Rifle Scopes Leupold Mark 5hd illuminated reticle

LAcpa

Private
Minuteman
Oct 25, 2020
22
6
Louisiana
i am considering a Leupold Mark 5hd 3.6-18x44. I was looking at the illuminated versions (Tmr and Pr-1moa) and both look same setup, just mil v moa. However, the thickness of the main line of the reticle doubles on the illuminated versions - MOA .15 non-illum Vs .3 illum and Mil .05 non illim Vs .1 illum. Anyone with illuminated version care to share their experience? Illuminated Reticles at max magnification seem too thick to use. And doesnt it seem backwards? I get it if non illuminated reticles were a little thicker to make them easier to see in poor lighting or dark background, but why make the illuminated reticles thicker??
 
My guess is that it's about "photonic real estate" ... to illuminate properly without bleed-out or other distortion, the thicker reticle is the result. I have illumination on other long-distance scopes, and it's hard to read lines and numbers when the etching is very small, with bleed-through off the lines impacting the view. No such problem on my illuminated Leopold scopes due (I'm assuming) to the larger etching providing a more consistent landing pad for the illumination. All just a theory though.
 
I liked the center dot on the illuminated tmr but I thought the hashes were to thick. When holding for wind it made precise holds on small targets difficult.I ended up trading it for a non illuminated version, but I do miss the center dot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LAcpa
I have the 3-18 with illuminated tmr. I don't have any issues with it whatsoever. I only shoot moa or bigger targets so holding off for wind is a non issue for me. Couldn't imagine trying to hold wind and shoot tiny groups at distance with any reticle, as always ymmv.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LAcpa
i am considering a Leupold Mark 5hd 3.6-18x44. I was looking at the illuminated versions (Tmr and Pr-1moa) and both look same setup, just mil v moa. However, the thickness of the main line of the reticle doubles on the illuminated versions - MOA .15 non-illum Vs .3 illum and Mil .05 non illim Vs .1 illum. Anyone with illuminated version care to share their experience? Illuminated Reticles at max magnification seem too thick to use. And doesnt it seem backwards? I get it if non illuminated reticles were a little thicker to make them easier to see in poor lighting or dark background, but why make the illuminated reticles thicker??

That is really interesting because other manufacturers are able to illuminate reticle lines as thin as .025 mil. I wonder why Leupold cannot illuminate their .05 mil reticle lines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stoweit
That is really interesting because other manufacturers are able to illuminate reticle lines as thin as .025 mil. I wonder why Leupold cannot illuminate their .05 mil reticle lines.
Interestingly ... using the illumination or not, the larger reticle lines on my Leupold MK5-HD scopes (I have 7 of them) are easier for my old eyes to see. If they made it for us old guys "by accident" ... it's still appreciated.
 
Interestingly ... using the illumination or not, the larger reticle lines on my Leupold MK5-HD scopes (I have 7 of them) are easier for my old eyes to see. If they made it for us old guys "by accident" ... it's still appreciated.

Maybe you’re right. And maybe it makes sense why the illumination costs so much on these scopes.
 
Pr1mil illum reticle is better than tmoa illum. Compared both.
 

Attachments

  • 0B8C99CB-6270-4EA9-8F78-91F92DD2CD11.jpeg
    0B8C99CB-6270-4EA9-8F78-91F92DD2CD11.jpeg
    341.3 KB · Views: 338