Rifle Scopes Leupold Mark 4HD non-illuminated vs illuminated TMR reticle

[GearheadExplorer85]

Hey all:

I've been giving the Leupold scopes a hard look. On paper, this one seems to be exactly what I'm looking for:

https://www.leupold.com/mark-4hd-2-5-10x42-m5c3-ffp-tmr-riflescope

My intent is to use it for daytime target shooting from 250-1000 yards. After studying the reticle subtensions, the non-illuminated TMR has a much thinner aiming point that the illuminated version of the same reticle (it's twice as thick).

I'm curious to hear what people's experiences are with the non-illuminated TMR. It is thin enough to hit 1000 yards on larger steel targets (like 12 inches+)?

Thanks!

 

[TonyAngel]

Hey all:

I've been giving the Leupold scopes a hard look. On paper, this one seems to be exactly what I'm looking for:

https://www.leupold.com/mark-4hd-2-5-10x42-m5c3-ffp-tmr-riflescope

My intent is to use it for daytime target shooting from 250-1000 yards. After studying the reticle subtensions, the non-illuminated TMR has a much thinner aiming point that the illuminated version of the same reticle (it's twice as thick).

I'm curious to hear what people's experiences are with the non-illuminated TMR. It is thin enough to hit 1000 yards on larger steel targets (like 12 inches+)?

Thanks!

I have that scope onto my 16". Are you saying that the center dot on the illuminated model is larger because of a specification that you read or because it's what you observed looking through them both?

As far as I could tell, they look the same to me. I think it's a great scope, but if I was shooting at stuff smaller than 2 moa, I'd want more magnification. The 18x isn't much bigger, heavier or more expensive.

If you're going to be shooting on a flat range, where environmentals aren't going to be a challenge at highly contrasted targets, you could likely get away with it, but why struggle.

I find the center dot on my illuminated model to be just about perfect. For the extra $200, I'd get the illumination. I dont often use it, but when I need it, I need it.

 

[GearheadExplorer85]

Hi Tony, thanks for the response. I haven't been able to look through either of these scopes in person. However, I have watched C_DOES reviews of the illuminated TMR 2.5-10x42 on youtube. I haven't seen any reviews for the non-illuminated.

To answer your question, yes the spec says that the dot on the illuminated version is 0.1 Mil. The empty space around the dot is 0.5 Mil wide. The rest of the fine part of the crosshair is also 0.1 Mil. So this reticle is supposed to be thicker than the non-illuminated version. Here is a link to the drawing for this that I'm referring to.

https://www.leupold.com/media/binaryanvil/reticle/FFP_ILLUM._TMR.png

On the non-illuminated version, there is no dot in the middle. It's empty space that is 0.1 Mil high/0.1 Mil wide. The fine part of the crosshair is 0.05 Mil thick. So that lead me to believe that this would be better for precision shooting. But I was wondering if these differences on paper actually work out in real life. Based on what your experience, it doesn't sound like there is enough of a difference to make a difference.

I understand what you're saying about the advantages of the 4.5-18 version. If I ever want to challenge myself and shoot at small targets at 1000 yards, that would be a better tool for the job. The 2.5-10 would limit me in that respect, unless I get closer.

When is the illumination useful? I imagine it wouldn't help in a very low-light or no-light scenario (you can't see the target regardless). So is it more for low-contrast targets (like trying to shoot at a black target with black crosshairs)?

 

[NHR]

The reticle spec sheet shows very different line thickness for illuminated vs non.

Tony, do you have both?

 

[stanley_white]

Hey all:

I've been giving the Leupold scopes a hard look. On paper, this one seems to be exactly what I'm looking for:

https://www.leupold.com/mark-4hd-2-5-10x42-m5c3-ffp-tmr-riflescope

My intent is to use it for daytime target shooting from 250-1000 yards. After studying the reticle subtensions, the non-illuminated TMR has a much thinner aiming point that the illuminated version of the same reticle (it's twice as thick).

I'm curious to hear what people's experiences are with the non-illuminated TMR. It is thin enough to hit 1000 yards on larger steel targets (like 12 inches+)?

Thanks!

I run the illuminated TMR (the thick one with the center dot) on all of my precision rifles and have had no problems hitting the targets you describe.

My spotting scope has the non-illuminated TMR (the thin one with the open center), and while I do not prefer its thinness, I assess that it would also be sufficient for hitting the targets you describe.

-Stan