with my 6x42's with Hvy Dpx. If shooting for groups, I prefer to use at least a 12x and I find 16x better. 24x or 36x if I am shooting 200 yds. For shooting groups I much prefer the Redfield design targets with the red diamonds. They make it easy to sight in with the 1- inch red squares and being red, the bullet holes show up well. We have a local printer who prints them up on heavy card stock. I like to cut the group out of the corner to 8.5" x 11" and then hole punch them and then file them in a notebook. Makes for easy record keeping and showing them off if they are bragging size groups. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I usually like to record the load data on the target. And then, if I sell the gun, the targets go with it...Hope this helps...the9.3Guy

Try the German #4 reticle available on Leupolds. It gives you both, fine crosshairs in the middle and heavy duplex on three sides, allowing you a bit more to see in low light conditions. jorge

To me, the heavier reticles just mean you must use an aiming point that contrasts well with it. I need to see, on the target, that I'm nice a steady/rock solid.
I don't like the idea of testing with one scope and hunting with another. I want all my testing to be with my hunting rig. Most of the few rifle, or scope, problems I have discovered have been during range sessions. Much better to discover them there than in the field.
I also like to do some field position shooting at the end, or during, my range sessions to get me back into the habit of a fast trigger squeeze and shooting from a less than rock solid position.
I also want to know and practice those minimum target size shots which sometimes must be delt with. The ones where I have only a small portion of my critter to shoot at. E

For a heavier reticle, you need exactly the same thing you need for lower magnification -- a bigger target. And for me, at least, an aiming point big enough to cover up minor wobbles, will promote a smoother hold and squeeze.

The best group I've ever shot (0.18") was with a 225-gr. load in a .338 Win. Mag. bearing a Leupold Vari-X II 2-7x33 set on 6x, standard duplex reticle. Aiming point was a 2" hollow black square on a Varmint Hunters' Association target.

The second-best (0.38") was a mid-range load in a .375 H&H, with a 2.5x20 Leupold Compact, again with the standard duplex reticle. Aiming point was a black bullseye, probably 6" but don't remember for sure.

Neither of these was a total fluke, the accuracy of the loads was repeatably under 1".