I have been looking at the NF SHV, the NXS, the Bushnell 3-12 LRHS, sort of looking at the 3-9 SWFA scope and from what I can surmise the NF IHR, bushnell G2H, NF MOAR, SWFA MilQuad reticles would all get lost in the woods and lost near dark unless you got an illuminated version. Anyone care to comment regards their experience to the contrary? Interested in an accurate dialing rugged (3-!2)ish, medium powered scope however to buy it for just paper punching in the middle of the day seems a shame.

Tough to trump a duplex.

yes sir I am returning to this idea or a good #4.

1+ Too much crap on most tactical reticles.

No problems so far losing the mil-quad or the G2h.

I prefer the SS 3-9 Milquad to the others, it is bolder.

Do you hunt open country or deep woods, primarily?

I hunt open country by and large. I've hunted with the Milquad and G2h exclusively the last three years, have never had any issues with the reticles.

I've hunted with one of the originals, a mil-dot. I hunt open country however. Last animal took with that was a Muley at 385. I'm just now playing with the DOA600 and hunted once, briefly with the burris ballistic plex. Honestly the mil-dot is almost too busy, but usable. My buddy's EBR-2C is too busy for hunting IMO. I think the burris ballistic plex, the DOA600, and the Leupold LR duplex are great for hunting (all three are fairly similar).

Yep. I like the Leupold LR Duplex and B&C for hunting. They still work fine in the woods.

I hunt in the woods, and most always shoot at just after you can see a bit or just before you cannot see without a flashlight.

You might need to go illuminated to get what you are after.

Or 6x42 Leupold with heavy duplex. Some of my latest, low-light shots I've ever taken were with a 6x42. For general purpose rifles I still prefer a 3-9 or 3.5-10 with a drop-compensating reticle, but the 6x is nice when it starts getting dark.

If I hunted mostly in the woods, especially at lowest light, I expect I'd end up with different scopes/reticles than I have now.

I have two number 4's in a Kahles variable and in a Meopro fixed 6, both are very good. I have a #60 in a Zeiss that I like as well, the thick reticle in the Leupold 1-6 VX6 works well for hunting and can be seen well, maybe to get a SWFA fixed 16 for plinking is the best idea.

I have a nxs 2.5x10 with the lighted MOAR and it's great. The scope itself is a really nice peice of equipment.

I use the milquad hunting daily. Early and late, no problems. The reticle at 4x and under are pretty thin. Over that and you will be fine. I am shooting the swfa 3x15. I leave it at 7x. Very similar to a Leupold fine duplex.

I runt the SWFA standard mil dot for everything and have never had a problem in any legal light.

There is zero issue with the 3-9x Mil Quad or or LRHS G2H in low light in the woods.

It's constantly bantered on the internet yet I haven't met a single person that has had any problems with seeing and hitting with either.

Of course for most, reticles are like the color of a car- it's all about how they perceive it and almost nothing to do with function.

I don't know about the mil quad and want to try one in the classic fixed 16 but looking at the LRHS reticle in this video at 5 min 30 seconds, I cannot see the center of the reticle against even the sky at low power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVy69lmDA4w

Bear Grylls has spoken.

I wouldn't base that opinion on a YouTube video unless that is the only resource you have and trust. Video through a scope never looks the same as being there.

Trying to judge reticles (or "glass" for that matter) through pictures or video is an exercise in futility. Have worked on it a lot and you just do not get the true perspective.


While I'm sure someone somewhere wouldn't be able to use a WWII German post reticle even if it was illuminated, I have never seen someone not be able to see/hit with either of those reticles in those scopes of the can identify the target. From 80 year old grandmas to 6 year old girls.


As an aside, fixed 16x sucks in every scope. Truly.

I like the standard mil-dot.

I have a hard time with the mil-quad in low light.



Travis

Especially for "woods" hunting

Eyes out of focus and blurry is not the fault of the scope...

I hunted with the 3-9x42 SWFA, low light, in the woods multiple times last year. I didn't have a problem seeing the reticle.

David

Thin reticles are harder to see in low light. That's just the way it is.

The thin part of the LRHS is .06 mills, or so says Bushnell, I figure that to be .2 inch at 100, the Zeiss 60 that I have is 1 centimeter or .4 inch, this is not the best in low light but it is illuminated. When I looked at the video I looked at the relative contrast of the thicker posts to the center almost invisible center, everything is relative, it probably could work, just as the rapid Z can work, but it's really designed for something else.

I'm not mature enough to blame myself.

That's why I cussed my son so bad on top of that mountain.


Travis

Sooner or later you are going to have to actually look through one to decide.

Doing math to compare what you think it will look like, coupled with exhaustive research on youtube, won't tell you squat.

I plan on getting a fixed super chicken to look thru before gettin into it for over a grand. This was just about soliciting opinions from those who have used them east of the Mississippi

The fixed SWFA 6x mil quad is noticeably thinner than the 3-9x42 SWFA, even when comparing 6x to 6x.

David

With the LRHS, woods ranges in low light are a non issue. The fat part of the retile is very bold and you can easily bracket vitals with it at woods ranges. My issue with the LRHS is using the long range features of the reticle at SS +30. I loose the mil marks on the reticle against a dark background when it starts to get that late. Same with the Fixed X SWFAs.

John

Maybe you should try turning the turrets instead of trying to use the hashmarks when it's that fugging dark....

I have not seen the 3-9 but I have a fixed 10x mil quad and yes in low light the reticle is harder to see than a regular duplex. It is most useful when you can see it but doesn't stand out.

It's funny in the past a lot of guys were suggesting illuminated reticles or heavy duplex's for low light yet the swfa guys now say the mil quad has no problems. I love my super chicken and the mil quad reticle but it is not a do it all combination.

Been playing with my Leupold VXR TMR in lowlight. Hashmarks could be a problem but with the firedot reticule I could just dial up my needs. Low profile scope that will start out on my campfire Montana Rifle Co 260 Rem.

I prefer to dial elevation and hold off for windage.

John

No, it's that long range and low light don't mix. If it's dark enough to not be able to see the thin portion of the reticle then it's too dark to be shooting far enough for it to matter. If it's that dark then they are close enough that using the outer thick posts as a bracket works well enough.


I guarantee that any one of the detracts could and would hit a vital sized target at 50-75 yards in the woods in the last 30 seconds of legal light with both the 3-9x Milquad and the LRHS if it had a $100 bill taped to it.

jimmy don't let the wizards of smart try to tell you what your noticing is wrong. This is actually the same thing I have been saying for quite a while. is the reticle a good low light reticle?? FFP or SFP?? the answer is it depends. I would say the biggest thing is what power range is the scope. for example, I love the MOAR reticle in my nightforce NXS 3.5-15 model. however I have the same reticle in my NF SHV 3-10 model and I don't think I like it. I have hunted with it once and found myself worried if it would be bold enough in all situations I might encounter. the reticle in the lower powered SHV is totally different its actually 50% smaller at low power than in the NXS.

low power is where your hunting scope will spend most of its time. even if you intend on it being used as a long range scope. There is some very critical hunting I do that is at very first legal light, that is often when the best animals are out. these are usually encountered at shorter ranges when you are carefully positioning yourself for a good vantage point, heck perhaps its in the very middle of the trial your driving your 4 wheeler on. you want low power and a reticle that will get the job done.

The video you pointed out of the LRHS is the same thing I have been saying there is simply NOOO reason for that scope to have been a FFP optic. if your going to take a long range shot and need the features of the reticle is there ever a situation where 12x max power has a problem with mirage?? umm no, further why take a shot at long range on an animal without being at max of 12x?? you wouldn't. if the scope was SFP the reticle would be much larger at low power and usable instead of being that small. further if the FFP reticle in that scope is needed to stay the same at all powers so the subtensions remain the same, oh wait a minute the subtensions wash out at low power, oops.

FFP should be reserved for scopes of higher power, IMO I say something 6-24x or more. FFP also works best in a mil scope because the subtensions work better with it.

bottom line don't listen to what people tell you find out what works for you. If you get a higher powered nightforce the MOAR reticle is awesome. not so much in a low powered scope. I am probably selling my SHV sadly the IHR reticle they offer doesn't look any better and the larger 56mm models are too big and clunky for my need.

at 8X I am sure you could see the $100 and the reticle even after last legal light at 100 yards and hit the benjamin image with a rest, at 3X I am sure you could make out the $100 and the darker outer posts. All good I guess unless your trying to find a spot to shoot thru some branches and such.

I have a spare 6X with mil-quad in the house. I can send it to you when I get back from Poland.



Travis

For long distance,>500yds, a tactical scope is nice to use. Light transmission is not a real issue as in twilight shots will be inside 200yds (personnel ethics). So for reasonable hunting distances a 6X is good for me, as it works well at 50' to 500yds, especially the 6x42 LR by Leupold. This scope and my 30-06 will consistently group 3 shots between 19 and 22" at 1000yds with elevation 2 clicks from max, this is just a fun exercise on steel and paper. The only change I would like is a standard mil-dot retical, but LR is close enough for hunting. tactical scopes i have are for target use only as they tend to be bulky and complicated in the field.

Low light and long range don't go together because the reticles are too thin?

Even at say 50-75 yards in low light the guy with the boldest reticle will be the one to walk away with your $100 in a timed situation.

Again, I love the mil quad reticle but it is not the best reticle in every situation unless the 3-9 you speak of is different than my 10x.

I've shot quite a bit at night while hunting coyotes in Texas and if I was to go back tonight, the mil quad would be my last choice, yet it's my first choice for target shooting or shooting rocks on the other side of the ocean.

How do you know? Have you used the scope?



How do Mil subtensions work better with FFP than MOA subtensions?



That would require actually using the scope, which you haven't done. You don't even know that your SHV won't work in low-light conditions, because you haven't tried (by your own admission). You just "found [yourself] worried". Use the bloody thing enough to KNOW from experience that it will or won't work before you make up your mind, and quit postulating. That goes for the LRHS, too...

No, it's because of other factors like finding where the animal was standing when you shot, tracking, finding spoor, etc, which renders the issue of a thin reticle moot for shooting long range in low light.

jordan look we simply disagree its ok. I did try my SHV in low light hunting with it. so I do have a good idea how it works. this scope is on a coyote calling ar 15, if something shows up at very last light when we are pushing the envelope on light on a stand will it get the job done?? These animals are tuff to make out in sage brush in BROAD daylight often times. One should not have to struggle to quickly pick out the reticle. poor light is often the times when opportunity is greatest. Thats all I am saying, know what you are getting and try it out. what works in one scope power range may not work in another.

one question I saw you asked on edit: why mil is best with FFP

the reason being the coarseness of the unit of measure. half mil graduations break down to about 1.8" which is what most mil based scopes break down as. if you go too fine with FFP you wash out at lower power. with MOA you need to go to 2 moa increments in an FFP scope. I personally prefer 1 moa graduations and SFP in a MOA based scope.

Jordan, Is night hunting allowed in Canada and have you done any?

The OP is concerned about seeing the thin reticle in low light at regular hunting ranges, not using hash marks to make a thousand yard kill shot.

See, I don't have any problem with your comments when you say "I personally prefer." Or if you said "I haven't used the LRHS, so I'm speculating." But when you make comments passing decisive judgement without any first-hand experience, it gets to be a little much. Have you used a FFP reticle with subtension marks? If so, how much?

No, it's not, though I have done a bit in Montana.

Exactly my point. As Formi pointed out, in low light and close range the thick posts are sufficient to place your shots. I don't think anyone is arguing that the MQ or G2H are ideal close-range, low-light woods reticles, but simply that they are useable in such a circumstance.

To the OP, you mentioned a 3-12 scope for dialing with a low-light reticle. I have the SS 3-9 with the mil-quad. I also had the fixed 6. The 3-9 reticle is more bold and this is my favorite big game hunting scope.

Last year I also bought a 3-12 Bushnnell LRS with the illuminated mil-dot. So far it is tracking great. This is different than the LRHS that is being discussed, but for an illuminated reticle that tracks well, it is another option.

jimmy,

I have a S&B Police Sniper model that has a modified German #4 reticle.

At inside 200 yards I can shoot all night if I have some moon or if there's a low cloud deck with light from a smallish town inside say 15-20 miles reflecting off the cloud deck.

In daylight I can handle 600 yards if I need to with it. It's a FFP reticle. The reticle is heavy but has fine center crosshairs.

In terms of a low light scope, this is the best I have looked through. I have never tried some of the 56mm or larger objective scopes like the stuff they use in Germany with straight 8x. Unfortunately they price these scopes like they're made of gold. It's a great scope, better than comparable Zeiss Diavaris or Swaros. If you have to pay full retail for one though it's put a seriousdent in your gun stuff budget.

" The 3-9 reticle is more bold" Thank you IDMilton, I think this may be the key to why some say it'll work fine and others like myself say it's not the best option.

Jordan, I wouldn't be shooting past 20 yards if all I had to go by was the thick post on the very edge. Maybe Formi can do it but I ain't that lucky.

http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-HD-3-9x42-Tactical-30mm-Riflescope-P50716.aspx

http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-10x42-Tactical-Riflescope-P53712.aspx

Even the representations from SWFA show a huge difference, that explains a lot. Two versions of the mil quad?

I may get the Meopta 3-10x50 with their #4, it's pretty good glass in the meostar, won't break the bank etc, then a fixed super chicken for targets. Love to get the LRHS but it really seems best suited for long range broad daylight.

Seems pretty easy to buy one or all of them and then sell for little to no loss if they don't meet your desires.



Beats guessing.

If you're concerned about low light hunting then this is the better option. I have two scopes that are well suited for low light hunting, a 3-12x56 Meopta meostar and a 2.5-10x56 Swarovski PH, both with FFP #4 reticles. They are designed for night hunting and as one poster said about his S&B, you could hunt all night with them with a decent amount of moonlight. The FFP #4 reticle is key, the big fat part is used to bracket the target, the center wires don't matter because you don't use them at night. Low light or night hunting is a short range proposition, anything you have any business shooting at will not require holdover.

If you're going to use a christmas tree reticle at last light or at night it's going to have to be illuminated, all of them are too fine to use in the dark otherwise. Non-illuminated the German #4 rules, the krauts knew what they were doing when they designed it.

When the light gets low I've found no better than the S&B Zenith 3-12X50 FFP with the A4 reticle. A close second would be the Meopta Meopro 6X with the #1.

how about the Klassic 3-12 x 50 with an L7?

I always thought the S&B's had real thin reticles, but maybe not?

Jimmy, here is a S&B #8 which is basically a #7 with a heavy top post.

3X



At 6X




Again at 12X


The bush is roughly 200yds out.

Nice pics TC. It would be interesting to see those same exact pics taken 15-20 minutes after sunset.

anyone use the A9?

For elk hunting in our dark timber my favorite used to be the Leica 3.5-14 with their #1 reticle - HEAVY post. Then I found a deal on a Swaro Z6i 2-12x50. Swaro did that little red dot just perfectly, excellent low light scope. I know these aren't turret twisting scopes (though Swaro does make a turret model), just giving my experience with scopes for low light hunting.

This is the Leica #1

I like the LRD ok but a friend here gave me an M8 6x 42mm w/ a #4 which I thought was too much reticle for extended range (for me 400-ish) but I'm having no problems hitting milk jugs out to 400.

Tacticool is not.

That was on your 6mm-250 - right?
Are you holding at the top of the thick post for 400? 200yd zero?

Is that a FFP or second in the Leica?

All Leica are second focal plane. Got that from their websight just now.
Very attractive scopes.

Correct, 2nd. (which I prefer in a hunting scope, but that's personal preference)

Does`nt seem to matter what reticle I use at dark with a million candlepower spotlight backing it up.

for pigs I don't care, for deer at O'dark 30 it matters to my arthritic eyes.

Leica really listened to the American market with their ER scopes and I believe they got it right. 2nd focal plane reticles, a solid 4" of eye relief and Aqua-Dura weather repellant lens coatings. They don't weight a ton either as my 2.5-10 x 42 comes in at 16 ounces which isn't bad at all considering they are 30mm scopes. The optics are stunning.