Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Tactical reticles in a hunting scope

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.