Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Medium Range (Short Long Range) HUNTING Reticle

I define medium range (short long range) hunting as 600 yards. With a fairly accurate rifle, reliable scope, and routine practice 500 yards in an eight inch kill zone is routine. Six hundred yards starts getting dicey. Past 600 yards takes a lot of experience and practice. Even so, first round misses are not unusual . Wind, wind, wind.

It is safe to say that far more hunters are capable of successful 600 yard shots than 1000 yard shots.

Why can�t we have a HUNTING reticle more suited for 0 - 600 yards that does not concede fast, up close, cluttered, high stress, shots, due to fine subtensions? I have yet to find a �slide� reticle that is adequate for such.

I�ll pick on NF. The 2.5-10x42 MIL R is a REALLY nice scope. The wide opening is 10 MIL/34 MOA and the thin portion is .035 MIL/.12 MOA thick.

Illumination works crazy good in low light with a setting low enough that there is absolutely no washout effect. If you can optically see the target, or even an outline of the target, the reticle will get the job done. The best low light scope I ever had is the S&B 6x42 #4. The illumination on the NF MIL R is even more effective than the S&B in low light (dark). I was blown away by this discovery.

Obviously the MIL R works for dial and slide.

The one huge concession of the MIL R is quick shots in shaded, cluttered background, i.e. the deer and elk woods. The thin portion is way too thin and the wide opening is way too wide. It gets lost, you can�t see it. Case in point. I�ve killed two animals in NM. I am from AL. Point being, one scope had to be chosen for the trip. One animal was a shot within a few yards of 600. The MIL R would have shined. The other was killed at 100 yards, give or take. I was traveling on horseback to an area to glass where shots could have been further out than I feel comfortable shooting. While riding to this location, in the shaded timber, by chance, a target presented itself. I had to jump off the horse, pull the rifle from the scabbard, and get off a shot at spooked, fleeing game (in the timber). It went down FAST. I have serious concerns that I would not have closed the deal with the MIL R. The Leup standard duplex was money.

Below are photos I took this morning on a sunny, unclouded day, mid morning, in the shade of timber.

Tree in the crosshair is at 85 yards. Both scopes are set on 6x. Camera on tripod was not moved the entire time nor were any settings changed. Scopes were placed on the same fence post.

S&B 6x42 #4
Wide opening: 7 MIL / 25� @ 100 yards
Wide portion: 1.75 MIL / 6.3� @ 100 yards
Thin portion: .18 MIL / 0.6� @ 100 yards.



NF MIL R (at 10x)
Wide opening: 10 MIL / 36� @ 100 yards
Wide portion: 0.5 MIL / 1.8� @ 100 yards
Thin portion: 0.035 MIL / 0.125� @ 100 yards





Same pic as above but with illumination at brightest level. As you can see, its of little help in full daylight.

All I want is an intersection that is fairly bold and for the bullet to go where that intersection is.

I don't want hash marks, numbers, magnetic north readings, illumination or temperature.


I don't care to know how many MILS/MOA that wire thickness it, what time it is currently in Italy or who shot J.R.


Hard to trump some form of duplex and a turret.

I'm thinking something along these lines. 2 Mils of holdoff gets a full value wind out to approximately 900 yards. A 0.15 MIL thin portion covers .54" @ 100 yards, 3" @ 600 and 5.5" @ 1000. In no way would this be intrusive in size for hunting but it would get the job done in spades for the close up, cluttered, high stress situations.

I am at a loss as to the trend towards thin.

Scott, I hear you on the duplex. I'd take a Leup standard duplex with the only change being a few hash marks.

I agree with Steelhead, I've looked at so many scopes (i.e. Nightforce) and think to myself, what the hell are all those faint ass hashmarks and red boxes, screw that, i don't even get how guys hunt low light with those things.

Cub, the illumination works in low light. Have you tried it? I was very (very) skeptical, but was blown away when I tried it. From sunset till dark it can't be beat. The caveat is that it MUST be used. Give me a reticle where illumination is a bonus.

AMEN brother.

i wasn't referring to battery powered scopes, just the ones with the non-illuminated complicated faint reticles.

I'm with you except because the wind never stops blowing here, I think I'd like to see an additional .5 mill of windage hold off available.

So far, I'm finding the Zeiss Rapid Z to be a great medium range reticle too, but I don't have dark timber to worry about here, and would like for the windage references to allow for a little more wind, maybe 15mph instead of 10.

John

This thread is not a debate of holding off windage versus dialing windage. For the sake of this thread assume a windage hold off reticle.

Great topic, ctsmith, the same issues have frustrated me as well. If NF had a decent all-around hunting reticle, I probably would have switched most of my scopes over to them by now.

The IHR doesn't cut it.

This one.....

[/URL]][/url]

Or better yet, this one.......

[img:left][/img]

I could really like something along these lines.

You�re darned right about the Nightforce reticles, btw.

Raider, see two posts above yours. Those reticles would be nice with windage hash marks.

John, 2 mils is 15mph/90 degrees at 600. That's actually why I went with it as a good balance. Doubt many of us should be shooting any more than that at game.

PG, I think the NF 2.5-10x42 is a darn good starting point. If I had my wishes cap the windage turret and add the above reticle as an option, or something similar. Definitely don't molest it to the point that it is ineffective early and late without illumination. Make it available with and without illumination.

Gasman, the IHR was definitely a fail. Apparently they designed a hunting reticle without consulting one hunter.

I like-m clean. Dial up and send it. Marks are confusing in the moment.

ct,you had a zeiss with the rapid z600 ret how did it work for you here at dark thirty here in alabama?
I just got a NIB Meopro 6x42 #4 ret to try this year hunting here in AL.

Rick, again, this is not a thread debating holding versus dialing for wind. Thats a whole different discussion worthy of another thread. This thread is for those who prefer to hold.

AMRA, I had a velocity 600. I only tried it here on my range which is 400 yards. It was TOOO easy at that range. At low light it was well behind something comparable to the S&B #4, though still serviceable at sunset +20, maybe even a little later.

I had no issues with this particular scope but have seen too many Zeiss and Leup variables not retain zero with redneck abuse. I simply had no trust in it. I know others have different opinions. Thats fine. I am not trying to convince them otherwise. I can only attest to my experiences and my own personal peace of mind. I do not wish for this thread to be sidetrack with this debate.

LMAO

In general- hunters don't shoot, and shooters don't hunt. That's why you don't see better scopes and reticles.


The standard mil dot in NF compacts is a bit better for hunting and doesn't give us any issues. It is slightly more visible than the Mil R. I agree that it would be beneficial to offer a more visible reticle. The Mil Quad in SWFA's 3-9x42mm is VERY good and nearing an ideal balance.

As far as just having windage marks goes, not having elevation marks limits options. Small marks such as on a Mil Quad or just a straight mil dot reticle offers no hinderance if not needed but do make it easy to use the reticle as a BDC. For those that think simple mil based reticles are "busy", you're looking in the center of the reticle when you shoot. The only time you need pay any attention to the dots or hashes is if you need them and then you need them. It is like anything else- it takes practice and training.

I have seen and taught a bunch dudes, including some cantankerous old still hunters who swore at anything that wasn't a #1, #4 or thick duplex. I have never met one that didn't see the light after really shooting from muzzle to 600 yards and want anything but simple mil based reticles. Yes, they take a bit of thought in designing, especially FFP, but there are scopes that have very good reticles the hunter.