Do It All Scope for $1000?

[KoolBreeze]

From Tract:
“While we do not have any plans on an illuminated 3-15x42, we will be launching a TORIC 2.5-15x44 30mm with an illuminated T-Plex. A small dot in the center of the crosshair will illuminate, not the whole reticle.
This scope should be available toward the middle of 2022”

Interesting. Maybe the illumination will be dim enough to be usable in low light.

 

[yeti14]

I'm going through this same issue, trying to find a do it all scope. The credo initially caught me eye. Then I was pointed toward a nightforce shv-3-10x42. Anyone have so input on this scope vs the credo, or in general?

 

[Steve from GA]

Interesting. Maybe the illumination will be dim enough to be usable in low light.

I'm sure it will be. It will probably be similar to the Leupold firedot, which is totally awesome in low light. Having that little illuminated dot is a game changer for me, so I will definitely be taking a hard look when the new Tract model comes out.

 

[BCD]

From Tract:
“While we do not have any plans on an illuminated 3-15x42, we will be launching a TORIC 2.5-15x44 30mm with an illuminated T-Plex. A small dot in the center of the crosshair will illuminate, not the whole reticle.
This scope should be available toward the middle of 2022”

In doing a quick search and looking at the TPlex it appears there is nothing built into that reticle for wind holds. Is that correct?

 

[BCD]

I looked through the two Credo's and 3-15 SWFA for the last 5 minutes of legal hunting light here on my property (official sunset plus 30 minutes).

I could have taken a 200 yard shot with all three (open space, not in timber, not against dark timber). My aged eyes couldn't really tell the difference between the 2.5-15 Credo and 3-15 SWFA on 9x magnification other than the reticles. Didn't need illumination on 9x for any of them. They were both slightly brighter than the 2-10x36 Credo (to be expected).

Trijicon makes no claim of using "HD glass" that I could find, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

Between the FFP reticle on the Credo 2-10 and SWFA, I prefer the SWFA. The Credo has a total of 24 mils between the thick horizontal bars. The SWFA has 12 mils between the bars. At lower magnification, the SWFA reticle is much more prominent and usable than the Credo without illumination. When illuminated, the Credo FFP reticle tree is entirely illuminated.

Honestly, I was surprised. I've been a Negative Nancy on the SWFAs for years now (except the 5-20HD), mainly due to the excessively tall turrets. Mounted on my rifle, they don't appear quite as obnoxious as I expected. (I only just received the SWFA 3-15 yesterday and mounted it on my rifle last night).

Just my $0.02...ymmv.

Did you compare the 2.5-15 Credo and SWFA reticles at lower magnification to see which was more visible? The reason I ask is that I found the SWFA 3-15 reticle to be too faint for my eyes on lower magnification although I really liked it for shooting longer distances/open country.

 

[BjornF16]

Did you compare the 2.5-15 Credo and SWFA reticles at lower magnification to see which was more visible? The reason I ask is that I found the SWFA 3-15 reticle to be too faint for my eyes on lower magnification although I really liked it for shooting longer distances/open country.

The 2.5-15x42 Credo is SFP reticle, so at low power the crosshairs are thicker than the SWFA at low power. However, the SWFA thick cross bars are closer together and aid in "inferring" the position of the crosshairs if difficult to see because of dark background.

Of course illumination helps with the Credo.

My SWFA SS HD 5-20 with illuminated reticle is just about perfect (except the 31 oz weight).

A SWFA SS HD 3-12x44 with illumination and parallax adjustment would be about as near to perfect a scope as we could expect (short of NF producing a SHV or NXS compact with THLR reticle).

 

[Steve from GA]

In doing a quick search and looking at the TPlex it appears there is nothing built into that reticle for wind holds. Is that correct?

Generally speaking, that's correct. With some duplex reticles, the manufacturer can provide some data on how the thin and thick lines correspond to MOA at certain distances. However, that's all way too fuzzy for me.

For hunting, I prefer to use a duplex reticle, keep my shots 300 yards or under, dial for elevation, hold for wind.

 

[prm]

The 2.5-15x42 Credo is SFP reticle, so at low power the crosshairs are thicker than the SWFA at low power. However, the SWFA thick cross bars are closer together and aid in "inferring" the position of the crosshairs if difficult to see because of dark background.

Of course illumination helps with the Credo.

My SWFA SS HD 5-20 with illuminated reticle is just about perfect (except the 31 oz weight).

A SWFA SS HD 3-12x44 with illumination and parallax adjustment would be about as near to perfect a scope as we could expect (short of NF producing a SHV or NXS compact with THLR reticle).

I have owned several 3-9 SWFA HD SS, as well as a couple 6x, a compact, and a 1-6. Not sure why they eventually lose their appeal to me. Generally functional, but little nagging things had me looking elsewhere. The eye piece focus on the 3-9 drove me nuts as I shoot with and without glasses/contacts, and the tall turrets didn’t appeal. Otherwise no issues. The glass on the 6x always seemed off to me.
A 3-12x44 could really appeal if it had the quick adjust eyepiece of the 6x, the HD glass of the 3-9, perhaps shorten the turrets a bit and bring the thick bar on the mil-quad in closer to 3ish mils. In a perfect world, a good reticle does not require illumination. But my perfect world does not seem to align with current reticle design.

 

[Trogon]

This was already brought up on first page but maybe needs another mention:

Bushnell LRHS-2 4.5-18 x 44 G2H reticle

<p>BACK IN STOCK!!</p>

www.gaprecision.net

I have 2 of the older 3-12 lrhs and they are nice scopes. All too heavy for my style of a hunting rig but seem to be in same weight class as options above. Never done drop tests or talk targets so can’t speak to the mechanicals.

 

[BjornF16]

This was already brought up on first page but maybe needs another mention:

Bushnell LRHS-2 4.5-18 x 44 G2H reticle

<p>BACK IN STOCK!!</p>

www.gaprecision.net

I have 2 of the older 3-12 lrhs and they are nice scopes. All too heavy for my style of a hunting rig but seem to be in same weight class as options above. Never done drop tests or talk targets so can’t speak to the mechanicals.

Ja...I don't like 4.5x on the lower end and I don't like 28 oz. I want less than 24 oz. If I'm doing 28 oz, then I'll just stick with NX8 with lower mag/higher mag.

Not sure why they discontinued the 3-12x44...that is the sweet spot for me (other than weight).

Edit: I'd be happy to take one of those 3-12x44 LRHS off your hands ;-)

 

[Sled]

I like the tract Toric 3-15 for $750 and it’s 20 oz. I haven’t had any issues dialing and return to zero over several hundred rounds, not all are dial turns but it performs well. Good as can be at low light without illumination to me

Are you running the 50mm objective or 42?

 

[Sled]

From Tract:
“While we do not have any plans on an illuminated 3-15x42, we will be launching a TORIC 2.5-15x44 30mm with an illuminated T-Plex. A small dot in the center of the crosshair will illuminate, not the whole reticle.
This scope should be available toward the middle of 2022”

That would have my interest if it were mrad and not heavy.

 

[kipper09]

As I understand moa or mrad. Both will be available. And I think around 23-24 ounces. Don’t quote me. I think there’s two with exposed turrets. Two without. Each available in moa or mrad. Like I said I’m taking a wild stab at something i was told 60 days ago or so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[doverpack12]

Are you running the 50mm objective or 42?

42mm, 50 would be better for sure at low light but I wanted the lower mounting height for my cheek weld

 

[sndmn11]

I have 2 of the older 3-12 lrhs and they are nice scopes. All too heavy for my style of a hunting rig but seem to be in same weight class as options above. Never done drop tests or talk targets so can’t speak to the mechanicals.

How many PMs have you gotten from people trying to buy those scopes?

 

[TREE ‘EM]

I like the weight of that accupoint. Curious what your MPBR is on that fieldcraft? Do you use the reticle mil-dots or just estimate holdovers? I have a 7mm-08 that I am looking to scope that wouldn't shoot quite as flat as your 270.

MILDots give me a frame of reference which is enough to get me on target if I know the exact range.

My MPBR is 246

 

[Trogon]

How many PMs have you gotten from people trying to buy those scopes?

LOL, I'm getting a few suitors but they are not for sale. Didn't realize these scopes were so valuable, CameraLand was practically giving them away a year or two ago. For only 3-4 oz more i don't see why the GAP v2 scope isn't suitable. 4.5x is perfectly reasonable for low end and close up unless yer fully bushwacking. Weight wise, 24.4oz vs 27.3oz, they are both "too heavy" for me to lug around a mtn, but great for lowlands, range time, and practice. For a mtn gun i prefer a Z3 (and the risks that go along with it).

I will say I got my hopes up when I heard the LRHS was coming out in v2. But same scope basically, with new glass. If they could make it in a 5x erector (3-15), 44mm obj, and hover around the 22oz area, (+THLR reticle?), then they would have solved this thread.


Family photo:

 

[sndmn11]

LOL, I'm getting a few suitors but they are not for sale. Didn't realize these scopes were so valuable, CameraLand was practically giving them away a year or two ago. For only 3-4 oz more i don't see why the GAP v2 scope isn't suitable. 4.5x is perfectly reasonable for low end and close up unless yer fully bushwacking. Weight wise, 24.4oz vs 27.3oz, they are both "too heavy" for me to lug around a mtn, but great for lowlands, range time, and practice. For a mtn gun i prefer a Z3 (and the risks that go along with it)

I can't wait till they go on clearance!

Family photo:

I have the smaller ones on short actions, I think the bigger version I have looks a little unruly up on top of a 20" short action.

 

[Trogon]

I have the smaller ones on short actions, I think the bigger version I have looks a little unruly up on top of a 20" short action.

I havent used a 4.5-18 version, but yeah, it doesnt look compact in any way.

 

[BAKPAKR]

I havent used a 4.5-18 version, but yeah, it doesnt look compact in any way.

The LRHS2 4.5-18 is pretty long. The photo below shows it compared to an SWFA 3-9 and an LRHS 3-12. However, it is about a half inch shorter than a NF NXS 5.5-22X50 (I don’t have one of those but I looked at the specs).

I haven’t hunted with either of the Bushnells. I have hunted with the SWFA and I really like it. I bought the first one based largely on things @Formidilosus has posted about it. It didn’t take long after receiving it for me to decide I should get a second one. The glass certainly isn’t the clearest of the scopes I have looked through, but it is clear enough for my purposes, it tracks/returns to zero well, and the mil-quad reticle has been visible enough in the timber so far. Since I am a lefty, the windage turret digs into my side when I have the rifle in my Kifaru Gunbearer so I wish the windage turret was shorter (and capped). Although I do like the wishlist @prm posted for the ideal SWFA, I don’t think I really “need” more than 9x out to a ways beyond 600 yards. I likely won’t be shoot farther than that at game anyway.

BTW - the tube length of the 4.5-18 should greatly reduce any long action mounting issues that are present with some of the short scopes now available.