|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,094
Campfire Regular
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,094 |
A duplex is not the same at all. Since I started using a #4 my kills on running yotes has gone way up. Way better sight picture.
"Any one who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,133 Likes: 6
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,133 Likes: 6 |
cumminscowboy wrote: "a properly designed duplex does the exact same thing." --
Sorry, but that's just not the case. I can assure you that on the type of targets I shoot (primarily dark-colored hogs under nothing but moonlight or in very poor daylight), you can't tell where a Leupold or Swaro duplex begins or ends -- and that is the case with many narrow/thin duplex-types. The Zeiss #20 and Nikoplex are exceptions and are heavier and can be made to work, but a good #4 (like what Zeiss once offered) is truly invaluable in getting the crosshairs aligned on the vitals. The Burris #3P4 is also a very good low-light reticle. I wish I got to shoot hogs around here at midnight in my mind with a #4 all your missing is the upper heavy crosshair, of the duplex. so unless the case is made that, that is somehow blocking the target I just can't see it making a difference. my eyes are naturally drawn to the center of a duplex reticle than a #4, different strokes for different folks I suppose
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,094
Campfire Regular
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,094 |
The sub extension's are closer as well. The #4 makes a big difference with running game.
"Any one who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,426 Likes: 6
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,426 Likes: 6 |
No, it's absolutely not about the one post blocking view. Tthe thing is that you can't see a duplex under those conditions. The thin duplex will blend into the dark target. The 3 heavy posts allow you to be able to see them and hence know where the center crosshair actually is. Take a look through a Zeiss #4 versus any standard duplex in poor lighting and into the shadows, and you'll quickly see what I am saying -- no pun intended. I'll add this: if there were no hogs here, I'd have little or no need for the #4. But all of my serious rigs have #4 reticles, which still work beautifully on deer.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,094
Campfire Regular
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,094 |
I forgot about the low light proformance. That is big as well. I hunt all night with a red led torch. No problem with the burris #4. No way I want to attempt that with a duplex or a lupy #4 for that matter.
"Any one who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,426 Likes: 6
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,426 Likes: 6 |
Zeiss #4...and even better in a FFP setup
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,133 Likes: 6
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,133 Likes: 6 |
bobby, what I am hearing from you is that its more related to the size and thickness of the posts, why couldn't a duplex do the same thing if the posts where the same size and thickness and the center thin part was identical. just a duplex verison of that ziess reticle. maybe we need someone to take some pictures to try and demonstrate it. although it might be difficult to pull off.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,166
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,166 |
No, it's absolutely not about the one post blocking view. Tthe thing is that you can't see a duplex under those conditions. The thin duplex will blend into the dark target. The 3 heavy posts allow you to be able to see them and hence know where the center crosshair actually is. Take a look through a Zeiss #4 versus any standard duplex in poor lighting and into the shadows, and you'll quickly see what I am saying -- no pun intended. I'll add this: if there were no hogs here, I'd have little or no need for the #4. But all of my serious rigs have #4 reticles, which still work beautifully on deer. It's easy to tell who has actually used the different reticles at night. No one who'd ever actually compared a FFP #4 to a SFP duplex would ever claim the duplex was superior in low light, the difference is quite obvious if you do any night hunting.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,094
Campfire Regular
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,094 |
If you look at how close the sub extentions are to the center vs. The way they are in a duplex. I guess that's what makes the difference.
"Any one who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,426 Likes: 6
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,426 Likes: 6 |
cumminscowboy wrote: " why couldn't a duplex do the same thing if the posts where the same size and thickness and the center thin part was identical." -- That would make it a #4.....
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121 Likes: 1
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 96,121 Likes: 1 |
I like this one
"Dear Lord, save me from Your followers"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,094
Campfire Regular
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,094 |
I like this one That would work as well.
"Any one who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,094
Campfire Regular
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,094 |
What you have to imagine is that in low light or fast moving target the smaller/center xhairs can't be seen of just fade away. With the regular duplex the thicker portions are too far out to allow you to quickly place the X-hairs.....make sense?
Last edited by whitedogone; 01/21/15.
"Any one who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,133 Likes: 6
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,133 Likes: 6 |
what about a leupold heavy duplex?? after doing some looking around it appears that optics companies are thinking some sort of illumination is replacing the low light reticle. sort sort of red dot or another combined with a duplex.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,094
Campfire Regular
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,094 |
what about a leupold heavy duplex?? after doing some looking around it appears that optics companies are thinking some sort of illumination is replacing the low light reticle. sort sort of red dot or another combined with a duplex. Getting better....just something about the heavy extentions in the 12 o'clock that gets in the way of a running shot in my brain.
Last edited by whitedogone; 01/21/15.
"Any one who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,426 Likes: 6
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,426 Likes: 6 |
I am OK with some of the versions of the Leupold HD but still prefer the Zeiss #4. But what you get in one Leupold model may not be what you get in another. The 1.75-6x, for instance, has a completely different HD reticle than one in, say, a 3.5-10x50.
Meopta is in the same boat. The #4 in the 3-9xs, 3.5-10x50, the 4-12xs, etc. is NOT the same as the #4 in a 3.5-10x44, which features a much larger gap between the heavy sections.
I have no use for anything with a lit reticle. Maybe someday I will change my mind, but when a target is barely discernible to begin with, adding illumination will only make the vitals all-that-more difficult to see (and I don't simply pull the trigger on center of mass).
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,166
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,166 |
I have a 1.75x6 leupold heavy duplex and it's better than a standard duplex but nowhere near as good as the FFP #4 in my Swarovski 2.5-10 or Meopta 3-12
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,426 Likes: 6
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,426 Likes: 6 |
Crow hunter-Is your 2.5-10 Swaro the 56mm PV/L version by chance? I found a good deal on one here a while back (sold off some other glass to pay for it ha ha) and then had Swarovski install their #4. I really do like it. I haven't been able to do much other than sight in so far, but I am liking what I am seeing to this point...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,340
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,340 |
Have a Leupold VX-3 1.75-6x32 that I purchased with the heavy duplex. The scope was defective and I didn't care for the reticle, so when I sent it back in I had them install a German #4 which I like much better.
Don't roll those bloodshot eyes at me.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,166
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,166 |
Crow hunter-Is your 2.5-10 Swaro the 56mm PV/L version by chance? I found a good deal on one here a while back (sold off some other glass to pay for it ha ha) and then had Swarovski install their #4. I really do like it. I haven't been able to do much other than sight in so far, but I am liking what I am seeing to this point... It's a 2.5-10x56 PV rail mount. I don't have it handy right now & don't remember it having a "/L" at the end & am not sure what the L designates. It's FFP, the glass is spectacular & the reticle is by far the best low light reticle I've used. I don't have an illuminated reticle to compare though. I also have a Meopta R1 3-12x56 with FFP German #4 & any differences between it & the Swarovski are minuscule. The Meopta is a lot less expensive, definitely a bargain for that level of glass. I didn't pay full price for the Swarovski though, got a screaming deal a few years back when Swarovski discontinued selling the rail mounts in the U.S. & Cameralandny was closing them out.
|
|
|
|
594 members (06hunter59, 10gaugeman, 12344mag, 10gaugemag, 10Glocks, 1234, 53 invisible),
13,406
guests, and
1,008
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,195,123
Posts18,542,297
Members74,057
|
Most Online21,066 May 26th, 2024
|
|
|
|