What is the difference between the TMR reticle compaired to the mildot by Leupold.
I have never had the chance to compare them.
I have never had the chance to compare them.
Rifle Scopes Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
- Thread starter ltfirehunter
- Start date
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
The TMR uses hash marks instead of dots. It also serves as a BDC reticle for .77GR MK262 and M118LR out to 500M (small hashes for 7.62, large for 5.56).
I like the TMR better out of the two, I think it's more accurate and obscures smaller targets less at distance.
The TMR uses hash marks instead of dots. It also serves as a BDC reticle for .77GR MK262 and M118LR out to 500M (small hashes for 7.62, large for 5.56).
I like the TMR better out of the two, I think it's more accurate and obscures smaller targets less at distance.
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
I am mainly going to shooting matches with it and occassional hunting.
I am mainly going to shooting matches with it and occassional hunting.
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
I shoot F/TR mainly, but wouldn't mind shooting a few where I had to Range
I shoot F/TR mainly, but wouldn't mind shooting a few where I had to Range
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
The TMR has no center, this may be annoying if you're shooting F (or it may not). Like having a 1/8 target dot reticle with the dot erased and no crosshairs underneath.
The TMR has no center, this may be annoying if you're shooting F (or it may not). Like having a 1/8 target dot reticle with the dot erased and no crosshairs underneath.
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
I got used to the center-less reticle at work, and actually liked it quite a bit. Later I moved back to the FFP Nightforce with Mil-Dot and was OK with it also. I could take either and not complain.
Definitely user-preference, though. I am not familiar with the nature of most non-tactical competitions so I can't say whether it would be adequate or not.
I got used to the center-less reticle at work, and actually liked it quite a bit. Later I moved back to the FFP Nightforce with Mil-Dot and was OK with it also. I could take either and not complain.
Definitely user-preference, though. I am not familiar with the nature of most non-tactical competitions so I can't say whether it would be adequate or not.
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
I just bought a Nikon 6-18X40 FCH w/dot and that dot covers the Xring @ 600yds. Very annoying, and want the reticle to have a center.
Can't hardly find descent pics of these reticles to help decide finding what I want.
I just bought a Nikon 6-18X40 FCH w/dot and that dot covers the Xring @ 600yds. Very annoying, and want the reticle to have a center.
Can't hardly find descent pics of these reticles to help decide finding what I want.
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
There are pictures of the TMR here:
http://www2.leupold.com/products/reticles_TMR.htm
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It also serves as a BDC reticle for .77GR MK262 and M118LR out to 500M (small hashes for 7.62, large for 5.56).</div></div>
Well, no more so than any other milliradian-based reticle. The manual for it is here:
http://www2.leupold.com/resources/downloads/2007_Leupold_TMR_Manual.pdf
There are pictures of the TMR here:
http://www2.leupold.com/products/reticles_TMR.htm
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It also serves as a BDC reticle for .77GR MK262 and M118LR out to 500M (small hashes for 7.62, large for 5.56).</div></div>
Well, no more so than any other milliradian-based reticle. The manual for it is here:
http://www2.leupold.com/resources/downloads/2007_Leupold_TMR_Manual.pdf
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
No doubt, but the TMR's staggered hash marks make it a lot easier to keep it on the right mark as opposed to all the dots. It's not a foolproof method anyways but it's handy for snap shooting in certain situations.
No doubt, but the TMR's staggered hash marks make it a lot easier to keep it on the right mark as opposed to all the dots. It's not a foolproof method anyways but it's handy for snap shooting in certain situations.
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
Get a Nightforce, luepold does not offer a Mil/Mil scope, it's important that both the reticle and knobs adjust the same, and Nightforce is not overpriced Chinese junk assembled in the USA
Get a Nightforce, luepold does not offer a Mil/Mil scope, it's important that both the reticle and knobs adjust the same, and Nightforce is not overpriced Chinese junk assembled in the USA
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
I can live with center being no more open than that, looks like it is small.
I can live with center being no more open than that, looks like it is small.
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
It's not like it's a big hole in the middle. It's a very small gap.
There are more Leupold tactical scopes in service than all others combined and multiplied. They are not on the same level as Nightforce, S&B, or Premier anymore. I certainly believe that to be true, and I vote with my Visa when I need optics. But it's not like they are Leapers either. Most people are more than happy with what they've got. I know for a fact some organizations with big budgets and freedom of choice still use a lot of Leupold products.
I get the vibe around here sometimes that Leupolds all have smoke filled tubes and plastic lenses surrounded by tin-foil housings but I've never had an issue with my issued scopes.
It's not like it's a big hole in the middle. It's a very small gap.
There are more Leupold tactical scopes in service than all others combined and multiplied. They are not on the same level as Nightforce, S&B, or Premier anymore. I certainly believe that to be true, and I vote with my Visa when I need optics. But it's not like they are Leapers either. Most people are more than happy with what they've got. I know for a fact some organizations with big budgets and freedom of choice still use a lot of Leupold products.
I get the vibe around here sometimes that Leupolds all have smoke filled tubes and plastic lenses surrounded by tin-foil housings but I've never had an issue with my issued scopes.
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
More people and more game have been killed with 4-power Weaver scopes than with any other.
However, that doesn't mean I want a 4-power Weaver on my rifle.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Being educated means to prefer the best not only to the worst but to the second best. -- William Lyon Phelps</div></div>
In the tactical scope market, Leupold isn't even second best.
Leupold optics aren't bad - I own some. When they get scopes with FFP reticles which adjust in 0.1 mil clicks, they might make it up to second best. Not yet.
More people and more game have been killed with 4-power Weaver scopes than with any other.
However, that doesn't mean I want a 4-power Weaver on my rifle.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Being educated means to prefer the best not only to the worst but to the second best. -- William Lyon Phelps</div></div>
In the tactical scope market, Leupold isn't even second best.
Leupold optics aren't bad - I own some. When they get scopes with FFP reticles which adjust in 0.1 mil clicks, they might make it up to second best. Not yet.
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
Most would say I'm fairly educated, academically and in the field of optics for tactical use.
My personal experience leads me to believe S&B to the the best overall, for tactical purposes. I have used the Short Dot and PMII professionally and both were everything I could ask for in a scope. They were optically flawless and offered the features I needed in a robust package.
I believe Nightforce is the best value in riflescopes, period. I would never pay for a Leupold when a Nightforce is nearly the same price. I was issued a 3.5-15X F1 and would gladly take one for personal use. I have a 1-4X NXS FC2 that is also a great optic.
I used a Zeiss/Hensoldt on the DSR-1 that was issued by an allied country's CT unit. Shot it in a variety of situations over a month on a .338LM gun and was extremely impressed. You could see the future it was so clear. I was in love.
I had a turret fall off of a USO a few years ago and it wasn't handled well by them. I wouldn't buy another one based on that but I believe they can make a nice scope. One of my partners had one on his Surgeon and it was a great scope, I'm just a little gun shy when it comes to supporting USO again.
I have had about 20 Leupolds over the years, and even though I have been able to use all of the above premium optics I still believe that a proper Leupold for your weapon of choice will be more than adequate. If the options don't fit your needs I understand, but to compare Leupold to Weaver is not exactly a fair comparison. There are a number of manufacturers I would choose over Leupold currently but I won't scoff at a gun I get behind simply because it's adorned with a Leupold. Given the abuse I have seen them take I think they're good pieces of equipment. You get what you pay for. When a MK4 is 33%-50% of what the S&B costs, of course the Leupold will come up short in a direct comparison.
Most would say I'm fairly educated, academically and in the field of optics for tactical use.
My personal experience leads me to believe S&B to the the best overall, for tactical purposes. I have used the Short Dot and PMII professionally and both were everything I could ask for in a scope. They were optically flawless and offered the features I needed in a robust package.
I believe Nightforce is the best value in riflescopes, period. I would never pay for a Leupold when a Nightforce is nearly the same price. I was issued a 3.5-15X F1 and would gladly take one for personal use. I have a 1-4X NXS FC2 that is also a great optic.
I used a Zeiss/Hensoldt on the DSR-1 that was issued by an allied country's CT unit. Shot it in a variety of situations over a month on a .338LM gun and was extremely impressed. You could see the future it was so clear. I was in love.
I had a turret fall off of a USO a few years ago and it wasn't handled well by them. I wouldn't buy another one based on that but I believe they can make a nice scope. One of my partners had one on his Surgeon and it was a great scope, I'm just a little gun shy when it comes to supporting USO again.
I have had about 20 Leupolds over the years, and even though I have been able to use all of the above premium optics I still believe that a proper Leupold for your weapon of choice will be more than adequate. If the options don't fit your needs I understand, but to compare Leupold to Weaver is not exactly a fair comparison. There are a number of manufacturers I would choose over Leupold currently but I won't scoff at a gun I get behind simply because it's adorned with a Leupold. Given the abuse I have seen them take I think they're good pieces of equipment. You get what you pay for. When a MK4 is 33%-50% of what the S&B costs, of course the Leupold will come up short in a direct comparison.
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
Wish I could afford the S&B's, Hensoldt etc.
A used NF or Leupys are more in the price range that I'm going to be able to afford .
Im lookin in the 6.5-20, 8.5-25X range or the ?-18 would do also.
I like to be able to center up a bullet hole in the reticle when testing and shooting .
Wish I could afford the S&B's, Hensoldt etc.
A used NF or Leupys are more in the price range that I'm going to be able to afford .
Im lookin in the 6.5-20, 8.5-25X range or the ?-18 would do also.
I like to be able to center up a bullet hole in the reticle when testing and shooting .
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
For years, Premier Reticles modified Leupold scopes for FFP Gen II reticles. They are excellent scopes - I have three of them - and the Gen II reticle, with a hashmark halfway beteen the dots, is an excellent reticle, chosen by the Marine Corps. Their drawback compared to more recent scopes is they are only available with MOA knobs, M1 knobs for the higher magnifications, and M3 for the 3.5-10X40.
When available on the used market, they are generally priced in the vicinity of $1100-$1000 dollars for the 6.5-20X50M1, or a bit less for the 4.5-14X50M1. There was recently one for sale on this site for around that.
You'll have to keep an eye out, though, as they generally get snapped up pretty quickly.
For years, Premier Reticles modified Leupold scopes for FFP Gen II reticles. They are excellent scopes - I have three of them - and the Gen II reticle, with a hashmark halfway beteen the dots, is an excellent reticle, chosen by the Marine Corps. Their drawback compared to more recent scopes is they are only available with MOA knobs, M1 knobs for the higher magnifications, and M3 for the 3.5-10X40.
When available on the used market, they are generally priced in the vicinity of $1100-$1000 dollars for the 6.5-20X50M1, or a bit less for the 4.5-14X50M1. There was recently one for sale on this site for around that.
You'll have to keep an eye out, though, as they generally get snapped up pretty quickly.
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
I'm retired now so I have alot of time to lurk around.
I'm retired now so I have alot of time to lurk around.
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
I also have a TMR in an 8.5-25x. The center aperture is a bit over .2 inch per hundred yds. @ 25x. I like the .2 mil subtension units for rangefinding. It's as accurate as anything i've ever used. It may be going away soon tho. as it's been replaced by a 6.5-20x FFP Mk4 with Darrell Holland's "Ultimate Mil Reticle". That is a great reticle (windage-wise) but it doesn't have the rangefinding accuracy of the TMR. I wish Darrell would have broken one vertical and horizontal unit of subtension into .2 mil. Then it would have truly been the "Ultimate".
I also have a TMR in an 8.5-25x. The center aperture is a bit over .2 inch per hundred yds. @ 25x. I like the .2 mil subtension units for rangefinding. It's as accurate as anything i've ever used. It may be going away soon tho. as it's been replaced by a 6.5-20x FFP Mk4 with Darrell Holland's "Ultimate Mil Reticle". That is a great reticle (windage-wise) but it doesn't have the rangefinding accuracy of the TMR. I wish Darrell would have broken one vertical and horizontal unit of subtension into .2 mil. Then it would have truly been the "Ultimate".
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
I know what ever it is I'm gonna buy want have the target dot for sure.
The 600yd match I shot on the 13th was with a 6-18 with a target dot and it basically covered the Xring. So which ever piece of glass it will be is going to have fairly thin reticles.
The match went good, I won it in F class, but I think it would have been better with a different reticle.
I know what ever it is I'm gonna buy want have the target dot for sure.
The 600yd match I shot on the 13th was with a 6-18 with a target dot and it basically covered the Xring. So which ever piece of glass it will be is going to have fairly thin reticles.
The match went good, I won it in F class, but I think it would have been better with a different reticle.
Re: Differenc between Leup. TMR and Mildot
Nightforce has a reticle much like the TMR, called the MLR. The center isn't open and that looks like the only difference inbetween the 2 reticles. I've got the TMR and I like the opening, but wish I had've bought a Nightforce. Good Luck
Nightforce has a reticle much like the TMR, called the MLR. The center isn't open and that looks like the only difference inbetween the 2 reticles. I've got the TMR and I like the opening, but wish I had've bought a Nightforce. Good Luck
Similar threads
