I have a 16" REPR that I am looking to scope, and ordered a Leupold MArk 6 3-18 with the 7.62 CMR-W reticle. I have used reticles like this in the past, specifically the Nightforce Velocity reticle, and have been very happy with them. The Nightforce was a second focal scope, and you can use the entire reticle on full power. My experience with the front focal Leupold was that at full power, I could only use the calibrated hold-overs that are for 500 meters and closer. If I want to use the hold-overs for the 1200 meter range, I need to set it at 7 power rather than 18. I have shot .308 ar's at 1000 yards many times, but always with a second focal plane scope at max power. It seems to me that the first focal plane Leupold may not me the best place for this ballistic reticle, since you have to be at such a low power to use the reticle for long range hold overs. Am I missing something?
Rifle Scopes Leupold Mark 6 3-18 7.62 CMR-W reticle front focal question
- Thread starter fnfan
- Start date
fnfan, interesting you bring this up because I have been looking at this reticle for some time and in all of my research I have not found anything that said at max magnification you "lost" the subtensions from 500 on up, this to me is a serious detriment to this reticle/scope. I knew the Leupold suffered optically above 15x (this coming from a previous owner) but now with this information it makes it even more distasteful to me.
I am now thinking that Leupold really made this reticle for the Mark 6 1-6x optic; however, that being said, I would be curious if you get the "full" reticle at 6x with that optic? If that is the case then clearly the 1-6x is the better choice of the two if you can live with 6x at the top end; however, with a reticle that's designed to go to 1200 meters, well, I just don't think 6x is going to cut it.
This is a serious design flaw from Leupold. When you get your scope can you verify this - that you lose the bottom holdovers beyond 7x?
The other issue I find with this reticle is that Leupold does not have any online ballistic calculator for it; the reticle is designed for the Sierra 175gr Matchking bullet at 2575 fps (which closely mimics the military M118LR); however, if your rifle doesn't shoot exactly to Leupold specs then now your holdovers are going to be off, and if you reload and get more than 2575, again, your holdovers are going to be off. So basically this reticle was designed for one purpose in mind, the military, and for that design goal it probably does extremely well, hence why the Navy chose it for its ECOS-O initiative.
I reload and I use different bullets at times so this helps to convince me that the CMR-W reticle is not for me. I do not like the TMR reticle because it only goes down to 5 mil from the center crosshair to the bottom, if they had done a design similar to the Nightforce MRL2.0 or the MSR type reticle this would have been so much better. This leaves either the H-58 or the Temor 2 reticle, the Tremor has it's known issues with it's mix of mil and ballistic holdovers and the H-58... well, that is an older design, why wouldn't Leupold have gone with the newest H-59 design and its enhancements?
For anyone interested in knowing what the holdovers are on the CMR-W 7.62 reticle in mils, check out this page - http://blogs.militarytimes.com/gearscout/files/2012/05/CMR-W-7.62.jpg
I am now thinking that Leupold really made this reticle for the Mark 6 1-6x optic; however, that being said, I would be curious if you get the "full" reticle at 6x with that optic? If that is the case then clearly the 1-6x is the better choice of the two if you can live with 6x at the top end; however, with a reticle that's designed to go to 1200 meters, well, I just don't think 6x is going to cut it.
This is a serious design flaw from Leupold. When you get your scope can you verify this - that you lose the bottom holdovers beyond 7x?
The other issue I find with this reticle is that Leupold does not have any online ballistic calculator for it; the reticle is designed for the Sierra 175gr Matchking bullet at 2575 fps (which closely mimics the military M118LR); however, if your rifle doesn't shoot exactly to Leupold specs then now your holdovers are going to be off, and if you reload and get more than 2575, again, your holdovers are going to be off. So basically this reticle was designed for one purpose in mind, the military, and for that design goal it probably does extremely well, hence why the Navy chose it for its ECOS-O initiative.
I reload and I use different bullets at times so this helps to convince me that the CMR-W reticle is not for me. I do not like the TMR reticle because it only goes down to 5 mil from the center crosshair to the bottom, if they had done a design similar to the Nightforce MRL2.0 or the MSR type reticle this would have been so much better. This leaves either the H-58 or the Temor 2 reticle, the Tremor has it's known issues with it's mix of mil and ballistic holdovers and the H-58... well, that is an older design, why wouldn't Leupold have gone with the newest H-59 design and its enhancements?
For anyone interested in knowing what the holdovers are on the CMR-W 7.62 reticle in mils, check out this page - http://blogs.militarytimes.com/gearscout/files/2012/05/CMR-W-7.62.jpg
The lost sub-tensions were from 500-1200. The only ones visible at full power were 500 and up. I have since sent the scope back due to a packaging problem. I ordered one with illumination, but the one i received from our distributor did not have illumination. The box and sku were correct , but the scope was not. Distributor wanted another 900 for illumination,....after looking through the scope and loosing half the reticle calibrations at full power, I decided to pass. I just really think that these type of calibrated reticles belong in second focal plane scopes. I would never try and shoot to 1200 meters on 5 power when I had 18 available in the scope. I know that there is a huge push for first focal plane scopes, and I understand the ability to range at any power, but if you are paying for a calibrated reticle and loose the really important bottom half for long range hold-overs at full power, it simply does not make sense to me....so I was honestly asking if I was missing something.....
Thank you fnfan. I never would have thought that to be the case. I just assumed that the reticle as shown is what is seen at full power. Yes Leupold is out of their mind for what they want to charge for illumination. This puts their scope priced beyond an F1 even. Their glass and turrets are not as good as Premier, Steiner, Kahles and the like and yet with illumination they are over. Well I think I can scratch the Mark 6 off my list.
The Premier Light Tactical remains at the top of my list for optical quality vs weight. The Nightforce F1 3.5-15 seems like a fine choice as does the Steiner 3-15 if you don't mind the weight. I'd really like to see Kahles come out with something in between their 3-12 and 6-24 soon. With their ties to Swarovski I think Kahles is the one to keep watch and hopefully next year we'll see a 5x line come out. Good luck in your search. Let us know what you end up with.
The Premier Light Tactical remains at the top of my list for optical quality vs weight. The Nightforce F1 3.5-15 seems like a fine choice as does the Steiner 3-15 if you don't mind the weight. I'd really like to see Kahles come out with something in between their 3-12 and 6-24 soon. With their ties to Swarovski I think Kahles is the one to keep watch and hopefully next year we'll see a 5x line come out. Good luck in your search. Let us know what you end up with.
Just as an example, if you require 6 mils of holdover but the scope field of view is only 5 mils from center to edge at max magnification, then you won't be able to see enough of the reticle. SFP vs FFP has nothing to do with it, it is determined by the field of view of the scope.
Similar threads
