In a recent thread about some Leupold fixed power scopes being discontinued several comments were made regarding the wide duplex maybe being responsible as it led to poor sales. I have an FXll with the wide duplex and several with the standard duplex. I'm happy using both and actually like the wide duplex as it opens up the view through the scope. I have a 6x36 on my .257 AI and recently shot some pigs with it and didn't really notice any difference in the heat of the moment.

What is it about the wide duplex that some people don't like?

I like the wide duplex on my 1-4x20 and would also like to try the turkey plex. Good reticles for my short range rifles in 22mag, 30-30, and 223.

Thanks Elvis for stating truth.

Detractors are most likely repeating what they read on 24HCF.

FWIW, I too have the Wide Duplex, in about 8 Leupold fixed 4x and 6x, and have used them extensively for years with nary a hiccup.

I have a 6x36mm with a wide duplex. I don't see an issue with it. I actually like the wider spacing. It is, after all, just an aiming device. It shoots small groups at the range and kills stuff, attached to a good '06. Not my favorite reticle, but it's OK.
Bob

Folks, often you can take a standard duplex, zero at 200, and use the lower intersection as a dead on at 400 yds....Voila

65BR,

Yep.

The Wide Duplex has no advantage over plain crosshairs, which were abandoned by most scope manufactuers, except in low-priced rimfire scopes, by around 1970.

But I do know a very experience big game hunter who likes the "crosshairs" in the Wide Duplex because they're slightly "heavier" than the center crosshairs in the standard Leupold Duplex.

I dislike it because it's too open in the middle for good bracketing in poor light, and the convenient holdover point where the reticle gets thick is too many MOA below center.

+1.
The wide duplex completely eliminates the main advantages that it was made for in the first place.
As MD says, no different than a standard crosshair.
Thinking the "modern" scope engineers are catering to the new long range craze. Classic overthinking.
Total design failure, as far as I'm concerned.

The Wide Duplex is the worst reticle Leupold ever made, and then they made it standard in a good 6x36 scope.

The regular duplex you can use the bottom post for a holdover mark, probably around 400 yards.

The Heavy Duplex you can see in extremely challenging lighting conditions, and a holdover mark around 400.

The Long Range Duplex holdover dots at 300/400 and a post at 500.

So the wide duplex offers no advantage in low light, no advantage for long shots. Why did Leupold make it? And then why did they make it standard?

I have used both std and wide duplex, along with the heavy duplex, in 6x42 and/or 4x33 Leupold scopes. It’s no contest for me. The std duplex is much easier to bracket the intended target. The wide duplex is similar to a std crosshair reticle. The heavy duplex is my 2nd choice. I’d even prefer Leupold’s fine duplex over their wide duplex. I still wonder who at Leupold came up with the idea of the wide duplex and why anyone in the decision making process would sign off on it.

My guess is the Wide Duplex was a cost saver for Leupold.

The Wide Duplex is what was designed to hold the "dots" on the LRD/LRVD (Long Range Duplex) models, so its "dotless" version was apparently simpler to just keep in those scopes that were also available with the LRD/LRVD.

Without the dots it's a dumb reticle IMO.

At least one other company makes a similarly useless version of the same reticle. Surprisingly, it's Schmidt & Bender's D7 reticle....

As I have said here many times I like the wide duplex in the only scopes I own with it, 2.5X ultralight that i have on rifles used in the timber. At 2.5X the reticle is thick (approx. 1.4" at 100yds) and is easily seen at dawn and dusk, plus holdover points are not an issue when using a 2.5X in timber.

I would not want it in a higher powered scope used for distance.

Brad is right on in my opinion. I thought the 6x42 with the lr dots was about the perfect fixed scope.

I like the standard duplex, it’s fine where I hunt, I can see well during legal shooting hours.

I hate to see it go. The wide duplex was a nice, clean reticle. I can stand a scope with useless tick marks or dots on the crosshairs, either.

A scope is a container for a reticle... FOV is way over-rated. Centering the eye quickly is the real concern.

I like it ok. I need a heavy reticle though. I hunt as late as possible and that means fine crosshairs get lost. In the daytime, a wide duplex works just fine.

All sorts of stuff works when it does not count...

I prefer the wide duplex. I wish Leupold had a reticle identical to the Burris Ballistic Plex which is the best of all. Never liked the regular duplex.

I never considered using the reticle to range distance though I've read Mule Deer several times using it. I seldom shoot past 200 metres and my longest shot on a deer was at 167 metres. That was in big wide open country after a chital stag (Axis). A belly crawl got me in for the shot. I'll happily use both types. I wouldn't let a wide duplex stop me from buying a scope. But good to hear others opinions.

Love me some WD! Best reticle out there.

I'm the odd man out who wouldn't mind seeing simple crosshairs offered as an inexpensive option. 99.999% of my shots fired are at black and white paper targets. The duplexes in a couple of scopes on my hunting rifles are ok, I wouldn't kick them out of bed for eating crackers, but I'm a couple-days-per-year deer hunter anymore and can't give a hoot about low light level aiming at deer because I don't care enough about it to get up and stumble around in the dark anymore, and I don't see myself shooting at such a distance as to employ a part of the reticle as a holdover device. If it's that far away I'll either try to get closer or go back home and have lunch instead. I paid my dues, been there got the t-shirt, etc. etc., it just ain't my thing anymore. Yet, I shoot a lot- a helluva lot- and a simple crosshair fills my needs entirely on said paper targets at 50, 100, and 200 yards. Yet another reason I gravitate toward vintage Unertls/Feckers/Lymans on my rifles- utter and complete simplicity with simple fine crosshairs with which to quarter a 3/4" white aiming point at 100 yards.

I know I'm lost in the shuffle, in a minority that barely registers on the scale. It's just me stating my needs/goals and what I perceive to be the best means possible for achieving them.

gnoahhh, you and me seem to be in the same boat. A pretty leisurely boat at that.

What IS a useful reticle....the Post duplex, it opens up the view above the aiming point, still giving you a lower reference mark for longer shots, though the spacing may be a bit different as I recall in a PD vs std. DPX.

The PD, #4, and #1 cover a LOT of ground for folks not shooting far enough to use a LRD or CDS, etc.

A standard DPX did the job for decades..........

I'm obviously not the experienced hunter :), but I do prefer and use the heavy duplex on some rifles. There used to be a pretty good guy here who WAS a very experienced hunter (JJ Hack) who accurately explained the HD gave you a slight advantage in low light. I have the HD on two of my "african rifles), a 375 H&H and a 416 Rigby.

I've found the heavy duplex to be useful, the wide duplex not so much.

Elvis: I never did warm up to the "wide Du-Plex" that Leupold offers but am a longtime and sincere advocate of the fine Du-Plex especially for longer range Hunting situations (both Varmint and big game).
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

I am quite fond of the heavy duplex for hunting rifles. It may not be ideal for target shooting, but there are targets that accommodate it quite well.

A friend of mine has a Rem. Model 7 and he wanted a better (but still relatively trim) scope for his hunting than the one he inherited on it. I sold him a VX-III 1.75-6x32 with the heavy duplex and he's been very happy with it.

What you say about using the right target for testing and sight-in is very true.

gnoahhh,

Like many here, you are delusional--not because you cannot comprehend the uses of all sorts of "special" reticles, but because there are plenty of plain-crosshair scopes already out there. Hell, I recently sold you one.

This is because crosshair reticles were the primary (almost only!) reticles offered for decades by American scope companies. If you want one, there are probably millions of pretty good scopes with crosshair reticles already out there.

Which is one reason most scope companies quit offering plain crosshair scopes: Any old fart who wanted one could buy one for, at most, $100.

This applies to a bunch of other shooting stuff as well. Not the $100, but the basic capitalistic principle.

Ditto. For my hunting in the dim rain forest where loggers grow moss on their chests, the thick heavy duplex is an advantage to my eyes. I am not the same league with folks who really know scopes, just know what works the easiest for me. Heavy outer reticle, narrow gap.

On a varmint rig the fine duplex is nice.
Deer rigs a reg duplex, wide or standard.
Do not care for heavy duplex.
Lots of guys here put the heavy on slug guns and mzs.
They said they loved em
Hunted same crap as them, like a reg.

I won't disagree on the Heavy DPX being a useful reticle, and I successfully ran an M8 matte, 6x42 that was called a Heavy Duplex, IIRC, the 'Fine' part of the reticle was 1.1" at 100 yds.......it was VERY Bold and I dumped a buck at dark thirty one cloudy evening in heavy timber about 50 yds...it was very prominent, not that a standard duplex would not have worked.

Later, same rifle, a 700 Swede dropped an 8 pt WT at 110 paces, left handed...my weak side, just had to shoot that way. That same morning, I missed a doe earlier, around 300 yds that was facing directly away from me. I never felt great about that reticle after that hunt......where shots might be that distance.

I used a #4 in a 6x42 on another Buck at 275 yards....believe the fine part of that reticle was around .4" at 100 yds.

APPLICATION for one's personal style of hunting and shot opportunity will affect the suitability of a given reticle.

To me a variable reticle might be more useful at times than a variable zoom........JS. Not sure if anyone has yet to make that, but imagine if you could twist a knob and change from plex, to #4 to #1 to heavy plex, or LRD, etc. That sure would give one options when they change hunting locations, without changing rifles.