Scope recticals and a conversation...

[odysseus]

Maybe someone can help me out a little.

I am looking to glass a bolt rifle and I had an interesting conversation with the gun shop employee who is a seasoned gun shooter and armorer. Basically he comes down to say that most recticals out there are useless for most people and that it is only a way scope manufacturers make more money selling you a "tactical" rectical. He said crosshairs and dots are it.
He was adamant about it. Do you agree or disagree with this line of reasoning?

The reason I ask is the hardest part for me right now is laying the $700-$1400 on a scope with all the selections and reviews out there. Also it is hard to get to really see some of these scopes since most places I have around me carry a light inventory on hand. I was thinking of a rectical with some range estimation in it to assist - but perhaps this is flawed thinking.

Also - are any of you hearing that Leupold's quality is going off on a lot of their models? I also found a Doctor Optics (ziess glass) at a reasonable price (I think) but know of no one who has one.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Gun shop employee? You may have just answered your own question.

Seasoned shooter and armorer he may be, but he obviously doesn't know a whole lot about long-range field shooting.

- Chris

 

[Chawbaccer]

You don't have to fall in the catagory of "Most People". For somebody going out and deer hunting once a year there isn't much need for anything other that a set of cross hairs, for somebody who shoots all year round a little bit of info in the scope can be helpful, provided that he will take the time to learn how to use it and keep in practice of using it.

 

[kenjs1]

the Doctors should be fine glass and if it is a bargain I would give them a shot. I am also a lover of Meopta scopes - check them out and Ithink you will like. Funny you mention reticals and Leupold. Not sure how familiar you are with Premier reticals but you could get Leupolds from them with the option of many different and very fine reticals. Premier is a very good company with a storied pass and had a lot to do with the success of Leupold. Now however the two are parting company. Shame of it is that a Leupold with a nice Premier retical did not cost a whole lot more - usually about $50 and the warranty remained in tact. This was discussed at length on another forum and after hearing everything I blame Leupold because they basically won a government contract using reticals designed by Premier. They are not paying Premier for the rights and the gov't denied Premier the right to sue. I hope this doesn't stir up a big contreversy from Leupold fans on this post - not my intent, just passing along an opinion on something that saddens me. I like Leupolds but when comparing $ for $ I am happier with some of my other choices and don't feel their (fairly new) management has the sportsmans best interest at heart right now". Is it long range target \varmint or low light deer hunting or a lightweight rifle you want to keep trim???? $700-$1400 will by a heck of a lot of scope but it isn't "necessary". Give us a hint on a target price (no bad pun meant there) and intended use. That would help with getting more pertinant repsonses.

 

[kenjs1]

a fw more things

To be fair, I have not heard of a fall off in Leupold quality. I have seen people questioning more and more the asking price when compared to scopes of other brands that appear as good or better. For choices there are range estimating, range compensating, illuminated reticals and various post types. Just for examples sake and because I said I like them I will tell you about the Meopta. The retical I have offers two things I like. First and foremost the #4 type retical. This is a favorite among many hunters including myself and can go by different names depending on brand. It has three thick posts that show up well in low light and it just seems to let you (me) 'snap' on target. Everyone I have shown these reticals to, whether on live deer in the field or decoys in a store or a rock in a field ends up really liking them - so there is a little something to them. Not mandatory of coourse but worth checking out I should think, Secondly, the Meopta offers a way to quickly estimate range. It has three horizontal hashmarks labeled 100, 200 and 300. It also has a longer bar below these marks. You basically put the bar on the bottom torso of a deer or simlar sized animal and see which hashmark lines up with the top of the torso. If it is the 200 - then your deer is at 200 meters. So that is just one example. Burris has round dots that are centered in a vertical line below the cross hair intersection. Each subsequent dot represents a "zero" at the next successive 100 yards out. If yuor deer is 300 yards away aim with the second dot (or such). Sorry if this is over simplified or wasting your time but I don't know your familiarity with this all of this. Forgive me if I am telling you uselss dribble you already know. The one must have on a scope is fully multicoated lenses. Next, finger adjustable windage and elevation -preferably the kind that clicks at 1/4 moa interval rather than one that just moves without positive differentiation - if that is even a word. Can't really call it a must but for anywhere near half of what you mentioined for a price I would demand it. Next - if someone start saying "tactical" you can probably pass on it. Other things are also concerns like weight, size, rings\mounts and warranty. I really hope this helps.

 

[redneck2]

The problem with blanket statements is that they try to cover every situation with one answer. Guys want to know "the best"

for what?? 1,000 yards? deer in heavy cover? varmints?

I've taken a fair number of deer with standard cross hair reticles over the last 40 years. On my B&L, Burris, or Leo scopes I can see them just fine until it's too dark to shoot. The post type described above may be better, but I've never tried them.

On scopes, IMO you have to determine your own threshold of pain in terms of price. Yeah, a Schmidt & Bender would be great but a Burris is plenty good for $600-1000 less. Now, if I were a millionaire, I'd have the Schmidt, but since I'm just a working guys, I get the Burris or Leupold

I've had three dealers tell me that the quality of Leupold is slipping. Dunno. Right now I suspect that Burris may the best bang for the buck and that's what my last few have been. Weaver bought out B&L and I have one very experienced dealer (metallic silhouette, deer hunts, coyotes, etc) that thinks the Weavers are the program. If they're like the old B&L's, they're good.

Another thing to try is see if a local dealer will take a used scope off a rifle they have in inventory. The dealer makes more money selling them seperately and you can save. I got a 6.5x20 Leupold for my AR for $475 that way.

One blanket statement. Always get Butler Creek flip caps. I can't imagine a situation where they wouldn't be useful and they're WAY easier and faster than factory scope caps

 

[dfaugh]

I'm a bit contrarian

For centerfire rifles;

I like variable power scopes--adds versitility--range of magnification would depend on ballistics and intended use(s)

Other than a standard crosshair, I find "mildot" reticles to be useful...Once you get the hang of it you can accurately estimate range and holdover--and if you aren't really using it, it doesn't get it the way.

And (I know I'll get flamed for this one), I have always used relatively inexpensive scopes, and frankly, I can't tell that much difference for 99+% of most shooting. I have a problem spending more for a scope than I did for the gun I'm putting it on. Yes, there's a difference,but is it worth paying 4 or 5 times as much for? Not for me.

 

[USSR]

...are any of you hearing that Leupold's quality is going off on a lot of their models?

First, it's reticle, not retical. It's not so much Leupold's quality diminishing, as much as it is other companies matching and surpassing Leupold at better prices. That's what happens when you rest on your laurels. As to the utility of mil dot reticles, they are necessary for tactical shooting at UKD's. Other than that, simply nice to have with their high CDI factor.

Don

 

[dakotasin]

kenjs- fwiw, i am pretty sure the premier-leupold relationship is done. when premier's owner died, lots changed at premier, and i believe one of the things that stopped was premier doing leupold reticles. however... all is not lost - leupold can/will do reticle stuff in their custom shop.

ussr- lots of folks don't know how or don't want to learn how to mil, so they use the dots as holdover stuff for known distance. ie, zeroed at 200, 1st dot down is 300, 2nd is 350, or whatever. i'm not sure how well that works because i don't own any mil-dots, nor do i plan to... i have a laser, turrets, and a duplex or target dot.

 

[MCgunner]

For centerfire rifles;

I like variable power scopes--adds versitility--range of magnification would depend on ballistics and intended use(s)

Other than a standard cross hair, I find "mildot" reticles to be useful...Once you get the hang of it you can accurately estimate range and holdover--and if you aren't really using it, it doesn't get it the way.

And (I know I'll get flamed for this one), I have always used relatively inexpensive scopes, and frankly, I can't tell that much difference for 99+% of most shooting. I have a problem spending more for a scope than I did for the gun I'm putting it on. Yes, there's a difference,but is it worth paying 4 or 5 times as much for? Not for me.

I agree with the last paragraph. I've found, though, that you can get high optical quality and high mechanical toughness/quality in a Weaver. It's a better scope than any Leupold I've messed with and it sells for around $200. If I have to use a really cheap scope, I'll go with one with less optical quality and more mechanical quality. The bushnells have always impressed me. They can handle about any recoil, but look through one and it don't take much to see the comparison in optical quality with a good scope.

So, I'm a Weaver guy now. I got one on my little M7. It's a 2x10 for one thing. I love a low power scope in the woods, very fast on target, yet you have 10X for long shots out in the mountain canyons. They have quite good optical quality, not in the Ziess/Schmitt and Bender class of course, but as good or better than a Leupold, better than a lot I've looked through. And, they're rugged.

I have one scope I got at a real bargain, a sale. It's a Weatherby Supreme 3x9x44 and I got it for $150. That thing is SHARP in optics, like a European scope. It's rugged, put it on my 7 mag. It is a little heavy, but on that rifle no big deal. It is also a very bright scope in dim light. It's the best scope I have. I should have bought two of 'em at that price, LOL.

I find range estimation a little iffy in the field. I bought a laser range finder for the task. Stand hunting, I'll sit there and zap a tree here, a fence there, get an idea of range so if I see a deer somewhere near that fence, I'll know how far it is. Spot and stalking you usually have more time to zap the target. No mil dot is this accurate. I'm waiting for 'em to put a laser range finder IN a scope. Screw mil dots, inaccurate and a PITA to figure out. Push a button, read a range accurate to five microns. Until they come out with THAT, I'll continue to use my range finder. Before I had that range finder I just judged range. I can do a fair job of that over flat ground out to maybe 250 yards, but across canyons really messes me up. The range finder really helps.

Since I don't shoot at game past about 400 yards MAX, I'm not really worried about 1000 yard shooting and the like. I'm not a sniper, not a sniper wannabe, not a tactical weekend warrior type, just a hunter.

Lastly, I bought this Bushnell which is on my .257 Roberts now. It has this "range finding reticle". I got it years ago before the lasers came out. It's about worthless, LOL! It's that deal where you bracket the deer's body and read the range off the power zoom ring. First of all deer are highly variable in size and second is getting one to stand still long enough in one spot to use the thing! Usually they're moving through and if they're at the feeder, I KNOW how far they are! But, the range compensator is kinda cool. I only use it at the range, though. Never used it in the field. I zero my guns for max point blank range and don't worry about hold over until they're WAY out there.

 

[Brother in Arms]

I hate to sound anal retentive, but i think you mean scope Reticle, not Recticle.

Brother in Arms

 

[ALS]

I think it comes down to the shooter. I like my Mildot scopes. The difference is once you learn how to use them correctly they become second nature.
Especially when dealing with moving targets. My M1A's and all my long Range Tacticals have Leupold Mark 4's on them. One M1A and the Blaser LRS2 has a 6.5-20 X 50 mm. One M1A and One Rem 700 have a 4.5-14 40 mm, and one Rem 700 has 4.5-14 50 mm. These weapons are regularly shot at 400 plus yards with the bolt actions all seeing out to 1000 yard use.
The rest of my scoped weapons have Duplexes.

One of the biggest misconceptions is bigger is better. Most shooters over power their scopes. Your Deer hunting in a state like Pa. and your putting a 6.5-20 X 50mm on your 308 your well over powered in the scope area.
90%of all hunting situations you need no more than a 6X scope. I have a 3-9X40mm Leupold VariIII with a Duplex Reticle on my Rem 700 3006 Dear rifle.
I'm really thinking of going down to a 4X or 6X straight power scope.
Even at the range, come on how many of you are really shooting over 200 yards? At my gun club take out the silhouette pistol shooters, I'm almost the only one on any given day shooting at the 300 and 400 meter targets. 95% or more of the people who belong don't know what it is like to shoot past 200 meters. I'd say 50% never shot accurately past 100 meters.