Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Burris missing the boat....german #4

OK, so I love me a German #4 retical. Burris seems to have all but eliminated them from the FF lineup. It seems they all have the B plex now. This is the most useless retical for the type of hunting I do. I need a 2x7 for a upper build with a #4. Whats a fella to do?

I called Burris about changing the reticle in a scope to their version of a #4 and the tech told me the center wire is the same thickness ad their standard duplex type so I didn't change it. My son and I both really like Leupold's post & duplex. You can order a scope direct from the custom shop (scopes not available over the counter) and save a little money.

Used to have one of the lupey P&D. I hated the thing. Way too thin xhairs for my type of hunting. I got a FF2 with the #4 and love it....purfect. Now they go and discontinue them. ;(

So did Zeiss. I don't understand their thinking as the #4, according to one of their employees a couple of years ago, was one of their better sellers. And one would logically think that you'd pair some of the best low-light glass with one of the best low-light reticles...

I have a Leupold 3-9x40 Mark 4 PR with a Premier Reticles #4 that is PERFECT. Every #4 should be the same.. Premier had it right...

Stupidity knows no bounds, I guess people would rather gaze thru a complicated reticle for their 25 -100 yard kill shot on a deer .

get a meopta 3-9 with #4. love that reticle

Leupold and others all dropped the ball when they quit the post/picket reticle.......Trijicon has the only thing close.

Hunted for years with the 2-7 Burris with a #4, worked great.

Another good reasonable priced option is the Nikon.

http://swfa.com/Nikon-1-4x20-Monarch-3-Riflescope-P61591.aspx

Meopta's #4 is perfection

It is actually the same as a Zeiss #20 sans the top part of the reticle.

Had a Meopta 6x with thick a&& gorilla leg posts but sent it in and it was immediately replaced with the range finding #4. Miss the old one and believe the problem was operator error all along!

I have a Burrs 6x40 #4 and gotta say I love the thing. Mistake on their part getting rid of it.

Here's a 100 page PDF file, with the reticles of most manufactures. Last updated in 2012 I think.

Might help....


Link


Phil

Do they fit burris?

Too thin for my type of shooting.

I like the look of that one.... 1-4x not so much so.

I called burris cs. They can switch out the reticle to a 3p#4. I have to buy one used or new and for another $60 they will do the swap. Not optimal, but at least it can be done.

people just like the reticle because its called "german" reticle a properly designed duplex does the exact same thing. I don't know what you guys are hunting and when, but even with my unlit nightforce MOAR, ie not a low light reticle, I am able to shoot well beyond legal light.

cumminscowboy wrote: "a properly designed duplex does the exact same thing."
--

Sorry, but that's just not the case. I can assure you that on the type of targets I shoot (primarily dark-colored hogs under nothing but moonlight or in very poor daylight), you can't tell where a Leupold or Swaro duplex begins or ends -- and that is the case with many narrow/thin duplex-types. The Zeiss #20 and Nikoplex are exceptions and are heavier and can be made to work, but a good #4 (like what Zeiss once offered) is truly invaluable in getting the crosshairs aligned on the vitals. The Burris #3P4 is also a very good low-light reticle.

I have never had my plain old duplex reticles cause me to not make a shot. Lucky I guess.

A duplex is not the same at all. Since I started using a #4 my kills on running yotes has gone way up. Way better sight picture.

I wish I got to shoot hogs around here at midnight in my mind with a #4 all your missing is the upper heavy crosshair, of the duplex. so unless the case is made that, that is somehow blocking the target I just can't see it making a difference. my eyes are naturally drawn to the center of a duplex reticle than a #4, different strokes for different folks I suppose

The sub extension's are closer as well. The #4 makes a big difference with running game.

No, it's absolutely not about the one post blocking view. Tthe thing is that you can't see a duplex under those conditions. The thin duplex will blend into the dark target. The 3 heavy posts allow you to be able to see them and hence know where the center crosshair actually is.

Take a look through a Zeiss #4 versus any standard duplex in poor lighting and into the shadows, and you'll quickly see what I am saying -- no pun intended.

I'll add this: if there were no hogs here, I'd have little or no need for the #4. But all of my serious rigs have #4 reticles, which still work beautifully on deer.

I forgot about the low light proformance. That is big as well. I hunt all night with a red led torch. No problem with the burris #4. No way I want to attempt that with a duplex or a lupy #4 for that matter.

Zeiss #4...and even better in a FFP setup

bobby, what I am hearing from you is that its more related to the size and thickness of the posts, why couldn't a duplex do the same thing if the posts where the same size and thickness and the center thin part was identical. just a duplex verison of that ziess reticle. maybe we need someone to take some pictures to try and demonstrate it. although it might be difficult to pull off.

It's easy to tell who has actually used the different reticles at night. No one who'd ever actually compared a FFP #4 to a SFP duplex would ever claim the duplex was superior in low light, the difference is quite obvious if you do any night hunting.

If you look at how close the sub extentions are to the center vs. The way they are in a duplex. I guess that's what makes the difference.

cumminscowboy wrote: " why couldn't a duplex do the same thing if the posts where the same size and thickness and the center thin part was identical."
--

That would make it a #4.....

I like this one

That would work as well.

What you have to imagine is that in low light or fast moving target the smaller/center xhairs can't be seen of just fade away. With the regular duplex the thicker portions are too far out to allow you to quickly place the X-hairs.....make sense?

what about a leupold heavy duplex?? after doing some looking around it appears that optics companies are thinking some sort of illumination is replacing the low light reticle. sort sort of red dot or another combined with a duplex.

Getting better....just something about the heavy extentions in the 12 o'clock that gets in the way of a running shot in my brain.

I am OK with some of the versions of the Leupold HD but still prefer the Zeiss #4. But what you get in one Leupold model may not be what you get in another. The 1.75-6x, for instance, has a completely different HD reticle than one in, say, a 3.5-10x50.

Meopta is in the same boat. The #4 in the 3-9xs, 3.5-10x50, the 4-12xs, etc. is NOT the same as the #4 in a 3.5-10x44, which features a much larger gap between the heavy sections.

I have no use for anything with a lit reticle. Maybe someday I will change my mind, but when a target is barely discernible to begin with, adding illumination will only make the vitals all-that-more difficult to see (and I don't simply pull the trigger on center of mass).

I have a 1.75x6 leupold heavy duplex and it's better than a standard duplex but nowhere near as good as the FFP #4 in my Swarovski 2.5-10 or Meopta 3-12

Crow hunter-Is your 2.5-10 Swaro the 56mm PV/L version by chance? I found a good deal on one here a while back (sold off some other glass to pay for it ha ha) and then had Swarovski install their #4. I really do like it. I haven't been able to do much other than sight in so far, but I am liking what I am seeing to this point...

Have a Leupold VX-3 1.75-6x32 that I purchased with the heavy duplex. The scope was defective and I didn't care for the reticle, so when I sent it back in I had them install a German #4 which I like much better.

It's a 2.5-10x56 PV rail mount. I don't have it handy right now & don't remember it having a "/L" at the end & am not sure what the L designates. It's FFP, the glass is spectacular & the reticle is by far the best low light reticle I've used. I don't have an illuminated reticle to compare though. I also have a Meopta R1 3-12x56 with FFP German #4 & any differences between it & the Swarovski are minuscule. The Meopta is a lot less expensive, definitely a bargain for that level of glass. I didn't pay full price for the Swarovski though, got a screaming deal a few years back when Swarovski discontinued selling the rail mounts in the U.S. & Cameralandny was closing them out.

I had a Leupold VX-2 1-4 with the standard duplex. I sent it to Premier Reticles and had their #4 installed. The center wires were still too thin for me. The had the #4, #4A, and #4E which had very thick posts, a thicker center wire, and the center area was more narrow. I wish I would have had that one installed. My son has the scope now. I have 2 scopes with the post & duplex reticle and the center wires are as thick as a heavy duplex and they work great for me. YMMV.

I have owned multiple reticle types and keep coming back to #4 as my preferred. I see no purpose in an upper vertical post and think them them completely superfluous. Of the half dozen or so folks I have shown a #4 all have agreed on seeing on an improvement in acquisition time over a duplex. I even think a few did not know they were called 'German".
They may not be the cats meow for a lot of long range stuff, I can't say, but for shots consistently in the 50-150+ yd range they are in my book.

It looks like the Leupold Post and Duplex may be a good option.

Solution is surprisingly easy thing to fix if money is no object:

Magnum with lots of eye relief.....

Big panacea for Sako 85 owners with rifles that have case hitting scope ejection problems.

Scott,

The reticle in your picture is very similar to the Iron Sight, Inc., #1 style, what they used to call their "German #1" style, that I had installed on a couple of Denver Redfield 2-7x scopes. I find this reticle to very quick (obvious?) to the eye in heavy cover and under lower light conditions, but I don't know if it significantly quicker to the eye, or even if "quick to the eye" could be measured, than Leupold's heavy duplex.

Yep, that's the one I like.

Sent a my 2.5x8 VX3 to Leupold for a #1. Very happy with it.

Scott

I find the #1 to be imprecise to my eyes/brain past about 150 yards. I know that technically it is not, but my brain didn't want to use it past that, especially on moving targets.

The #4 of some type is still the best IMO, even if it is spread too wide and is too thin in the center. It still really pulls the eye to where it needs to be.

I actually think that the Zeiss #20 is about perfect.

Looked at the nikon #4 at Cabelas today. The x-hairs in the center were way too thin for my liking.

I would agree with that, but I don't plan to shoot anything very far from the muzzles of the rifles upon which these scopes are currently installed. Under 100+/- yards in thick creek-bottom cover I find them easy to shoot on moving targets. That said, I seldom feel the need to shoot running game, as I am usually the only hunter on the ground where I hunt. If I don't have a sure shot, I'm more likely to pass on the shot, unless the animal in question is worthy of a trip to the taxidermist.

My hunting in SD is all in open ranch land, 25-06 with 4-12x40 standard duplex country.

In that case, I'd give the #1 a try. You sure cannot ever miss seeing it, and it nicely leaves the top of the field open.

+1.

Clarify, are the posts heavier than a Burris standard Plex and do they extend closer to center than the Plex? I've tried to find a substension chart on the Burris website and had no luck.

I have an E1 3-9x40 with standard Plex (discontinued) I bought with the specific plan of having a Heavy Plex installed. Was told by Burris CS the Heavy Plex is discontinued, though they still show it as a special order option even now. Maybe the 3P#4 will be a good substitute.

http://www.burrisoptics.com/customer-service/ballistics-services