I define medium range (short long range) hunting as 600 yards. With a fairly accurate rifle, reliable scope, and routine practice 500 yards in an eight inch kill zone is routine. Six hundred yards starts getting dicey. Past 600 yards takes a lot of experience and practice. Even so, first round misses are not unusual . Wind, wind, wind.

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

Why can�t we have a HUNTING reticle more suited for 0 - 600 yards that does not concede fast, up close, cluttered, high stress, shots, due to fine subtensions? I have yet to find a �slide� reticle that is adequate for such.

I�ll pick on NF. The 2.5-10x42 MIL R is a REALLY nice scope. The wide opening is 10 MIL/34 MOA and the thin portion is .035 MIL/.12 MOA thick.

Illumination works crazy good in low light with a setting low enough that there is absolutely no washout effect. If you can optically see the target, or even an outline of the target, the reticle will get the job done. The best low light scope I ever had is the S&B 6x42 #4. The illumination on the NF MIL R is even more effective than the S&B in low light (dark). I was blown away by this discovery.

Obviously the MIL R works for dial and slide.

The one huge concession of the MIL R is quick shots in shaded, cluttered background, i.e. the deer and elk woods. The thin portion is way too thin and the wide opening is way too wide. It gets lost, you can�t see it. Case in point. I�ve killed two animals in NM. I am from AL. Point being, one scope had to be chosen for the trip. One animal was a shot within a few yards of 600. The MIL R would have shined. The other was killed at 100 yards, give or take. I was traveling on horseback to an area to glass where shots could have been further out than I feel comfortable shooting. While riding to this location, in the shaded timber, by chance, a target presented itself. I had to jump off the horse, pull the rifle from the scabbard, and get off a shot at spooked, fleeing game (in the timber). It went down FAST. I have serious concerns that I would not have closed the deal with the MIL R. The Leup standard duplex was money.

Below are photos I took this morning on a sunny, unclouded day, mid morning, in the shade of timber.

Tree in the crosshair is at 85 yards. Both scopes are set on 6x. Camera on tripod was not moved the entire time nor were any settings changed. Scopes were placed on the same fence post.

S&B 6x42 #4
Wide opening: 7 MIL / 25� @ 100 yards
Wide portion: 1.75 MIL / 6.3� @ 100 yards
Thin portion: .18 MIL / 0.6� @ 100 yards.



NF MIL R (at 10x)
Wide opening: 10 MIL / 36� @ 100 yards
Wide portion: 0.5 MIL / 1.8� @ 100 yards
Thin portion: 0.035 MIL / 0.125� @ 100 yards





Same pic as above but with illumination at brightest level. As you can see, its of little help in full daylight.

All I want is an intersection that is fairly bold and for the bullet to go where that intersection is.

I don't want hash marks, numbers, magnetic north readings, illumination or temperature.


I don't care to know how many MILS/MOA that wire thickness it, what time it is currently in Italy or who shot J.R.


Hard to trump some form of duplex and a turret.

I'm thinking something along these lines. 2 Mils of holdoff gets a full value wind out to approximately 900 yards. A 0.15 MIL thin portion covers .54" @ 100 yards, 3" @ 600 and 5.5" @ 1000. In no way would this be intrusive in size for hunting but it would get the job done in spades for the close up, cluttered, high stress situations.

I am at a loss as to the trend towards thin.

Scott, I hear you on the duplex. I'd take a Leup standard duplex with the only change being a few hash marks.

I agree with Steelhead, I've looked at so many scopes (i.e. Nightforce) and think to myself, what the hell are all those faint ass hashmarks and red boxes, screw that, i don't even get how guys hunt low light with those things.

Cub, the illumination works in low light. Have you tried it? I was very (very) skeptical, but was blown away when I tried it. From sunset till dark it can't be beat. The caveat is that it MUST be used. Give me a reticle where illumination is a bonus.

AMEN brother.

i wasn't referring to battery powered scopes, just the ones with the non-illuminated complicated faint reticles.

I'm with you except because the wind never stops blowing here, I think I'd like to see an additional .5 mill of windage hold off available.

So far, I'm finding the Zeiss Rapid Z to be a great medium range reticle too, but I don't have dark timber to worry about here, and would like for the windage references to allow for a little more wind, maybe 15mph instead of 10.

John

This thread is not a debate of holding off windage versus dialing windage. For the sake of this thread assume a windage hold off reticle.

Great topic, ctsmith, the same issues have frustrated me as well. If NF had a decent all-around hunting reticle, I probably would have switched most of my scopes over to them by now.

The IHR doesn't cut it.

This one.....

[/URL]][/url]

Or better yet, this one.......

[img:left][/img]

I could really like something along these lines.

You�re darned right about the Nightforce reticles, btw.

Raider, see two posts above yours. Those reticles would be nice with windage hash marks.

John, 2 mils is 15mph/90 degrees at 600. That's actually why I went with it as a good balance. Doubt many of us should be shooting any more than that at game.

PG, I think the NF 2.5-10x42 is a darn good starting point. If I had my wishes cap the windage turret and add the above reticle as an option, or something similar. Definitely don't molest it to the point that it is ineffective early and late without illumination. Make it available with and without illumination.

Gasman, the IHR was definitely a fail. Apparently they designed a hunting reticle without consulting one hunter.

I like-m clean. Dial up and send it. Marks are confusing in the moment.

ct,you had a zeiss with the rapid z600 ret how did it work for you here at dark thirty here in alabama?
I just got a NIB Meopro 6x42 #4 ret to try this year hunting here in AL.

Rick, again, this is not a thread debating holding versus dialing for wind. Thats a whole different discussion worthy of another thread. This thread is for those who prefer to hold.

AMRA, I had a velocity 600. I only tried it here on my range which is 400 yards. It was TOOO easy at that range. At low light it was well behind something comparable to the S&B #4, though still serviceable at sunset +20, maybe even a little later.

I had no issues with this particular scope but have seen too many Zeiss and Leup variables not retain zero with redneck abuse. I simply had no trust in it. I know others have different opinions. Thats fine. I am not trying to convince them otherwise. I can only attest to my experiences and my own personal peace of mind. I do not wish for this thread to be sidetrack with this debate.

LMAO

In general- hunters don't shoot, and shooters don't hunt. That's why you don't see better scopes and reticles.


The standard mil dot in NF compacts is a bit better for hunting and doesn't give us any issues. It is slightly more visible than the Mil R. I agree that it would be beneficial to offer a more visible reticle. The Mil Quad in SWFA's 3-9x42mm is VERY good and nearing an ideal balance.

As far as just having windage marks goes, not having elevation marks limits options. Small marks such as on a Mil Quad or just a straight mil dot reticle offers no hinderance if not needed but do make it easy to use the reticle as a BDC. For those that think simple mil based reticles are "busy", you're looking in the center of the reticle when you shoot. The only time you need pay any attention to the dots or hashes is if you need them and then you need them. It is like anything else- it takes practice and training.

I have seen and taught a bunch dudes, including some cantankerous old still hunters who swore at anything that wasn't a #1, #4 or thick duplex. I have never met one that didn't see the light after really shooting from muzzle to 600 yards and want anything but simple mil based reticles. Yes, they take a bit of thought in designing, especially FFP, but there are scopes that have very good reticles the hunter.

I like the Leupold TMR with an elevation dial on a hunting rig.

That was my point.....not necessary in my world. More power to you if you like crap hanging off your reticles. I personally do not.

I never notice the "crap". Heck I want it thicker!

JG,

If you're close to Lubbock, I KNOW the wind blows up there. Perhaps your cartridges are magically not susceptible to the effects of the wind or perhaps you don't shoot past 250 yards or so then the wind doesn't matter, at least on deer sized vitals. If that's the case then windage hold marks would be of no benefit to you. If you're particular about shot placement, then the windage holds can be of some benefit to those willing to learn to use them.

What we're trying to discuss here is is a reticle that will do everything well from the muzzle to 600 yards or so in wind, no wind, good light or low light.

John

I could like this in a Bushnell LHRS....

I guess there's not enough of us to warrant a reticle. I wonder how many scopes would need to be committed to do it?

Regarding the elevation hash marks, they wouldn't bother me any as long as the thick portion doesn't get pushed too far down. Might be handy!

Ackleyfan,

I meant to take pics with the LRHS too but didn't get around to it. In daylight when illumination is not effective it smokes the MIL R.

I might could suffer the LRHS reticle. For me, the ring really helps. Though some may not prefer it I find it very helpful and not distracting in the least. I wish the thin portion (.06 mil) was larger but its still nearly twice as thick as the MIL R.

The main problem with the LRHS is, for my preferences, 25oz is just too much for sporter weight rig. The NF at 20oz is as heavy as I want to go, and you can really feel the 5oz difference. Its just too much (for me).

Little concerned about the weight also with the LRHS, the NXS 2.5x10 is the only other scope that interest me and I too would rather have the windage capped and a different reticle than offered!

I could like that. Like the heavy on the outside. Would prefer to have the 2 mils hold off marks for elevation as well (only on the bottom). I don't think it would be to busy but that's a preference thing. Put a dial on top and a lot of bases are covered.

Elevation hashes it is. I think you can afford to stretch it down to 3 mil which is good for 500 yards.

I'd say plenty of shooters hunt. Lots do both. As do I.

However, I choose my optics/reticles accordingly. I see no need for a scope designed for tactical use on a hunting rig, nor vice-versa.

Apparently, critters are much harder to kill these days. Or maybe, hunters just forgot how to shoot somewhere along the way.

There is NOTHING that a simple duplex style reticle cannot do, assuming it's in the right hands.

This whole tactical scopes for hunting thing has become quite laughable. I couldn't care less what folks use if it makes them happy/successful. And that is the truth. But when a guy says he needs glass for a Model 7, and the replies suggest 6-18x50 Meoptas, NF, Bushnell LRHS and other LOGS sporting 30mm tubes and mil-dots, etc., etc. I find it ludicrous at best.

JMO.......

2muchgun, for the third time, a simple duplex reticle is not what this thread is about. It will be appreciated if guys who want to talk about it start their own thread.

Since when did anybody around here start staying on topic?

As you wish.....

The only thing you shoot is your imagination.


Those "tactical" scopes were designed to accomplish the same task as hunting scopes. Well actually they weren't. Your "hunting" scopes were designed to dupe those who think "glass" instead of zero retention, durability and function. That this escapes you isn't surprising.

2muchgun, thank you. I appreciate it. I understand that your system satisfies yourself and many others. I am not here to argue the point or try to change your mind.

2MG,

What is it, in your mind that makes a scope "tactical?"

Of the features you deem that makes a scope "tactical" which of those makes it unsuitable for hunting?

John

John, you couldn't stand it could you? Of the 999,999 threads and arguments in the optics forum has one single person ever changed their mind based on a post? It ain't happening. . Usually, experience is the only teacher.

I should know better�

John

There have been some who asked questions about optics who have made decisions based on other's posts. Changin' minds, I don't know.

To 400 yards, a duplex is all you need. Past that a BDC setup works pretty good. I like the Leupold varmint Hunter reticle. I also like the TMR reticle I had added to my varmint rifle scope, but I think it'll be hard to see in dim light (time will tell). And I have a Vortex Viper 4-16 PST FFP, and I like it, and the illumination is useful. I mostly shoot with holdover, so we'll see over time which works best for me.

I will admit that the 'tactical' look of the Vortex seems a bit much, but it is useful though I'll never get full use out of it since my shooting is 500 yards or less.

Swarovski Z5 3.5-18x44 with the 4W reticle. Closest thing I have found that I like. I dial for elevation and hold for wind if need be.

CT- The Gen2 reticle by Greybull is sorta like what you drew, however the hashmarks go quite a bit further. Scroll down a bit for the picture
http://greybullprecision.com/products/product/33-precision-hunting-optic.html

That said, I'm thinking I could easily like what you drew.

Modified

I didn't draw it but the first .5 MIL mark would be a small break in crosshair, or else a small hash mark.

Or perhaps I know that after 42 years of big game hunting, nobody can dope 15-30mph swirling winds very accurately, especially the first shot. Windy conditions are a way of life here, so I know to get closer or pass, which is why I posted the reticles I like. I also know that older hunters like myself (53 yr old eyes)cannot see the dots, hashes, etc in challenging light very well. Once again, if all that stuff hanging off the reticle works for you, more power to you.

I've shot 4 muley bucks over 190", one of them a 200"+ typical. Longest shot was 160'ish yds. I like getting close to take the guessing out of the equation, even though I"m CDS equipped.

Can we please have a thread without protesters? If you dont dial and hold off this thread is not for you.

Didn't mean to ruin your day ct. Have fun with it....I'm out.

Thank you, and you certainly did not ruin my day.

The IOR MP-8 reticle is essentially what you drew, just inverted.

Guys, MIL or MOA? I have recently started using MILs and prefer it. There was very little learning curve. My mind thinks logically and tenths just seems to click better for me. But I could do MOA if the need be. If we could have a reticle designed would MOA or MIL sell better?

I think moa would be the better seller but Mils would not stop my purchase if it was the only choice available, ct are you thinking about trying to talk NF into a new reticle?

Been playing with this lately:

Tenths are easier for you to think in just like it is for everyone.


The only way for this to sell enough to actually get made is for it to sell as an AR optic for SDM's, snipers, etc. That by default means mils. What you've drawn is so close to a correct mil based reticle such as a TMR. With only 3 mils of elevation and 2 mils of windage you will not sell it to the LR market. Bthe . 5mil marks need to start at .5 and not go atraight to 1 mil.

I know that you are meaning for it to be a hunter specific reticle, however that market is tiny in comparison.

A straight mil dot reticle while not being "cool" is not a bad place to be.


The SWFA Mil Quad is really good. Very thick outer posts.

SWFA Mil Quad in 3-9x42mm-

I can't imagine the mil-dot not working 90% of the time.

The Mil Quad looks uber, but I have not used one in low light.

I like the TMR but had a hard time using it in low light.

Leupold makes the TMOA for all you MOA losers.

That is all.


Travis

Formidilosus, do you keep the parallax on the 3-9x42 at the factory setting of 100 meters or adjust it out further? Also, the lack of a zero stop on the SS is a deal breaker for me. I realize that a lot of guys think it is not a necessity but I got burned once being off a rotation. Wont let that happen again.

Parallax is factory. It is no issue to as far as you care to shoot.

It takes but a second with a marker to make knowing what rotation your on OBVIOUS. However, there are shims available to make it have a zero stop.

Regarding the MIL R, what are the chances (i.e. can they sell it) if the hollow section of the thick portion is filled in to solid and the thin portion is increased from .035 MIL to .1 MIL?

This is not exactly to scale but close. All that I did was fill in the hollow section and make the thin section approximately 0.1 MIL

I could definitely run this.

HUGE difference.

Ackleyfan, like Formidilosus mentioned, NF will only make a financially sound decision. I'm afraid he's correct, the market for such a reticle is not there.

That said, I've talked to a CS rep at NF and and he conceded that he tried to hunt with the reticle but had to go a different route for a meat-n-tators rig. The reticle is just too fine. I was also told that it is NF's objective for this particular scope (2.5-10x42) to do it all on a hunting rig. Obviously the reticle is too thin to do it all, even the CS rep said it.

I don't know if anything will come of it but they will listen. Probably the best approach is to just beef up the current MIL R. Heck they've done much crazier (worst) things. Exhibit A: IHR 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.

Thats a good one. I have told several buds lately that I want that scope. 8oz won't kill me, but my wife might.

I have a rapid z 800 and a rapid z 600. Both are quite visible in last legal shooting light. At least as good or better than a leupold vx3 duplex.

I don’t know in five pages if anyone has addressed the first verses second plane reticle, but when I bought my European Zeiss and Swarovski scopes, these variables have the first plane reticle that do not magnify the reticle when they magnify the image. My #8 reticle in my Zeiss looks very much like your first photograph except that the #8 has the top of the cross hair also heavy. You said 600 yards, but I’ve never had to hold high on anything, so low light brightness and being able to see the reticle has been the most important for me. A strange thing happens in very low light with that #8 reticle. While I know that the center cross hair is thinner, my minds eye fills in that thinner center section with the heavier outer cross hair size. I can’t explain it, but it’s there and there is no not being able to see that dark cross hair into low nearly no light.

I like the original mil dot, not the 1/3 mil size ones. The reticle posts are very thick good for close up fast shooting and the dots are plenty dark enough to stand out on any game I would shoot. Just my 2 cents.

I've used a regular mildot in a 6x42 more than any other scope the past several years. I'll be carrying it in a couple of hours for this morning's hunt. It's still a good reticle.....the ones pictured above are just an improvement on it with illum and 1/2 mil markers.

I know this is against the grain here but playing around with SWFA's milquad and picture editing I added a fourth/lower post to the reticle with the same subtensions as the top and sides. That would be a great reticle for the times I'm using it in thicker backgrounds, low light, and wouldn't hurt my use at all for longer ranges as I won't be using as much drop as it has, especially if I can dial...... Cap windage, zero stop elevation dial, add this reticle and the already great 3-9 SWFA gets even better for my use.

Got my vote.

Mine too....

That's simply the 1-6x HD's reticle. Hint.

225yds,on the nose. Hint.








Just saying.

Hint.

LAUGHING!..................

I could like that in the 3-9.

I've not touched the 1-6.....how low can the ilum be set? Low enough it doesn't wash out the image in low light?

They got the illum right on the 1-6 SS. On lowest setting, dim but visible in full dark. On highest setting, dim but visible in full daylight, with settings for every situation in between.

John

Thanks John.

The Meopta 4A&B comes close to being ideal for my use. These are a German #4 with hash marks.https://www.slideshare.net/Optics-Trade/technical-data-meopta-reticle-subtensions-optics-trade

I love them 1x6’s myself. Maybe a touch heavy but man are they versatile and capable beyond about anything else in their price range.

I just snatched a Demo C from the Sample List. Good optics to have around.