Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Heavy Duplex too heavy??

About to send some Luepies out for elevation turrets, and could use some opinions. Now is the time to change reticles if need be.
<br>
<br>Have a 4.5x14 with the HD duplex . Good choice in the dark timber, and low light, with tired eyes, but is it still workable, for longish shots? It takes up
<br>.4" at 100yrds. 2"at 500, 4" at1000
<br>
<br>I haven't logged much time with this scope, and nothing over 100 yrds. doing some load workup. Any recommendations ?

Reticle selection is a very personal matter,tastes certainly differ.
<br>
<br>An undisturbed Buck,would be in a VERY bad way,at any distance with that scope/turret/reticle setup. If you like it,go with it.
<br>
<br>One of my favorite 3.5-10X 40's,has a dot reticle,with tapered crosshairs. It subtends more than your heavy duplex and I've yet to struggle with it,up close or farther away..............

Thanks Stick, was hopin you'd get in on this one. I know you've played with extended range for awhile, and were familiar with a multitude of Leu's.
<br>
<br>I've had a couple differing opinions now, including Leupolds. Something tells me you got more field time in then anyone there(plus you said what I wanted to hear) so I'll give her a go.

Canon,
<br>
<br>I don't know much,but know enough that not everyone lusts after the same reticle. If it works best for you,then you KNOW you chose wisely.
<br>
<br>With a turret,you never need to deviate from a hold that employs the crosswire intersection. 4" subtention at 1000yds,leaves much elbow room,for most pursuits.................

I listened to JJHack on this subject and I am very happy with my choice. I went for the Premier Reticles version of the german 4a reticle, not Leupold's. No, I haven't tested it as much as Stick has his choice, but so far I'm very happy with it. It has much better low light usefulness than the standard duplex.
<br> I understand it doesn't cover as much target with it's fine section, etc. as the heavy duplex does. An option to consider if you wish.
<br> I suggest you e-mail Dick Thomas and discuss your wants. His company specializes in custom reticles. His e-mail addy is: www.premierreticles.com. They also do target style elevation turrets, etc. Good folks. I've bought three customized scopes from them.
<br>

Canon,
<br>
<br>If you hunt in heavy timber where it can get dark, get yourself the widest "outter" crosshair you can find. They show up much better in low light. As far as covering 4" at 1000 yards, I see know reason why it won't work just fine.
<br>
<br>I have been using Schmidt & Bender and Swarovski scopes for 4 years now and I am glad a buddy of mine talked me into getting the widest "Outter" crosshairs possible. Plus I prefer the magnifying reticle since the coverage of the crosshair is the same throughout the power range at a set distance. On non magnifying reticle scopes that coverage can be more or less, depending on the power used.
<br>
<br>Good hunting,
<br>
<br>Don

Eremicus
<br>I read JJ's post on the 4a, and it was very convincing.If I recall correctly, thats the same post, I printed off Sticks excellent instructions for click adjustments. The 4a gets a lot of mention ,so will try one on a 2.5-8 . The thick posts on this one are 4 times thicker than the standard duplex. Do you find that cluttered or a little distracting ?
<br>
<br>I did email Premier earlier in regards to shipping to Canada.They were quick on the trigger to respond, and very enthusiastic. Just in case anyone else in Can. is interested in having some scope work done by them, Premier suggested writing beside the shipping label, (product of USA returned for modifications) Leopold claimed to have problems getting scopes back here, and suggested only using their depot in Coutts AB. just north of the Montana border.
<br>
<br>To save time, I will send a couple scopes to Leupold's outlet here for elev. turrets, and stay with the HD duplex.(for now) When they come back, I'll send a couple to Premier for turrets and reticle changes.
<br>
<br>So once again guys, thanks for all the input.

When the dust settles and you've had time for evaluation,please chime in with your findings.
<br>
<br>Everyone likes fresh input......................

Thanks to fresh input, I've purchased Quickload (and a computer to run it),upgraded the Chrony to an Oehler 35P, 1200 LRF,couple rifles here and there, etc.etc.to enhance ones shooting style. But, I do know it will put a smile on my face, when it comes together.
<br>
<br> Just lucky good things come in small packages, or ones wife might form the opinion, he was spending too much
<br>
<br>

No substitue for a truly Loving Bride and good equipment.
<br>
<br>I opt to purchase in "stages" myself,just to make sure Momma still loves me.....................(grin)

I have a heavy duplex on a 1.5-6x and see no handicap using it for shots under 400yds. I would think with the extra power of your scope it would be just fine. I actually prefer it to the standard duplex for big game. Target shooting is another matter.

I don't have a HD, but I have been thinking seriously about standardizing my scope choice with a 2x7 or 3 x9 Leupold with a HD for everything from a .22LR to a .338. I have many rifles and a pretty varied collection of scopes on them. With the exception of dedicated targer/varmint guns and possibly DG rifles, I have decided that FOR ME one of the 2 above scopes will do almost everything I could wish at a fraction of the cost of the Euro scopes. I'm leaning toward the 2x7HD because it is smaller......any feedback?
<br>
<br>I think people get concerned because the HD appears to cover so much of the FOV, but I'm not spotting with it, and I hope the animal is in the center.

Canon, it depends on what you want to do with the scope? if most of your shooting is targets or varmints i would prefer the standard duplex. if your goal is mostly hunting i would choose the heavy duplex. i have numerous leupolds and all have heavy duplex. i use most of them for deer hunting. leupolds "gather" enough light at dusk that you can clearly see game but no longer be able to see a standard duplex. i have not had this problen since switching to heavy duplex's. as far as target shooting with heavy duplex's this is not a problem if you use the correct targets. redfield targets work well. i have shot some of my best groups at 200 yards with a heavy duplex. some people have the idea that a heavy duplex is harder to group with, and that is correct if you try to shoot at a very small target hidden behind the crosshairs. i have never seen a deer small enough to hide behind the crosshairs at any "sane" range. having said this "DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS" good luck RAGHORN

No, Canon, I don't find the heavier posts on the 4a distracting. The horizontal opening on the 4a is wider. You also don't have the heavy top post. I must confess, however, I haven't compared the 4a to the Heavy Duplex. I got the 4a because I found myself losing the standard duplex in bad light situations. Like a heavy overcast dawn in a forrest, or on a clear, moonless night. I didn't want to go too far, and JJ's comments made sense, so I gave it a try. I am considering having some of my other scopes redone as well. E

Thanks for all your thoughts, fellas.
<br>
<br>IIFID, I've used the 2-7 for a lot of years, and appreciate it's compactness, but could have used more power on a couple occasions where the lighting wasn't right. Twenty some years ago, when I bought my first 2-7, it was the right choice, but find it lacking in some situations now.
<br>
<br>After comparing scopes in very low light, the HD is clearly the right choice for MY eyes. Will try the 4a in near future. Haven't done any long range blackbird hunting since about puberty, so 2" subtension @ 500yrds, shouldn't be too significant.
<br>
<br>Coincidently, this scope, that subtends .4" @ 100, was on a 375 Wby for fireforming, and groups at 100 yrds were at .4" or just under. Wishfull thinking, no doubt, but will post results,if they happen to shrink by .2" when a standard duplex is used.
<br>
<br>No supersition here, but this thing was sitting at thirteen posts.