|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,792
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,792 |
If the HD is $600 I would lean towards the non-HD for $200. Otherwise I would spend a bit more for a Bushy LRTS 3-12. Have to agree with this. For a few $ more, the 3-12 LRTSi is a BUNCH more scope than the 10x HD. John
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,483
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,483 |
10x Classic vs the 10x HD = picture everything you like about the 3-9HD (including the bolder reticle) add parrallax adjustment and you have the 10x HD.
I've had a few 10 and 6 classics and they are great on a rimfire due to the closer parrallax adjustment but they can't touch the HD versions in my opinion.
That said, I have 3-9's and sent the 10x HD back cause I had it on a calling rifle and it was a bit much up close. The 10x HD has the same reticle subtensions and design as the 10x non-HD, but the HD glass likely makes it appear bolder with better contrast.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,163
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,163 |
10x Classic vs the 10x HD = picture everything you like about the 3-9HD (including the bolder reticle) add parrallax adjustment and you have the 10x HD.
I've had a few 10 and 6 classics and they are great on a rimfire due to the closer parrallax adjustment but they can't touch the HD versions in my opinion.
That said, I have 3-9's and sent the 10x HD back cause I had it on a calling rifle and it was a bit much up close. The 10x HD has the same reticle subtensions and design as the 10x non-HD, but the HD glass likely makes it appear bolder with better contrast. All I know is the classic 10x has hollow lines if you will and the 10x HD is solid black just like the 3-9.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,163
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,163 |
Maybe they've changed the 10x classic cause the ones I had were hard to see. The 6x classic, 3-9 zhD and the 10x HD were all bold but its been 2 or 3 years since I had a 10x classic. I do remember it was a common complaint.
I'm guessing you've actually seen a 10x HD, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,163
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,163 |
Last edited by TWR; 12/07/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,284
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,284 |
TWR:
I can see the confusion your link shows a moa scope. I think the other posters are referring to the Mil/mil versions of SS and HD 10x which use the same reticle. Both HD and SS mil/mil use a .05 thick reticle.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,556
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,556 |
Unless I intended to shoot gnats, I would buy three of the standard 10x, for the price of one HD. I have no issues shooting deer at last light, both close and far, with my classic 6 and 10x scopes. I don't have to keep screwing with the power ring, this way. It has all of the versatility that I need, on the range and in the field. I just bought classic number seven.
You did not "seen" anything, you "saw" it.
A "creek" has water in it, a "crick" is what you get in your neck.
Liberals with guns are nothing but hypocrites.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,483
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,483 |
TWR:
I can see the confusion your link shows a moa scope. I think the other posters are referring to the Mil/mil versions of SS and HD 10x which use the same reticle. Both HD and SS mil/mil use a .05 thick reticle.
With hollow diamonds. The way the reticles look in the drawings don’t tell the whole story, as the numbers indicate. Both subtend the same (0.05 thick lines) and have hollow diamonds. The 6x and 3-9x have solid diamonds and 0.07 thick lines. Despite that, the 10x HD reticle may look bolder than the classic because of the glass, just as the reticle in the 3-9x looks bolder than the 6x reticle when both are at 6x, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,483
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,483 |
Maybe they've changed the 10x classic cause the ones I had were hard to see. The 6x classic, 3-9 zhD and the 10x HD were all bold but its been 2 or 3 years since I had a 10x classic. I do remember it was a common complaint.
I'm guessing you've actually seen a 10x HD, right? No sir, I haven’t used a 10x HD that I can recall; I’m judging by the reticle design sheets. Do the diamonds in the 10x HD have little x’s in them, as it appears on the sheet? If so, that would be a difference between the HD and Classic reticles, making the HD appear more visible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,163
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,163 |
As I said I sent the 10x HD back and all I have now are 3-9's but I remember losing the 10x classic mil quad reticle in low light or brush but the 6x, 10x HD and 3-9 mil quads were all bolder even in the drawings and very easy to see.
I edited my link to the correct 10x classic mil quad. Toggle back and forth and the difference is clear.
Last edited by TWR; 12/07/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,483
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,483 |
Again, the subtensions of the reticle features in the drawings aren't necessarily drawn to scale. The numbers listed tell the story about how thick the reticles actually are. I don't doubt your experience, though. Glass quality can affect how the reticles appear to the eye.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,163
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,163 |
That might be it but the 6x classic appears bolder to me as well. Might just be me.
It has 0.07 thick lines though
Last edited by TWR; 12/07/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,483
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,483 |
That might be it but the 6x classic appears bolder to me as well. Might just be me. The 6x classic and the 3-9x HD do indeed have thicker reticles than the 10x classic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 22,884
Campfire Ranger
|
|
OP
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 22,884 |
So the 10x Classic is good enough for everything except lowest light?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,483
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,483 |
Yes. Even then, it works good enough for my uses. The Classics don't handle flare all that well, but that's not a huge deal most of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,556
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,556 |
So the 10x Classic is good enough for everything except lowest light?
I have no issues with it at last light, either.
You did not "seen" anything, you "saw" it.
A "creek" has water in it, a "crick" is what you get in your neck.
Liberals with guns are nothing but hypocrites.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,820
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,820 |
But I also have 2-3 other rifles that I only play with at the range including a Tikka CTR. I have the fixed 6X on it right now and wanted some more magnification for the times I get a chance to shoot past 300 yards. The fixed 10X @ $200 would have done that. But down the road I could see me hunting with the CTR and having the versatility of 3X on the low end is appealing. Who knows, after using it I may like it enough to buy another to use on one of my hunting rifles. But that is not the plan for now.
How much farther and what would your targets be?
|
|
|
|
|
157 members (44mc, 1eyedmule, 160user, 3333vl, 2UP, 308ld, 14 invisible),
1,544
guests, and
906
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,387
Posts18,469,772
Members73,931
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
