Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Medium Range (Short Long Range) HUNTING Reticle

Your right demand would have to be huge, the Mil R darkened and beefed up is a definite improvement, and shouldn't be a big deal to change!

I've looked over NF's reticles and I can't like them for hunting an area that is thick or has a thick background at low light. Their reticles are made for precision at distance.

I'm not opposed to a standard mil-dot with thick dark posts. If I was putting one together made to spec, I'd go with a fixed 6x42, dial on top, and a 2-dot mil-dot on bottom/sides (3 mil to top of post). Posts on sides/bottoms would be thick, middle plex would be no smaller than standard duplex, dots bold enough to see. Top post would be the same as the middle plex all the way up with no dots.

It would give up nothing in low light, would give up some precision at distance but not enough to bother me. Reticle would be bold enough, simple enough, and centered to draw the eye in. Open view on top. I can dial and have known references to slide for windage (to 3 mil). My considerations are mainly 500 and in and this would meet them....and I'd loose nothing closer where most of my shots are taken.

This works fairly well, though I've found that by the time I have it worked out I need a new barrel screwed on.

The hunting reticle situation has been resolved for over a decade.

I guess I figured everyone already knew as it is pretty common knowledge.

At 40yds



At 600yds

Make a VX6 with M1 style turrets and this reticle and available for purchase....then sign me up!

Got to say, the Gen II version of Burns reticle is pretty darn good.

Will Leupold custom shop put windage hash marks in a wide duplex?

I'd like one in VX-2!

Please take a number.......

On Leupolds website they have a Wind-Plex listed in their reticle section...But no photo and really not a good descrition...10 moa hash marks?

.

these guys will.

great to deal with.

http://www.scopedot.com/

Hell, I just want my scope to automatically send GPS coordinates to the crosshair and trigger, and guide bullet thru vitals.

Nothing more complicated than that is needed.

That's pretty much what I want also, EXCEPT:

I want my automatic, GPS guided scope to look EXACTLY like a Leupold FX3 6x42. Then when I nail targets 1200 yards away over and over I can look up and say "What? I told you 6x is all you need...."

David

.....or we can put a 1500 yard reticle that you can't see at 100 yards in a 10x shorter range hunting scope whose purpose is to cover all hunting situations. That makes a lot of sense!

The MIL R in the 2.5-10x42 at 10x has the same subtensions as the 5-25x has at 25x. Not wise.

It is safe to say that far more hunters are capable of successful 600 yard shots than 1000 yard shots.


[/quote]

A few years back I found myself deeply interested in long range hunting. After about a year of playing around at various rifle ranges I discovered that 600 yds seemed to come pretty easy. 1000 yds however in mathematical terms seemed to be exponentially more difficult for myself.

Sorry, I realize this is a bit off topic its just that I find it to be an accurate statement.

With that said I much prefer a reticle rather than turrets now as I don't shoot at game beyond 600 yds and I feel that a proper reticle covers that ground much quicker and more efficiently.

Of all the reticle I've looked at I liked the Rapid Z Zeiss offers the best. Now several Zeiss scopes sit atop several rifles. Not nessasarily because I think Zeiss scopes are best but because I like the reticle.

Because I liked the reticle I decided I'd start by purchasing the Zeiss Terra3 3-9X42 and give it a look see.

Early the next morning well before sunlight with the scope mounted atop a rifle I was up and with a warm cup of coffee in hand was ready for testing.

I did my testing comparing the Zeiss to a leupold FX3 I have that is mounted on another rifle. My FX3 is one of the first ones to come out and I here the new ones are even better but this was what I had so therefore what I used.

My findings were the Zeiss held up to the leupold 6 that I considered to be one of my best low light scopes. I do hear that the meopta is better than the Zeiss and if Meipta had the same reticle I'd likely have gotten a meopta.

The Z6 reticle on my scope doesn't have windage sustentions however I don't shoot in high wind and out to 600 yds I've found them to be unnessary as the length of the body of the animal has worked wonderfully as a windage gauge at " moderate long range"

Mind you I don't consider myself to be all that experienced and there are many on this forum with leaps of experience more than I.

I understand that the Zeiss apparently has less eye relief however the two I have are mounted on non magnum rifles and I've found it to be a non issue.

In fact, the largest caliber I own as of now is a 270 and I have found that to be a non issue also.

Shod

Neat vid above.

Some kid in the future will ask,
"Dad, what is Stalking?"

This would work for me in a VX3 3.5x10x40. Want something a little more low profile. The second gen looks interesting also.

Blast from the past.....because this reticle issue is constantly on my mind. If only NF would do the following in the 2.5-10x42 NXS.......Tangent Theta did it but in a 1/2 lb heavier scope.