slowelk
WKR
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2017
- Messages
- 1,898
Have you looked through an RS1.2?
It’s a much better view than the Tenmile.
I own both.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Have you looked through an RS1.2?
It’s a much better view than the Tenmile.
And you like them equally?I own both.
I have extensive time on both, and made an expensive decision to move all my rifles to the 1.2 earlier this year. It was a move of luxury not necessity.
The issue with the tenmile reticle is not the visibility at low power. It indeed draws the eye fairly well to the center. The issue is rather that the tree itself is overly difficult to use due to odd numbering and wind dots. And that tree is needed (because of small elevation available) to practice at long range with small cartridges and short barrels when mounted without cant, using my preferred UM or SM rings.
-J
The LRHS2 fits the bill as well and solves for the, "I can't see the reticle" crowd.I don't understand why people are so dead-set on this scope. Sure, it holds zero and has the "best" ffp reticle currently available but the Trijicon Tenmile is totally functional with only a slightly inferior reticle, and it's available.
My issue with the tenmile is at higher magnifications, I find the tree reticle to be distracting. To be fair, I recently moved away from duplex reticles to “long range” scopes, so a less busy reticle is my preference. I don’t have an RS 1.2 to compare, but I wouldn’t hesitate to pick up another tenmile, it is a less annoying reticle compared to some I have used on friends’ rifles. Just my 2 cents.This is something I haven't experienced since shooting out to 1k is within one turret revolution for the 6.5 creed my tenmile is mounted on. If I were having to do holdovers though, I'd think that the 0.2 mil increments between dots would be better than the 0.5 mil bar of the 1.2.
I do appreciate the space around the center dot on the 1.2 vs the tenmile. @atmat
I appreciate the discussion. It just seems like there is a perceived mile-wide gap between these scopes, and in use I don't feel that way. I just see it as, don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough.
Well said. If I had to shoot either scope, forever, I feel I would kill the same exact animals with either one, under any and all circumstances, and not care either way. They are much more similar than they are different IMO.I appreciate the discussion. It just seems like there is a perceived mile-wide gap between these scopes, and in use I don't feel that way. I just see it as, don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough.
I think we all agree on the spirit of the thing - Tenmile is a great scope and should be purchased without hesitation if time is of the essence.This is something I haven't experienced since shooting out to 1k is within one turret revolution for the 6.5 creed my tenmile is mounted on. If I were having to do holdovers though, I'd think that the 0.2 mil increments between dots would be better than the 0.5 mil bar of the 1.2.
I do appreciate the space around the center dot on the 1.2 vs the tenmile. @atmat
I appreciate the discussion. It just seems like there is a perceived mile-wide gap between these scopes, and in use I don't feel that way. I just see it as, don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough.
But that is when most rifle hunting starts out west. So too late. Besides, there's no guarantee I'll be able to get one in October. No one knows what their idea of a large shipment is.It's not thaaaaat long to October, people ...
They like the reticle and mils in general better. I don’t think there is any reason to doubt the mechanical reliability of the moa version if moa is okay for you.Can we assume the MOA version is just as robust as MIL? Seems like everyone is wanting the MIL version.
I really wish they would do an ultralight version of this scope. 2-8x32 or something similar, ffp, no illumination, maybe a 1-in tube if they could do that and have it be just as reliable. If the swfa 3 – 9 is 19 oz, I would think what I've described above could be made at 16 oz or maybe a little less
agree. The RS1.2 having 15x on the high end probably appeals to a lot of people who think they need lots of mag to shoot beyond 100 yards and i'd be lying if i said I didn't like it when punching paper.Outside of rokslide and similar site members, I think the vast majority of “hunters” would say:
“2-8 and FFP? what the heck is that good for?” Then proceed to buy a 4-16x SFP BDC scope because it’s mo betta
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Marketing has done wonders cause supposedly the average hunter wants "set and forget" scopes with a BDC but then buy a scope that the BDC hashes change with the magnification setting.SFP BDC scope