Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics kahles duplex reticle

is the kahles plex reticle pretty thin? if anyone has one is it still usuable in lowlight or is a thicker reticle oreferred?

The #7 and #4 on helia C's are similar (but for the obvious), both etched/black as night, the outer posts tending toward heavy and the inner posts yes are a bit fine. You can google the subtensions. The outer posts come in a little tight (it's no wide duplex, to be sure), so bracketing vitals with them is automatic to me. Just my opinion, but kahles versions are my favorite.

I find the kahles plex on my 2-7 thicker than my Leupold 2.5-8 but not as thick as my 3-9 Conquest.
Yes it's usable in low light, not as good the #4 I've got my other kahles.

I like mine, just fine! I've got Kahles scopes on two of my favorite rifles and they certainly work for me......and I'm no spring chicken.

donsm70

No I don't think its that good in low light. I have one and I know this for a fact. I did kill a deer at 20 yards with it once by centering the deer in the image, could not see the reticle on the deer at that time of the morning. My cheap 3.5 x 10 x 50 Kahles American is back in Austria as we speak getting a Number 4a in it.

+1, agree with this. It's very similar to the Swaro duplex on the AV and Z3 3-9x36 scopes if not the same

Or if your state allows it you could go with a lighted reticule. I have a crosshair/dot lighted reticule in a 1.5-6 Kahles on a 375H&H that works great.

I hunted elk here in the dark timber of the NW one year with an AH 3-9 and had no problem. But I also think that the duplex in my swaro Z5 3-18 works in low light so I'm in the minority.

I love the duplex they have as far as a target reticle. I have shot a fair number of deer with it. It appears brown in color to me, and against a brown animal in the low light I think a #4 will be better.