Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold Wide Duplex

Why is there no love for this reticle. What is the BIG difference between wide and duplex? Is it just the ranging factor between bottom post and cross-hair?

Not only that, but the thick parts of the reticle are so far from the center that in low light you might as well be using plain crosshairs.

I'll never understand Leupold's reasoning for that reticle. E

Seems to me the thicker stadia posts with the wider gate would work be pretty good for leading moving larger targets in cover. If you need a better low light reticle for close cover, maybe the #1.

+1, doesn't seem to make much sense. I've got it on a FXII 6x and a 2-7 VXI. I bought both used, like new, both around half price from a guy that really didn't like it. For me some degree of duplex is better than none but so far I haven't used either scope in low light conditions.

I like the WD over the regular. Different strokes....

+1

I also like the wide duplex reticle better, so I do have love for it. many people must or leupold would have discontinued the wide duplex years ago................Hb

Reloader7RM,

If you'd care to expand on that, I'd greatly appreciate hearing why you prefer the Wide Duplex.

I have used the wide duplex since it came out in the Ultralight 3x9 and it looks much better to my eye than the old duplex. The thin wires are a little thicker. Have used it in very poor light as well with great results.

JB the thick part of the old duplex is too thick and the thin is too thin. The thick part takes up too much space. The view is too cluttered for my tastes. But, I would be happy with a 1.5" thick crosswire with a 4" diameter dot. Old school. I don't care to try to shoot things much over 440 yards unless wounded.

I tried a 6x42 with a heavy duplex. Had it on a rifle for two days and it was gone. All reticle no view.

Rick,

Let me preface this by saying I've only used the Wide Duplex in the 4 FX-II, where according to Leupold the crosshairs subtend .8" at 100 yards. In the standard Duplex they subtend .6", so yeah, in the WD the crosshair is a little heavier, but it's so far from the heavy posts that in dim light the posts aren't any help.

Again from Leupold's info, the crosshairs of the Wide Duplex in the 3-9x Ultralight subtend 1" at 100 yards when the scope is set at 3x--but when turned up to 9x the crosshair is only .4". When set on 6x the subtension would be about .7".
So if you're using the 3-9x Ultralight on 3x in dim light, yeah, the crosshair is a little heavier. I would sure want to be pretty darn close, however, as 3x isn't the best magnification for dim-light aiming--and above that the Wide Duplex's crosshairs aren't any heavier.

I guess it would depend on what yor define as "very poor light." In light I would define as very poor, I've found the Heavy Duplex much better than either the standard or Wide Duplex.

I've never liked it but that puts me never using it either to find out why Leupold markets it.

John,

Have you seen the Fire Dot reticle and the new VX-R series? I saw one at my deer camp two weeks ago, a VX-R 4-12x40 CDS. Looked pretty nice, except it's a 30mm, not my favorite tube size.

Seems the new VX-6 is going to be a similar 30mm format with VX-3 quality glass and I guess a Fire Dot reticle.

DF

I'm not at all a fan of the wide duplex and much prefer the standard duplex. The standard duplex just draws the reticle to the target for me. Makes it easier in any light for my eyes.

JB It just looks better to me. Is less distracting. I can't use the Boone & Crockett reticle. The thick marks seem to pull my eye away from the center. I am sure that some of the reasons are my brain looking for logical reasons rather than the best reason of all...it looks better to me and does not distract. I tried multiple aiming points etc. Just too busy for my limited attention.

just curious,
which would you prefer on a varmint rifle?

John the heavy duplex is better in bad light but is too much the rest of the time. I have used the wide duplex when it was so dark that I had to look down to see where to put my feet. I managed to get by. I think just about anything will work. That said, we all have our preferences which may make sense or not. Lot of stuff works. Way too much effort is expended on the search for the ultimate.

John, I prefer thin reticles. Thick just seem to clutter things to me personally. I can't stand reticles such as the HD.

The WD is somewhat similar to the Zeiss Conquest Z-plex. Not the 3-9 version, the Z-plex in thier higher powered Conquest line(SFPs). That is my favorite hunting reticle out of any I've owned or peered through. Thick enough outer post for low light and thin enough centers for a fine POA w/o clutter.

About the only reticle with clutter that I like is Bushnell's MD in the 6500 line.

The low light debate never really held water for me personally. I've ran Leupies FD on hunting guns and shot game at the very end of legal light. Never really understood the fuss, but to each his own...

Have a good one,

loder

To everybody,

Look, I don't really care what anybody else prefers--that's the reason we supposedly have choices--but one reason I like the standard Duplex is that it can be used as a rangefinder, which isn't possible with the Wide Duplex except at ranges so close it doesn't matter. I've killed a bunch of animals with the WD, but never found it a particular advantage in any sort of hunting, and a disadvantage for some, so got rid of all mine.

Not many hunters prefer the Wide Duplex. Every time a newer Leupold scope comes up for sale on the Classifieds with a WD, it takes a lot longer to sell, even when at the same price as other Leupolds. There was an essentially new matte-finish 4x33 FX-II for sale recently for $200, which would be gone within an hour if it was a standard Duplex. It hang around for at least a day, and may be still on there for all I know. I've seen that again and again.

If somebody wants one, why not? But WHY is the Wide Duplex the standard reticle for many Leupold scopes? Why can't it just be one of several options? That's what really gets me.