Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics What do you think of this reticle for low light situations?

I am considering buying a Karl Kaps 6x42 and this reticle is supposed to be available. I'm thinking it would work pretty good in poor lighting. I believe it has a thin cross hair connecting the horizontal segments. Any opinions? RJ

https://www.kaps-zielfernrohre.de/en/

I like it.

I like it, too. I checked the website and it's clearly more bold that their #4 so I think it would be pretty sweet.

I'm not crazy about it, but viewing the options it looks best. The others look way too thin.

I’d hunt that.

Yeah, I would, too

Looks pretty good but I'd want to look through it and compare it to a #4 first. The #4 is the standard low light reticle by which all others are judged. I don't ever trust reticle pictures in brochures or on the internet, for some reason they never seem to get the proportions right in the pictures. You really need to look through them first.

What's the latest euro to dollar conversion rate? And have you ordered from them before? And I think that reticle would work fine

Your right about having to actually look through them. If the three available look like the pictures then this is the only useable one, but no telling what they really look like. They also have a number 1.

^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just the thing for tigers in the puckerbrush.

Attn: RevMike!

You guys have a good point about looking at that reticle "in person". It does present a problem. I don't know anyone (or local store) that has this scope with this reticle, or this scope, or even a Kaps scope.

Bull64, the Euro conversion rate today is 1 Euro to $1.17, so 645 Euro would be $754.65 It appears that this is Kaps company wedstore. I have not bought from them before, but would not hesitate to do so. I have bought quite a bit of stuff from Optics Trade in Slovenia. They are top notch to do business with. They list this scope, at the same price, but only list the #1 and #4 reticles (the heavy bars on the #4 look a bit thin for my liking). I will email Optics trade to see if they can get it in this "Invarient" reticle

I suppose it is a gamble to order it without actually looking at it first. I'm not in that big of a hurry. Maybe the thing to do is email Kaps and ask them some questions about the retical, Are the horizontal points connected by a thin cross hair?, Does the reticle appear exactly as in their picture? If yes and yes, see if they would give me a 100 percent refund if I was dissatisfied with the reticle.

I have read a couple of places that persons owning this scope and the Meopta 6x42 say the Kaps is clearly better than the Meopta. I have a new Meopta 6x42 and I really like that scope. RJ

I'm not certain you can actually buy from them if you live in the U.S. I was looking at the 4x a while back and the "Shipping Not Available" icon lit up. I didn't go further into it because I was just window shopping.

If so, that's a shame. If you find out differently, let us know please.

Pappy, you may be correct, but since I live in Romania, I can order anything they sell. RJ

Sorry. Didn't recognize you in your Sunday outfit.🤦‍♂️

Good deal. They look nice.

I had an old Redfield with that reticle. It was great for low light and quick shots. Worked well on targets too. The only thing I didn't like was if any hold over is required the lower post obscures the target too much. In situations where hold over is not used, shorter ranges or dialing in, it would be a great reticle. Short of thermal scopes or some lighted ones I think it is about ideal for short-medium range hog hunting. It can black out on you but the posts center the eye much like a peep sight so you can shoot sort of instinctively even if you don't have an ideal sight window.

I don't like it that much because the pickets are a little fine at the ends, a bit like the old B&L tapered crosswires that seemed to solve the problem of the growing reticle in FFP variables. I guess you can imagine where the middle is, though, unlike a #1 picket that is too sharp, in which case the important point tends to disappear in poor light.

You don't have to imagine it. In very low light whether you lose the finer crosshair of a 2cd plane #4 or the center tip of a 3-post #1, your eye finds center. You can think your way out of it, however..

I also like the #1 3-post with a sharp point, rather than a rounded one. I tend shoot a bit high on game with a #1 but it is not an issue concentrating on a paper target. When the light gets lows enough and the point fades, center matches the horizontal bars. Personally, would like to see the point just below horizontal.

But some of us have to be re-trained after every coffee break. So I do prefer a #4, because I can't screw things up in those split second reaction moments hunting whitetails...:)

If a guy learns to use these old mechanical reticles and adjusts power to fit the situation, they are every bit as effective as illumination over most short to medium hunting ranges and possibly more effective at short range in very low light. The old boys knew what they were doing. IMHO, a very fine illuminated dot does have a precision advantage at longer yardages than the mechanical stuff in poor light.

S&B has a similar reticle that I have on a 1.5 x 6 x 42 S&B scope on a .375 Ruger. It is fast to get on target and easy to see in thick stuff. It is perfect for this rifle and it's intended use which can be close quarters in thick brush and the need for speed. I will warn you, it is not a target reticle and your groups will probably grow in size which can be disappointing at the range. But when you get over that and realize it is a field scope designed for less than ideal hunting conditions, and it works damn good for that job, you'll once again be happy with your purchase.

My go to reticle has always been the German #4 but I recently purchased a Swarovski 1x6x24 Z6 EER with the German 4 with the circle that I am really liking a lot. I am thinking I would pick this over the 3 poster any day of the week.

I wish Nightforce had it.
Lit up of course.