Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold Wide Duplex

In a recent thread about some Leupold fixed power scopes being discontinued several comments were made regarding the wide duplex maybe being responsible as it led to poor sales. I have an FXll with the wide duplex and several with the standard duplex. I'm happy using both and actually like the wide duplex as it opens up the view through the scope. I have a 6x36 on my .257 AI and recently shot some pigs with it and didn't really notice any difference in the heat of the moment.

What is it about the wide duplex that some people don't like?

I like the wide duplex on my 1-4x20 and would also like to try the turkey plex. Good reticles for my short range rifles in 22mag, 30-30, and 223.

Thanks Elvis for stating truth.

Detractors are most likely repeating what they read on 24HCF.

FWIW, I too have the Wide Duplex, in about 8 Leupold fixed 4x and 6x, and have used them extensively for years with nary a hiccup.

I have a 6x36mm with a wide duplex. I don't see an issue with it. I actually like the wider spacing. It is, after all, just an aiming device. It shoots small groups at the range and kills stuff, attached to a good '06. Not my favorite reticle, but it's OK.
Bob

Folks, often you can take a standard duplex, zero at 200, and use the lower intersection as a dead on at 400 yds....Voila

65BR,

Yep.

The Wide Duplex has no advantage over plain crosshairs, which were abandoned by most scope manufactuers, except in low-priced rimfire scopes, by around 1970.

But I do know a very experience big game hunter who likes the "crosshairs" in the Wide Duplex because they're slightly "heavier" than the center crosshairs in the standard Leupold Duplex.

I dislike it because it's too open in the middle for good bracketing in poor light, and the convenient holdover point where the reticle gets thick is too many MOA below center.

+1.
The wide duplex completely eliminates the main advantages that it was made for in the first place.
As MD says, no different than a standard crosshair.
Thinking the "modern" scope engineers are catering to the new long range craze. Classic overthinking.
Total design failure, as far as I'm concerned.

The Wide Duplex is the worst reticle Leupold ever made, and then they made it standard in a good 6x36 scope.

The regular duplex you can use the bottom post for a holdover mark, probably around 400 yards.

The Heavy Duplex you can see in extremely challenging lighting conditions, and a holdover mark around 400.

The Long Range Duplex holdover dots at 300/400 and a post at 500.

So the wide duplex offers no advantage in low light, no advantage for long shots. Why did Leupold make it? And then why did they make it standard?

I have used both std and wide duplex, along with the heavy duplex, in 6x42 and/or 4x33 Leupold scopes. It’s no contest for me. The std duplex is much easier to bracket the intended target. The wide duplex is similar to a std crosshair reticle. The heavy duplex is my 2nd choice. I’d even prefer Leupold’s fine duplex over their wide duplex. I still wonder who at Leupold came up with the idea of the wide duplex and why anyone in the decision making process would sign off on it.

My guess is the Wide Duplex was a cost saver for Leupold.

The Wide Duplex is what was designed to hold the "dots" on the LRD/LRVD (Long Range Duplex) models, so its "dotless" version was apparently simpler to just keep in those scopes that were also available with the LRD/LRVD.

Without the dots it's a dumb reticle IMO.

At least one other company makes a similarly useless version of the same reticle. Surprisingly, it's Schmidt & Bender's D7 reticle....

As I have said here many times I like the wide duplex in the only scopes I own with it, 2.5X ultralight that i have on rifles used in the timber. At 2.5X the reticle is thick (approx. 1.4" at 100yds) and is easily seen at dawn and dusk, plus holdover points are not an issue when using a 2.5X in timber.

I would not want it in a higher powered scope used for distance.

Brad is right on in my opinion. I thought the 6x42 with the lr dots was about the perfect fixed scope.

I like the standard duplex, it’s fine where I hunt, I can see well during legal shooting hours.

I hate to see it go. The wide duplex was a nice, clean reticle. I can stand a scope with useless tick marks or dots on the crosshairs, either.

A scope is a container for a reticle... FOV is way over-rated. Centering the eye quickly is the real concern.

I like it ok. I need a heavy reticle though. I hunt as late as possible and that means fine crosshairs get lost. In the daytime, a wide duplex works just fine.

All sorts of stuff works when it does not count...

I prefer the wide duplex. I wish Leupold had a reticle identical to the Burris Ballistic Plex which is the best of all. Never liked the regular duplex.