Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Anybody use the Zeiss Rapid Z reticle??

I'm considering a Zeiss Conquest for my 7mm Weatherby. I've been studying the Rapid Z reticle and it looks like a good system, maybe the best ranging reticle out there. In 47 years of shooting, I've never used anything but a duplex but think I could get used to the Rapid pretty easily.

I'd like to hear from somebody who has used this system in the field and how practical it really is. I know there's some simple in your head math involved. On paper it looks great, like everything else does...

Thanks in advance

We have the Rapid Z 600 on my girlfriend's gun. It works very well, even for oddball combinations of BC and velocity. You just go to the Zeiss website, enter your data, and it tells you what level of magnification will make the reticle match your setup.

The reticle and the yardage numbers are a little small and can get lost in a busy background. I'm not sure I like the fact that it 'floats' in the middle of the scope. I would prefer the crosshairs to extend all the way to the edges of the scope, but overall it works very well.

Once I got the 200 yard zero dialed in, I moved to a 10" plate at 625 yards and made a first round hit using the 8.3X setting the website gave me.

I had one and could not get use to the busy reticle. Purchased a 4.5-14x44 and had Ziess install an elevation turret. The calculator does work excellent if your eyes can deal with the busy lines.

I like the concept, but couldn't get past looking at 'em in the store. The reticle is too small overall for my tastes (too thin and doesn't go all the way to the edges).

I've tried various reticles and wasn't pleased with any of them. The second plane reticles, like most American scopes, need to be on full power for the reticles to be accurate. I've missed or struggeled with shots because full power was too much. Once, I couldn't take a twilight shot, because full power cut out too much light.

I'm now a turret twister. I have a Swaro Z3 and a Z5, both with Outdoorsmans calibrated yardage turrets. I have a Leupold VX-3 3.5-10x40 CDS, which is probably the best deal for dedicated yardage turrets. More advanced turret twisters prefer MOA turrets and keep converstion charts for the proper settings for specific loads. I was trying to make it simple and not have to fool with charts. Downside, a dedicated turret is just that, set up for only one load at one elevation. I have enough rifles that I can do just that. Have a specific load with a dedicated turret on a certain rifle. And leave it alone. That may or may not work for you.

DF

Have a buddy who's using the Varmint Hunter reticle on an AR-10 243 for coyotes and for quick long-range shots once it's "dialed in" the ballistic reticles can't be beat for a team spotter/shooter system as the spotter is constantly calling range from the laser on moving animals until they stop.

Any multi-stadia reticle in the 2nd FP will probably give a more intuitive trajectory to reticle fit by adjusting magnification of the optic (unless you happen to have the perfect combination of reticle vs. trajectory at the optic's highest power--i have seen it happen frequently enuf). It can either be done with a ballistics program (any will do) or by shooting your dope and marking MOA correction on one sheet of paper (at 100 yds.) and just adjusting magnification to get it to "fit" better. The Zeiss and Nikon programs use the same program that Gerald Perry started with Exbal, probably others now too, which just saves manual calculations.

Most of the ballistic reticles have subtensions designed that are very close to about 500 yds. I have not used the Rapid-Z (2FP), but i have used the Rapid Reticle (1st FP) that was designed by the same guys, and liked it

Although most ballistic reticles are designed so anybody can get them to work after a fashion, understanding how they work goes a long ways towards a much more accurate system of reference, whether it be for rangefinding and/or downrange zeroing.

the z are not ranging reticles they are ballistic drop reticles, quite a bit of difference, bdc turrets suffer that they do not correct for station pressure changes. reticle has marks can be used the same way in ffp scopes, check out NF new reticles. BDC reticles can be set to work onany power with a little work on your part. The big problem is know what power you are on as scopes in general do not have click stops on the power ring. Also the poi yardages may not come out in whole numbers.

Etoh--any 2 points in an angular system of reference can be used for rangefinding from simple plex to Ballistic Plex to archery sight pins--all defined by the "mil-ranging formula".

I have two Zeisses with Rapid-Zs and like them; they are the R-600. I do not find the reticle obtrusive or "too busy" though it's the smallest of the series. I have shot it through the summer and find it quicker than a turret, and acceptably accurate to 600 yds, the furtherest I've shot. "Data in" on the Zeiss website must be accurate obviously and the "best power" given is often given in decimals; ie, on my 3-9x scope, it may designate 8.39x for your given data. It is then important that you estimate this as close as possible on the power ring for most accurate shot placement.

Thanks guys for the interesting feedback. I've been trying to understand the whole Z reticle process and think I've got it now. It is a ranging reticle, based on deer sized animals anyway. In the Z Plex calcualtor, I've found that by backing off my standard load by 100 fps, I can match the stadia to within a few yards. When I look at the reticle, it makes sense to me, not too busy or confusing. The Nikon system makes me dizzy...

Still thinking...

I shot a 4.5-14x with Rapid Z 800 for about seven months on pro-form. I liked the clarity of the glass and the lay out of the reticle. I mounted it on a LR308 and it was plenty durable. I used the calculator from their website and came up with 10.72 power I believe. It worked fairly well out to 600 yards. I didn't like the idea of it being a "fixed power variable" if I wanted to use the reticle for hold overs. Also, it is impossible to accurately dial the power ring to two digits of resolution. I am not sure how accurately the power numbers are etched on and lined up to begin with. In other words, if you grabbed 3 scopes side by side and tried to dial 10.72 power, how close would they actually be. I exchanged it for a duplex reticle with target turrets for the remainder of the year. In my opinion this worked much better out to 800 yards.

Bob

Turrets are said to be slower, but with all that figuring, to me, a turret can be faster. I just don't want to get into all that calculating. I just want to range, twist turret and shoot. With a little practice, it can be done fairly quick. In some settings, one can range in advance and set turret for the most likely shot, adjusting as needed for variance.

IMHO,

DF

the orginal "rangefinder" scope were the bas system used on leupolds 3 series, place the stadia lines on the back and chest and dial until the animal fits and read the distance off the dial. All Z reticles have 2 moa ticks on the top verticle and the horizontal that are better at range finding than using the reticle cross hairs. However if your going to use the optimal power setting you will have to use fractions to calculate the actual subtensions at that range. The bdc reticles are progressivly spaced in that the distance between the hash increases with the distance you are shooting. If you know the velocity of your bullet, bc, etc. go to JBM ballistic program run the numbers and compare this to the yard. ticks in the reticle and this will give you the moa hold over for each hash mark.
All this is much more complicated than doing, I use a z800Conquest on an R-5 remington, and it work so good I got the z1000 in 6x24 diavari for a TRG. I can use the straight dial in or dial in 3 mils which "activates" the reticle for holdovers.
some things you need to be aware off however is that the scope is not making adjustments for changes throughout the year. humidity, pressure etc. On my trg set ,dialing back to 12 power increases the range-- in other words the 400 is now the 500 yd marker etc. using the property that sfp scopes raise point of impact with decreases in power setting when used with bdc reticles

That is true about multi-stadia reticles in the 2nd FP, as magnification decreases reticle subtension increases (inversely proportional), so those 2 MOA lines get wider as power goes down. But one could range at the optic's highest power then readjust for the shot or just recalc/measure the new rangefinding subtension at whatever power you're using. Nice thing about their system is that those little .5 MOA lines allow a rangefinding accuracy of ~.05 MOA (interpolatively), which could very well be quite accurate if tgt. size is accurately known. If i were running that reticle for the highest degree of rangefinding accuracy, i'd also subtract one line thickness to make it way more useable for that application. This isn't that hard really but requires reverse milling the true ".5 MOA" subtension by rangefinding multiple tgts. at different distances and recalcing the true subtension.

Though i doubt anybody's gonna split these kinda' "hairs" to that degree, i have seen some fascinating things happen by applying this math (precalcd.) in the field. You have to kind of like this math stuff though to really get into it.

My turrets are not as fast and it is somehow comforting to just aim and shoot without worrying about cranking and all the associated problems

YMMV

I had the RZ600 in a 3.5-10 on my .338. It gave reliable hits out to 600 yards with the 225 Accubond (BC = .550) at ~2800 fps. I used it on full power for long range shooting. Honestly- just my opinion here- I think it's nuts to plan on dialing your scope to 8.3x or whatever in the field, in the heat of the moment. If you can't use a reticle at full power, it's the wrong reticle for the cartridge. IMHO. Now with that said, I found the RZ and Leup's B&C to work fine across a surprisingly broad range of cartridges. At full power I mean.

I did find the RZ to be too busy for my tastes in the woods. Again, IMHO.