Mil-dot vs. Duplex Recticle


PDA






TarpleyG
April 4, 2003, 08:49 AM
I am looking at putting a Leupold VXII 3-9x40mm scope on a Savage 10FP in the near future. The question I have is why does a scope labeled "tactical" with a mil-dot recticle cost more than the exact same scope with a duplex recticle. I have no real knowledge of scopes so there may be a reason. It just seems that it cost more because it is a "tactical" scope which is a load of crap.

GT

If you enjoyed reading about "Mil-dot vs. Duplex Recticle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cratz2
April 4, 2003, 10:03 AM
Cause there are lots of people that are willing to pay $100 for the word tactical on the box of their scope.?

swifter
April 4, 2003, 10:39 AM
"Tacticool" has its own price tag...:p
Tom

rock jock
April 4, 2003, 11:34 AM
The "tactical" has to do with the fact that it is geared towards use by LE and/or military snipers due to the mil-dot reticle. There are some distinct advantages to using a mil-dot scope in sniper applications, the primary one being the ability to estimate range without taking your eyes off the scope. Of course, this advantage also applies for a hunter too but not so much for a benchrest shooter. If you prefer, ignore the word "tactical" and focus on the word "mil-dot".

Mute
April 4, 2003, 02:34 PM
If you need the ability to do accurate range estimation without carrying another device, you'll need to have mil-dot or some other reticle that has a range estimating function. Duplex does not offer this.

Now, if you're shooting within a limited window of ranges and don't need to be within 1/2 MOA of aim on everyshot or the very first shot, a duplex reticle will serve you just fine. That's one of the reason for the extra cost on a mil-dot reticle. It has to be precise. The dots have to be consistent in size, shape and distance apart from the next dot. So I guess it takes more work to produce a mil-dot reticle than a duplex. It's not just a name thing.

craigz
April 4, 2003, 06:14 PM
Don't forget that you can always buy the duplex model now, and later send it to Premier Reticles to have a mildot reticle installed, if you change your mind.

BHP9
April 4, 2003, 07:14 PM
I am looking at putting a Leupold VXII 3-9x40mm scope on a Savage 10FP in the near future. The question I have is why does a scope labeled "tactical" with a mil-dot recticle cost more than the exact same scope with a duplex recticle. I have no real knowledge of scopes so there may be a reason. It just seems that it cost more because it is a "tactical" scope which is a load of crap.

You certainly hit the nail on the head. If your funds are unlimited then it is a great toy but practically speaking even a hunter does not need such things and here is why.

Back many moons ago when there was the more simple scopes with only cross hairs the old time big game hunters simple used mildly flat shooting rifles like the .270 and 30-06 with bullets traveling about 3,000 fps and sighted in to hit 3 inches high at 100 yards. With this simple set up deer size animals could be hit and killed with a dead on hold at ranges all the way out to 400 yards. But remember these people knew how to shoot in the prone , and sitting and even standing positions and they did not need or even want the use of walking sticks or bi-pods.

Another old trick is to use the duplex cross hairs. If you are an experienced hunter and know the size of the animal you are shooting at and how big it looks in your scope you can simple bracket the animal within the area of the thinner crosshairs of the duplex reticle to determine the range. It is also easy enough to measure on paper how much area this bracket covers at any range. In other words if a known object like a deer fits into the area you can come amazingly close to estimating the range. But even this is most often not necessary if even a mildly flat shooting cartridge is used. If one is a skilled shot you merley put the crosshairs on the animal at up to ranges of 400 yards and pull the trigger when the cross hairs settle down to minumum wobble which is not very long at all for experieced off hand shooters.

Lets face it when shooting under field conditions with out bi-pods or sticks at ranges over 200 yards you really have to be a first class rifleman. But it is light years faster than fooling around with sticks or a bipod. I have seen double the amount of people miss with bipods and even sticks for a variety of reasons. One was lack of skill and the other was that by the time they got into position and set up the bipod the game had long since made tracks over the horizon.

The skilled rifelman needs no crutches and very little time to raise the rifle and sight it and pull the trigger. He knows his and the rifles limitations and what the odds are as the range increases. I think miracle gizzmo's give the unskilled a sense of invincibility which leads them to take shots at ranges that are often way above their abilities even with bipods or sticks and range finders. None of which compensates for shooting skill.

Experience hunters who hunt much can often look at an object and estimate very closely if it is in range enough to take a shot.

Mill dots are ok providing you have the time to use them but often prove far more impracticle to use than more simpler methods.

I think the best advice I can give shooters is when given the choice of spending huge sums on expensive miracle gizzmo's the better route to take would be to simply buy more ammo and practice more in real field positions. This will go a long way towards better success as to hitting what you are aiming at than any wizz bang star wars gadget will give.

Harold Mayo
April 4, 2003, 07:19 PM
Guys, the duplex reticle IS a ranging reticle...or it is in conjunction with the power ring.

craigz
April 4, 2003, 10:19 PM
Tactical features, such as mil-dot reticles, bipods, and the like, are not intended for hitting a deer-sized target at 200 yards. They are designed to enable you to hit a man's skull at any range out to 1000 yards or more with a cold bore shot. Every time. When lives are at stake. Hunters can scoff at shooters that rely on these so-called crutches, but the joke is not that these products exist, it's that most of the people buying them are putting them on their deer rifles.

Watchman
April 4, 2003, 10:31 PM
Tactical scopes are more expensive because they have more adjustment, often twice as much as a conventional scope.This usually isnt a factor at short range, but if one target shoots at 600 yard or further, a tactical scope really is an advantage.

You may notice that the turrets on tatical scopes are taller.and the click adjustment is graduated. Once you find a zero at a particular range, you can reset you adjustment to zero. I have one scope zeroed at 600, and with practice you can know exactly how many clicks it takes to be on target at any given range.

Its one of the reasons that the Turret Tape was developed to place on the scope. You logged your clicks and ranges and wrote them down for the load you were using. It is simple and effective.

Most scopes have what is known as a 30-30 range finder. This is the retcicle with the heavy crosshairs(aka Duplex) that are finer in the middle. BHP-9 explained the concept well, no use repeating it.

Its more than a money thing. Once a shooter gets used to the tactical series and shoot quite a bit, its nice to have.

The "average" shooter proabably wont need one or use it.

TechBrute
April 4, 2003, 10:32 PM
Don't forget that you can always buy the duplex model now, and later send it to Premier Reticles to have a mildot reticle installed, if you change your mind. Actually, Leupold will change out the reticle for you, as well. Nothing against Premier, just mentioning another option.

TarpleyG
April 6, 2003, 09:19 AM
I think for the extra $100 or so, I'll go with the mil-dot. Question I have now is what variable power range should I be looking for? Originally I was thinking 3-9x but I really do not know what distances I will be able to shoot at because ranges around here are limited. I do want versatility for the future though and I do not want to have to buy another scope. My thinking is having something that I can routinely shoot at 500 yards. Is 9x enough for this? I mean, I used to qualify with iron sights on an M-16 at these ranges so ANY magnification should help.

GT

TechBrute
April 6, 2003, 11:09 AM
It's up to you. Like you said, some people can shoot 500 yards with iron sights. The difference is this with a decent shooter:

Iron Sights: Hits a steel drum consistently.
10X Scope: Groups all his shots on the label of the drum.
40X Scope: Asks you which part of the label you want him to shoot.

Art Eatman
April 6, 2003, 11:27 AM
TarpleyG, if you're gonna be hunting in Florida, a 3x9 would be the upper end of magnification. If you're gonna head into the swamps, a 2x7 would do better because of the wider field of view at 2X. (I discovered in some really tight "jungle" near Blountstown that a K4 could be way too much scope. :))

For shooting paper for fun, a 3x9 is good to 500 yards, at least, based on "funsies" shooting here at my range. In the FWIW department, I can just hold inside an inch at 100 yards with a Weaver V3, but I need a spotting scope to see the holes in the target. :)

Art

labgrade
April 7, 2003, 02:19 AM
If you know the specs of your duplex scope, at various magifications, it can very much-so be used as a ranging tool.

Subtension of the duplex is very useful for "hold-over" & the width of the various duplex is a decent, not wonderful, ranger - if you know your scope's specs & have field-checked 'em.

Quick field-study. The Wife shoots a Rem M7 7-08 w/a Leupold 2X7 compact (120 Nosler BT at 2600 fps MV - not lickity splt). She had an ~325 yd shot at a pronghorn & I guestimated it (quick glass in my own duplex scope) & told her to place the heavy part o' the duplex "right on the money" (an ~10" elevation)

Knowing the trajectory, etc., the bullet hit an inch over the heart & the critter took about 3 steps.

No doubt that a Mil-dot can be "more accurate," but one can certainly lay some fine & accurate fire right on-target with "just" a duplex.

Still, one who knows their rifle/scope, ammo selection & trajectory will be much better than the nifty (& perhaps very decent) stuff.

BTW, I have never even looked through a Mil-dot scope so could be convinced.

& Art's most correct. I've a couple 1.5X-variables + many more 2X+s for close-in & they are always dialed to the lower power to start with.

Wider field of view, quicker target acquistition, better light gathering - makes a lot of sense.

If you enjoyed reading about "Mil-dot vs. Duplex Recticle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!