Credo Reticle

[Caseknife]

Can anyone tell me if the lighted portion of the 3x9 standard duplex reticle is visible when it is not lit? And what are your thoughts on the scope as a durable, lightweight option for SFP.

 

[Pickettpuncher]

The reticle is visible when not lit

 

[Kbhillhunter]

Pretty sure they dropped this model in the field evals, that will be a great resource for feedback on durability

 

[Macintosh]

I have two of these.

Do you mean Visible, or “boldly visible”? The center portion of the crosshair is thin compared to most duplex reticles, and the thin part extends further away from center than most. Due to that it is not as bold as many duplex reticles. It is useable for me without illumination most of the time, but I can see people who hunt mainly in “busy” dark backgrounds such as brushy dark timber would find it a sub-optimal reticle, and would either want to use the illumination or gravitate to one of the accupoint models that has a thicker crosshair to deal with this issue.

Aside from that, I have found it a great scope that tracks reliably and so far has maintained zero better than the scopes they replaced.

 

[Caseknife]

Just what I was looking for information and review, thanks. I was mainly concerned if in 10 years or so, the electronics die and would the scope still be usable. Kind of like that there is an off position between each intensity levels also. Red or green, which is more readily seen in timber?

 

[Pickettpuncher]

Mine is red, and is adjustable. Off switch between each brightness setting.

 

[jdl25]

I'd like to ask if there were any more opinions on this credo illuminated duplex reticle (3-9x40 version). I see it is thin in the middle, the spec is 1 MOA Thick outer part and .125 MOA thin inner part. Does the correct level of illumination make up for the thinner aspect? I have also looked at the Huron, which has a thicker, more traditional duplex, but the eye relief spec is wildly different between the two: Credo 3-9x40 is 3.5"-3.7", and the Huron is 2.5"-3.7".

I've used Leupold for the last 25 years, and this is new territory. I've never had an illuminated reticle, and I'm not sure if I need one now. This would be mostly for deer hunting with shorter shots (200 yards max). I would also entertain the mil square reticle in this same model. The mil square has a slightly thicker "thinner" part than the credo duplex. I have a range where I shoot a little farther, so I am not opposed to this reticle unless it would be terrible for hunting, which is the main priority.

Thanks for your help.

 

[Caseknife]

I have both those scopes, the Credo illuminated portion is easily seen without the illumination. I haven't detected any major difference in the eye relief between the two either. Think that is a typo on the Huron.

 

[1000yards]

I've never felt the need to turn the illumination on with mine, and that's a lot of hunting right up to the last legal second in the dark woods of the deep south. If I can't see the reticle, then I definitely can't see anything else either. But that's just me and my eyes.

 

[1000yards]

I have also looked at the Huron, which has a thicker, more traditional duplex, but the eye relief spec is wildly different between the two: Credo 3-9x40 is 3.5"-3.7", and the Huron is 2.5"-3.7".

Think that is a typo on the Huron.

I can confirm, eye relief on the Huron is exactly what trijicon says online, and it sucks. I bought it for an old 30-06, fired three rounds and moved it to an AR.