Convince me I am wrong

[alexnelon]

I see people on this forum keep talking about usable hunting reticles…i don’t get it. I personally dislike the christmas tree reticles, but can still hunt with them without problem. What does a good hunting reticle look like?

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a reticle I couldn’t hunt with.

Most reticles have a bunch of stuff that is literally useless though, like 8 mils of wind hashes and 5 mils of hold-under, so it’s ridiculous and puzzling why nobody will just make a ffp reticle that’s usable through the whole magnification range.

 

[Macintosh]

The problem with the internet is you have no idea who's making that claim.

Personally, the majority of people I hear pining over "hunting reticles" are people best served by a red dot, because all they want is something impossible to not see for their 30 yard 300 WM shot on a 150 lb southern whitetail. And a red dot is probably the best thing for them then.

Well, other than not hunting in the south, and not owning any gun as “whallopy” as a 300winmag, thats me. I guess. And while this comment may be in fun (its not un-funny, Im laughing with you at least in part), its inaccurate. Nationwide there has been a massive surge in media around western and long-range hunting. Coupled with the growing popularity of long range target shooting, it has resulted in a high magnification ffp scope being pushed on a lot of people for whom it is useless at best, and harmful at worst. Something like 3/4 of the hunting licenses sold in the US are east of the mississippi where a 300 yard shot is exceptionally long. And even travelling to hunt in the west I just havent been anywhere that shots longer than 400ish yards are a likely requirement. And lots of us are looking for equipment that is comfortably proficient EVERYWHERE we hunt, not only on an “every couple of years” trip. One does not have to be an ignorant fudd to consider that a $3000 16x ffp scope with a reticle that ISNT “impossible to not see” may be a less than ideal choice in that context.

 

[StupidLightweight]

There is no perfect scope. I've finally accepted that. They all come with compromises. The same can be said for everything in life. That said, if you don't mind the 30-ounce weight of the Nightforce, it sounds like you have the best scope for your uses.

I am jealous. I wish there was one scope I felt was the best backcountry western hunting scope. Unfortunately, I find a new one every few years that costs more, weighs more, and requires rezeroing my go-to rifle. For my next build, I'm securing everything with epoxy so I can't swap out anything without a blowtorch. That'll teach me!

 

[Rock’N Tacos]

There is no perfect scope. I've finally accepted that. They all come with compromises. The same can be said for everything in life. That said, if you don't mind the 30-ounce weight of the Nightforce, it sounds like you have the best scope for your uses.

I am jealous. I wish there was one scope I felt was the best backcountry western hunting scope. Unfortunately, I find a new one every few years that costs more, weighs more, and requires rezeroing my go-to rifle. For my next build, I'm securing everything with epoxy so I can't swap out anything without a blowtorch. That'll teach me!

It took me a while to get here - mine go to back country rifle is a CA Ridgeline FFT in 280 AI and this NF is currently its 5th scope lol. This is “the one” - I can feel it in my loins!

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

A variable power scope with that reticle as the “best” all around hunting optic?

Nope.

 

[SDHNTR]

The 34mm tube is unnecessary for a hunting scope. Build the same scope into a 30mm tube and make the reticle a bit more visible/bolder at 4x (which is the main problem) and they would have achieved near perfection.

 

[HuntHarder]

The ATACR is about as close to perfect as you get imo. If only we could put it on a diet and shave off 8 ounces.

Zeiss glass
Nightforce reliability
Leupold weight
Basic reticle with wind holds
Capped windage and lower profile elevation turret with zero stop.

= MY ideal scope.

 

[Rock’N Tacos]

A variable power scope with that reticle as the “best” all around hunting optic?

Nope.

Why? What is better?

 

[Rock’N Tacos]

The 34mm tube is unnecessary for a hunting scope. Build the same scope into a 30mm tube and make the reticle a bit more visible/bolder at 4x (which is the main problem) and they would have achieved near perfection.

I do agree the 34mm tube is unnecessary, but it also allows me to avoid a 10 or 20 moa rail/rings to reach out a long ways…and in turn see the end of my barrel on low power which always drives me nuts. I do like how easy the illumination is to turn on, so when needed at low power/low light with a dark background I just hit the button.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Why? What is better?

In hunting guns, when put to the test amongst shooters of all skill ranges (pro level to beginner), a variable power scope only causes more field issues than it “solves”.

Reticles get into “personal preference” territory or “what I’m used to”, specifically for the “aim point”being a cross hair versus a center dot of some kind.

What’s most important in the reticle is being able for all eyes to quickly resolve hold over/under markings.

The SWFA MIL Quad, as an example, is quite good. But not perfect either.

For 800 yards and in, a fixed 8x50 or for 600 yards and in, a fixed 6x50, with a reticle that is optimized for hunting is what’s needed. In my opinion that doesn’t even really matter, the amount of folks who should be shooting at/past 600 yards on animals in hunting terrain, with hunting stress, and from hunting shooting positions is immeasurably low.

The scope I am mentioning does not exist and likely never will because it wouldn’t sell well. Everyone thinks they need 2-20 power and reticle illumination and other scope features that aren’t at all needed to actually kill animals.

 

[BLJ]

In my opinion a perfect reticle really shouldn’t need illumination to be effective within legal shooting hours. If it does, it’s not a perfect reticle.

What’s the issue with needing illumination on the lower magnification?

 

[Rock’N Tacos]

In hunting guns, when put to the test amongst shooters of all skill ranges (pro level to beginner), a variable power scope only causes more field issues than it “solves”.

Reticles get into “personal preference” territory or “what I’m used to”, specifically for the “aim point”being a cross hair versus a center dot of some kind.

What’s most important in the reticle is being able for all eyes to quickly resolve hold over/under markings.

The SWFA MIL Quad, as an example, is quite good. But not perfect either.

For 800 yards and in, a fixed 8x50 or for 600 yards and in, a fixed 6x50, with a reticle that is optimized for hunting is what’s needed. In my opinion that doesn’t even really matter, the amount of folks who should be shooting at/past 600 yards on animals in hunting terrain, with hunting stress, and from hunting shooting positions is immeasurably low.

The scope I am mentioning does not exist and likely never will because it wouldn’t sell well. Everyone thinks they need 2-20 power and reticle illumination and other scope features that aren’t at all needed to actually kill animals.

Not a great argument against the nightforce…lol. I don’t think I agree with the variable power scope argument, but I will have to think on it some more. I kill several big game animals a year and hunt several different states and have never had a problem with them. I also shoot and practice more than the average hunter, so maybe I am an exception.

 

[DangerRanger]

The problem with the internet is you have no idea who's making that claim.

Personally, the majority of people I hear pining over "hunting reticles" are people best served by a red dot, because all they want is something impossible to not see for their 30 yard 300 WM shot on a 150 lb southern whitetail. And a red dot is probably the best thing for them then.

As someone that lives in the east and goes out west you are probably right.

However, there do exist people like me that want a scope that pushes that short range low light extreme and does it well.

The mavens do this well, but also so do a decent number of other scopes and I wouldn’t be concerned having a 4-16 mil r illuminated in a tree stand at all

 

[Macintosh]

What’s the issue with needing illumination on the lower magnification?

Maybe nothing, depending. It might make sense for some people in balance with their other priorities. I personally dont like the idea of relying on those specific batteries in cold weather (quite possibly an emotional thing rather than fact-based). Mainly because I dont think a bolder reticle is a drawback and I’ve found a couple I like, I dont think I need to settle for a thinner reticle.

 

[BLJ]

Have you been out when it’s cold enough that the battery won’t light up the illumination?

 

[Rock’N Tacos]

Have you been out when it’s cold enough that the battery won’t light up the illumination?

I have hunted alaska and late season idaho, colorado, montana, and utah hunts and have never run into that situation…is that a common problem with NF scopes?

 

[Marbles]

You are wrong. End of story. But, as it is not possible to convince a fool of their folly, I decline your challenge as I have my own folly to return to.

There is no perfect scope. I've finally accepted that. They all come with compromises. The same can be said for everything in life. That said, if you don't mind the 30-ouce weight of the Nightforce, it sounds like you have the best scope for your uses.

I am jealous. I wish there was one scope I felt was the best backcountry western hunting scope. Unfortunately, I find a new one every few years that costs more, weighs more, and requires rezeroing my go-to rifle. For my next build, I'm securing everything with epoxy so I can't swap out anything without a blowtorch. That'll teach me!

Hate to break it to you, but a heat gun will do the trick. You could stake the screws. Brazing might damage the scope.

 

[BLJ]

I have hunted alaska and late season idaho, colorado, montana, and utah hunts and have never run into that situation…is that a common problem with NF scopes?

I’ve never been in a scenario where that was an issue.

It was brought up earlier that the reticle shouldn’t have to depend on illumination at lower magnification.
I asked @Johnwell why he thought that and @Macintosh said he didn’t want to depend on batteries in the cold.

That was where my question about batteries in cold weather came from.

 

[JGRaider]

The scope I am mentioning does not exist and likely never will because it wouldn’t sell well. Everyone thinks they need 2-20 power and reticle illumination and other scope features that aren’t at all needed to actually kill animals.

Add high BC, target/match bullets to the list.

 

[Kimber7man]

In hunting guns, when put to the test amongst shooters of all skill ranges (pro level to beginner), a variable power scope only causes more field issues than it “solves”.

Reticles get into “personal preference” territory or “what I’m used to”, specifically for the “aim point”being a cross hair versus a center dot of some kind.

What’s most important in the reticle is being able for all eyes to quickly resolve hold over/under markings.

The SWFA MIL Quad, as an example, is quite good. But not perfect either.

For 800 yards and in, a fixed 8x50 or for 600 yards and in, a fixed 6x50, with a reticle that is optimized for hunting is what’s needed. In my opinion that doesn’t even really matter, the amount of folks who should be shooting at/past 600 yards on animals in hunting terrain, with hunting stress, and from hunting shooting positions is immeasurably low.

The scope I am mentioning does not exist and likely never will because it wouldn’t sell well. Everyone thinks they need 2-20 power and reticle illumination and other scope features that aren’t at all needed to actually kill animals.

I remember when @gr8fuldoug talked S&B into making a run of the PMII 6x42 with P3 reticle. They were supposed to have the capped windage and 13.2 mil single turn elevation turret, but arrived with the single turn windage. Some of us bought them, but IIRC he didn’t sell nearly as many as he had people saying “I’d buy one”.

@JCMCUBIC still has his. I don’t know many others who have one.