Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics best low light leupold reticle

Many #4s are closer to a #4A with wider spacing between the posts and thinner center wires. I'd rather have a #4 than a 4A. I had one #4A and it went down the road and I got a post & duplex to replace it.

I have a Conquest with #4 en route. Should be here tomorrow. I think I will like it. I got rid of my Leupy #4 as it was horribly thick and posts spaced too far apart.

The Leupold I still have, with Premier Reticles #4, is easily the best #4 I have used/owned. It is absolutely perfect IMO.....

I just don't understand why hunters that need to see after dusk in woods situations don't opt for something with an illuminated reticle? I made that mistake this year with a VX3, and quickly rectified the problem and sold the scope this winter for an illuminated 30mm Kahles.

To the OP, I would have looked at a 3-9x40 VXR in your situation, that being said I would have a heavy duplex installed

Fire dot 4

I am a huge fan of #4 types and have to say the VX-r #4 with the lit dot in the center is as close to THE perfect reticle as I could imagine.

Dakota Deer I feel the same way. That upper post.....what for?

To the OP, I would have looked at a 3-9x40 VXR in your situation, that being said I would have a heavy duplex installed [/quote]

I kinda wish I'd have thouht about going that rout a little harder. If I can't make it like I want, I might sell it an try a VXR. The general consensus seems to be that there is no consensus. I think either one would be better than the standard duplex. I have a little while to study up on them some more. Who knows when the rebate money will get here. Thanks fellas

Would go HD myself. As others have said, a propper 4a is a beautiful and versatile thing. Have a leup fx 3x20 with their #4 and it is a wonky, distracting excuse for a 4 IMO (and i like leup scopes fine btw). That said, I wonder to myself how best to judge leup reticles - how much does the scope they're in affect subjective appearance. For example, the HD shown above in a 6x42 looks nothing like the one I had in a 3x20.

The conquest, victory, and kahles #4 is what am comparing to.

Leupold's German #1 is THICK and I guess it would be good for low light. I had one is a 3-9 and it just wasn't what I wanted in that scope so I let it go. Can't see much use for it except for running game and extremely low light...precision shooting at any distance would not be it's strong point.

The more I see pics of the p&d the more I want to try it as a balance of #4-ish, "bold", and entirely suitable for distance.

I like #4 in Euro scopes, duplex in Leupolds.

One pet peeve I have with Leupold is the inconsistency between pictures of their reticles and what those reticles actually look like. They could do better, IMHO.

DF

Dirtfarmer, I agree with you, they could do a lot better job in that regard. I really like the reticles in the VX-R series, but just don't have the funds to purchase one right now.

I get by pretty well with the standard duplex, but the heavy duplex works better for me in close in shooting in cover which is where I like to hunt whitetails. I've never had a #4, but would definitely like to try one.

Ed J

If you can't make the HD or PD work out to 400 on Big Game you are not trying. Inside 100 and dusk, what is not to like?

I have P&D and the HD in two different scopes of the same model. As best I can tell, the P&D is simply the HD without the heavy outer post on the top. I believe the size of the inner plex is exactly the same as the HD...so I don't think it gives an advantage over the HD for distance...but it does open the "top" of the view up a bit.

Firedot #4

Leupold doesn't make a good low light reticle ? I've found their Heavy Duplex in their 6X42's work at night, let alone the legal shooting hours.
I had the Premier Reticles 4a changed to a Heavy Duplex because the 4a can't be used for quick ranging whereas the 9 inch opening spacing on the HD works quite well. That and the center of the HD can be seen more easily at night than the center of the Premier 4a reticle.
If you insist on an "in your face reticle" w/o going to an illuminated reticle, try a #1 by Leupold. I had one for a couple of seasons in a Leupold FXII, 4X. Never any doubt about seeing that one with nothing more than a clear night w/o any moon. E

I might add that the Firedot works in no matter what reticle you have. My latest scope, a 1.25-4X20 VX-R Patrol, has a thin, very open tactical reticle that disappears long before the end of legal shooting light. But turn on the Firedot, and it's as plain as day. At the highest setting, it works just like a red dot sight used in full sun. Turn it way down to the lowest of it's nine settings and it is bright enough to be seen without making the target harder to see. The best of both worlds in my book. E

No, leupold does not make a good low light reticle. I've got a 1.75x6 in my .375 H&H with that reticle, it's better than the std duplex but not by much. It's very poor in comparison to a proper #4. I don't care at all if I can use the reticle for ranging, if it's dark or low light & you're worried about the range then it's too far. If the moon's bright enough anything will work at night, but that doesn't mean it's best. I know illuminated reticles are the fad now but I don't care for them. I don't want the electronics & battery to worry about or the extra weight, and I don't want to have to worry about turning it on before I shoot.

Grab a FFP meopat & turn it to its highest power. That's how a good low light reticle should look.

Leupold heavy duplex



Meopta Meostar #4

See the difference?

I do, and I don't want to be shooting off the top of the bottom post when that is what grabs my eye.

Yes, I do. What you are showing me are thinner center, or fine reticle sections that will not show up as well in really bad light.
To make a low light shot, you must be able to see the reticle, especially the center section. E