Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Which reticle? |
Post Reply |
Author | |
stilhuntin
Optics Apprentice Joined: March/21/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 81 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: July/11/2012 at 20:06 |
Looks like I've decided on a Conquest 3.5 x 10 x 44 to on a .270 for low light deer hunting.
Which reticle would be better for low light? Rapid Z 600 or # 4 The Samplelist has been good to me so far so I hope to find it there. Any help will be greatly appreciated. |
|
mil169
Optics Journeyman Joined: February/28/2012 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 378 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I think it would kind of depend on wether or not your looking for to do any longer shooting using hold over. If that is a need, then the rapid z would be a great choice for the .270. If not then either would do the job.
If you do decide on the rapid z, then be sure to check out Ziess's website and punch in the data for your load and use their ballistic calculator to give you hold over readings.
Good luck
|
|
Alan Robertson
Optics Master Joined: October/31/2009 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 1763 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The Rapid Z reticle is thin, but still visible in legal light. I've played around with mine on semi- moonlit nights and while the ranging function wasn't useful in the dark, I could still get a crosshair on anything that wasn't in shadow.
|
|
"Garg'n uair dhuisgear"
|
|
bugsNbows
Optics God bowsNbugs Joined: March/10/2008 Location: North Georgia Status: Offline Points: 11200 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
In low light, I'd opt for the #4.
|
|
If we're not suppose to eat animals...how come they're made of meat?
Anomymous |
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have examples of both. The Rapid Z is a cool reticle, but it's quite thin. The #4 is FAR superior to Rapid Z for low light visibility. It isn't even close. The #4's very thick outer posts contrast well and are pretty easy to see in dim light. Even if you can't pick up the center crosshairs, the posts help guide your eye to the center of the reticle. You'll likely lose the center of the Rapid Z at the limits of legal shooting light, when you won't be doing any long range shooting anyway.
|
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
JGRaider
Optics Master Joined: February/06/2008 Status: Offline Points: 1540 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Ditto on the #4 being much superior.
|
|
coyote95
Optics Master Joined: January/24/2009 Location: michigan Status: Offline Points: 1196 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
+1 on the #4 for hunting in low light
|
|
"Life is like riding a bicycle . To keep balance you must keep moving" Albert Einstein
|
|
lucytuma
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: November/25/2007 Location: Wisconsin Status: Offline Points: 5389 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I was always a standard plex reticle guy, but the last few years I've added #4 reticles almost exclusively.
|
|
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Don't want to leave the impression that the Rapid Z isn't a trick, useful reticle, but if the decision criteria is strictly which is better for low light, the #4 is your huckleberry.
|
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
Skylar McMahon
Optics Jedi Knight Capt. BlowHard Joined: April/05/2011 Location: TEXAS Status: Offline Points: 6082 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have to agree with Ted.
The number 4 reticle is great for hunting larger game. You'll find that the rapid Z, or from what I have seen. The Rapid Z reticle is very popular with Varnmit hunters. Brad, I think either would work well with your .270, but the rapid reticle might by a little busy. I think you may find the number 4 more suitable for your needs.
|
|
Alan Robertson
Optics Master Joined: October/31/2009 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 1763 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I'd agree with everyone else about #4 being the best in low light. That really goes without saying.
|
|
"Garg'n uair dhuisgear"
|
|
tpcollins
Optics Journeyman Joined: January/12/2009 Status: Offline Points: 428 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have a #4 Swarovski on my muzzleloader. I get the "illusion" of a larger FoV in the top half . . .
Nice avatar there stillhuntin.
|
|
Outrider
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/03/2011 Location: MS Status: Offline Points: 93 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have tried plex reticles and #4s in low light for several years. IMO the #4 is way ahead of any traditional crosshair in very low light as long as the end of the heavy bars aren't widely separated from the crosshair intersection. All #4s aren't the same and the distance from the end of the wide bars to the intersection varies quite a bit among scope brands. In my own experience, those #4s with a narrow separation between the wide bars and the crosshair intersection tend to work best when the light is all but gone.
|
|
Outrider
|
|
stilhuntin
Optics Apprentice Joined: March/21/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 81 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thanks everyone for all the positive input and it really helped with my decision. I just purhased a 3.5-10x44 Conquest with a #4 reticle from the Samplelist. Sonny handled the purchase and he was very patient (with all my questions) and knowledgeable, as they always are. The lifetime transferable warranty is comforting and I can't wait for delivery early next week.
|
|
stilhuntin
Optics Apprentice Joined: March/21/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 81 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Hello everyone,
I just received my 3.5-10x44 Conquest with a #4 reticle. It looks great and I hope to sight it in Thursday. I could not find the two smudge marks on the bell that they said were there. Aw shucks!
Once again the staff at SWFA has exceeded my expectations.
|
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |