Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold B&C reticle- Good in poor / fading light for long distance shot?

Does someone have firsthand experience with the B&C reticle? Is it dark/thick enough for you?

I have been reading in multiple places on the net where the Ballistic Reticle (BR) on the Swarovski is way to thin to see during fading light. I was eyeing a demo z6, with the BR, but got cold feet after reading the reviews on that reticle.

I am a big fan of the Boone and Crockett reticle. I think they work fine in any reasonable light conditions.

Having said that, I much prefer the B&C reticle in the 30mm LR line of scopes than those in the one inch Leupolds.

I orginally bought two 3.5 X 10 Leupold VX III one inch scopes with the Boone and Crockett reticle. I was perfectly happy with them until I compared them to the 4.5 X 14 LR scope that my dad had. The B&C reticle on the LR scope just seems to jump out at you and is so very sharp and clear that I wound up selling both of my 3.5 X 10 scopes and replacing them with 4.5 X 14 LR models. (30mm with side focus)

I now have six of the 30mm 4.5 X 14 LR scopes and would not trade them for anything I have looked through. I have shot game with them in VERY dim light, mostly very early in the morning. I shot one big wild hog when it was so dark that I had trouble telling which end to shoot at till he raised his head from eating.

My dad just bought a Swarovski rifle scope and it is a great piece of optical equipment except that I find the reticle in it too fine and much too busy.

thanks for the reply. good to hear. I am looking close at the VX 7 with a B&C reticle in 3.5-14 x 50 (30mm). Does your dad have the BC reticle? That seems to be a common complaint about them being on the "thin or fine" side.

My dad has several Leupolds with the Boone and Crockett reticle. His 4.5 X 14 scopes are what got me to change from the Leupold 3.5 X 10. The B&C reticle is much easier to see in the 4.5 X 14 power LR scopes.

The new Swarovski that my dad purchased has some reticle in it that I do not know the name of. It is not a Boone and Crockett design. It is very busy and the lines are very fine. I guess it would make a good varmint scope, but I would not like it on a big game rifle.

The last 6x6 bull elk I shot in New Mexico was shot at a lasered 436 yards in failing dim light. It was trying to snow and getting dark. But that B&C reticle stood out well enough to drop that bull with my 300 Wby Mag.

I experimented with mine B&C reticle the weekend before last. I was looking at the fresh hide of a raghorn bull elk draped over big cardboard box at 411yds. It was a nice clear evening and I shot two 3-shot groups at the hide at 30 to 40 minutes after sunset (I was laying on my deck shooting out into my pasture). By the way,30 min. before sunrise and after sunset is legal limit in WY. I looked through several of my scopes (FXIII 6x42 heavy reticle, FXII 6x36 LR, Ziess Conquest 3x9 Rapid z 600, VXIII 1.75x6, VXII 2x7, M8 4x28 duplex and VXIII 2.5x8 B&C reticle) as the light faded. I don't have a VXIII 3.5x10 B&C but my hunting partner favors that scope and he killed the raghorn bull that provided the hide VERY early in the morning and said it was no problem seeing the reticle. I will have to go get the box as I haven't retrieved it after I fired the second group. The first group was with the 2.5x8 B&C and it was 7" tall and 3" wide. I was trying to simulate hunting so I was shooting prone off of my hunting pack. I felt I could see the B&C reticle very well even though they are fine reticles and don't subtend very much area, they are very black. I used the 6x36 LR for the second group. It was harder for me to aim precisely with the big dot but the reticle was easy to see. The Ziess was by far the easiest to see as the image was the brightest. The only scope I felt I could not see well enough to shoot at that range if I knew where to hold was the old M8 4x28. At 200yards it was no problem aiming at a steel gray target gong. I thought it might be just the 4x power magnification but when I turned the varibles down to 4 I could still see better with the other scopes. YMMV but I like the B&C reticle.

I've been reading your post and looking for some help on my leo variX3 I got in 1996. It has thick recticles and for distance shooting it covers too much of the target. You all mention what type of recticles you have and my question is how do you tell what type they are? I emailed leoupold and they said they would change it out for $60. and that sounds reasonable after deer season is over. It sounds like the trade off for thick is harder to see in low light.

tom3006,

You can go to the Leupold company's home page and search through and find information on the reticles, either images of them or subtension (how much area the reticle covers at a distance usually given as Minute of Angle [1 inch at 100 yard =1 MOA]) charts and determine what you have. What power of scope do you have? In 1996 the most common duplexs would be fine, standard, and heavy depending on what model you have. I think that the Vari-X III models 2.5x8, 3.5x10 and up can be can be modified by the custom shop and fitted with the B&C reticle. You can call them at 1-800-LEUPOLD with your scope's serial number and they can tell you what reticles are available for modification. If the image in the scope is bright, the flat black of the reticle is easy to see for me even if it is fine like the Zeis Rapid z 600 reticle or B&C in my 2.5x8 VXIII.

I've run a few B&C reticles. I like them. To my eye, they are darker and show up better than the standard duplex. I mean they show up better as a duplex. In very low light they don't function well for long range.

I was with a fella (campfire member) who put a good shot on a buck at 500yds with a B&C reticle.. He might speak up, but last I heard he switched to turrets..

I have 2 B&C Leupold scopes. They are O.K. in low light.. but just so so.I have pretty much quit using Leupolds. I prefer ballistic reticles in 1st focal plane instead of 2nd focal plane as Leu. and Zeiss. The 2nd focal plane scopes are most accurate at 1 certain power for particular bullet load. Have had good success with Pride/Fowler Rapid Reticle scopes, with reticle in 1st. focal plane accurate at all magnification powers. The Zeiss Rapid reticle is O.K. better in low light than Leu.
Pride/ Fowler developed the Rapid Reticle with Zeiss. Zeiss used to give credit to P/F for that technology. I do not believe that acknowledgment is on Zeiss website any more.
IMO Leupold has been playing catch up in reticle dept. Out of 60+ scopes over the years have had most trouble with Leu. Last problem [ parallax] Leu. couldn't solve.
Cisco

I don't like the B&C 500-yd aiming point (a post? really? REALLY?!) so I consider them to be a 450-yd reticle in general. The RZ600 got me to 600 yds in style on my .338, but I hated it in the woods.

I'm running turrets now but I do miss the no-moving-parts aspect of reticles.

+1.

I looked through a 30mm scope(B&C) at the range one day and really liked the reticle.
Ordered a VX3 2.5-8x36 B&C because I couldn't find one local and soon realized the VX3 version is quite a bit finer. Wound up sticking that scope on my pronghorn rifle.

IMO, the LR reticle performs better in low light than the 1" B&C.
A couple hours ago I shot at(missed) a trotting coyote at an estimated 350 yards using a 6x42LR. It was getting pretty dark but I could make out the reticle leading the yote no prob. Couple days ago the scope worked great on a mule deer at 420 yards in fading light.
Of course there are many variables every morning/evening so it's kinda hard to compare actual hunting type situations.

I've used both reticles, but actually prefer the LR for most applications.

The 30 mm VX 7 3.5-14x50mm with the B&C reticle is on the top of my list. Plan on putting it on a sako TRG in .300 Win mag.

It will be a beanfield deer rifle that I will play with during the summer for long range paper punching.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/leupold_VX-7_scopes.htm

R_Flowers,

Which Swarovski did your dad get? Is it any brighter or clearer than his other scopes.

The B&C reticle is etched and is a pretty good reticle. I have used it at last light on a number of occasions with never a problem...Good Luck VX-III 2.5-8x36

In response to Ringman, I THINK the Swarovski that my dad bought was the Z3 model in 3-10 with the BRX reticle.

I have to admit that the few time I have looked through that scope I was so put off by the reticle that I am not sure if it is any better optically at all. (It should be, but I am just not sure.)

Dad really seems to like it, though. He has several top end Leupolds and a Huskamaw, but he really likes the new Swarovski.
The scope he was replacing was a Zeiss fixed 6 power, so we are talking top quality optics here.

Personally, I am not sure I think it is any brighter or clearer than our other scopes. As a side note, that Huskamaw is way clearer than I expected, that is one hell of a scope. (And the turret adjustments work amazingly well-dial in 600 yards and it is ON at 600 yards.)

Sakoluvr
RE: Thin reticles in Swarovski. Have 13 ballistic reticle scopes. None are Swaro. Just haven't bought one, and probably won't. I have several Zeiss and Leu. I like the Pride/Fowler for hunting because the reticle increases in size when power upped. Again, a 1st plane reticle. The reticle still does not get thick enough in my opinion.

Cisco