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

I like the Leupold TMR with an elevation dial on a hunting rig.

That was my point.....not necessary in my world. More power to you if you like crap hanging off your reticles. I personally do not.

I never notice the "crap". Heck I want it thicker!

JG,

If you're close to Lubbock, I KNOW the wind blows up there. Perhaps your cartridges are magically not susceptible to the effects of the wind or perhaps you don't shoot past 250 yards or so then the wind doesn't matter, at least on deer sized vitals. If that's the case then windage hold marks would be of no benefit to you. If you're particular about shot placement, then the windage holds can be of some benefit to those willing to learn to use them.

What we're trying to discuss here is is a reticle that will do everything well from the muzzle to 600 yards or so in wind, no wind, good light or low light.

John

I could like this in a Bushnell LHRS....

I guess there's not enough of us to warrant a reticle. I wonder how many scopes would need to be committed to do it?

Regarding the elevation hash marks, they wouldn't bother me any as long as the thick portion doesn't get pushed too far down. Might be handy!

Ackleyfan,

I meant to take pics with the LRHS too but didn't get around to it. In daylight when illumination is not effective it smokes the MIL R.

I might could suffer the LRHS reticle. For me, the ring really helps. Though some may not prefer it I find it very helpful and not distracting in the least. I wish the thin portion (.06 mil) was larger but its still nearly twice as thick as the MIL R.

The main problem with the LRHS is, for my preferences, 25oz is just too much for sporter weight rig. The NF at 20oz is as heavy as I want to go, and you can really feel the 5oz difference. Its just too much (for me).

Little concerned about the weight also with the LRHS, the NXS 2.5x10 is the only other scope that interest me and I too would rather have the windage capped and a different reticle than offered!

I could like that. Like the heavy on the outside. Would prefer to have the 2 mils hold off marks for elevation as well (only on the bottom). I don't think it would be to busy but that's a preference thing. Put a dial on top and a lot of bases are covered.

Elevation hashes it is. I think you can afford to stretch it down to 3 mil which is good for 500 yards.

I'd say plenty of shooters hunt. Lots do both. As do I.

However, I choose my optics/reticles accordingly. I see no need for a scope designed for tactical use on a hunting rig, nor vice-versa.

Apparently, critters are much harder to kill these days. Or maybe, hunters just forgot how to shoot somewhere along the way.

There is NOTHING that a simple duplex style reticle cannot do, assuming it's in the right hands.

This whole tactical scopes for hunting thing has become quite laughable. I couldn't care less what folks use if it makes them happy/successful. And that is the truth. But when a guy says he needs glass for a Model 7, and the replies suggest 6-18x50 Meoptas, NF, Bushnell LRHS and other LOGS sporting 30mm tubes and mil-dots, etc., etc. I find it ludicrous at best.

JMO.......

2muchgun, for the third time, a simple duplex reticle is not what this thread is about. It will be appreciated if guys who want to talk about it start their own thread.

Since when did anybody around here start staying on topic?

As you wish.....

The only thing you shoot is your imagination.


Those "tactical" scopes were designed to accomplish the same task as hunting scopes. Well actually they weren't. Your "hunting" scopes were designed to dupe those who think "glass" instead of zero retention, durability and function. That this escapes you isn't surprising.

2muchgun, thank you. I appreciate it. I understand that your system satisfies yourself and many others. I am not here to argue the point or try to change your mind.

2MG,

What is it, in your mind that makes a scope "tactical?"

Of the features you deem that makes a scope "tactical" which of those makes it unsuitable for hunting?

John

John, you couldn't stand it could you? Of the 999,999 threads and arguments in the optics forum has one single person ever changed their mind based on a post? It ain't happening. . Usually, experience is the only teacher.

I should know better�

John

There have been some who asked questions about optics who have made decisions based on other's posts. Changin' minds, I don't know.

To 400 yards, a duplex is all you need. Past that a BDC setup works pretty good. I like the Leupold varmint Hunter reticle. I also like the TMR reticle I had added to my varmint rifle scope, but I think it'll be hard to see in dim light (time will tell). And I have a Vortex Viper 4-16 PST FFP, and I like it, and the illumination is useful. I mostly shoot with holdover, so we'll see over time which works best for me.

I will admit that the 'tactical' look of the Vortex seems a bit much, but it is useful though I'll never get full use out of it since my shooting is 500 yards or less.