Rifle Scopes Your thoughts on the Zeiss #4 reticle?

[Hondo64d]

Getting ready to send my 3-9 Conquest off for an elevation turret and am torn on whether or not to change the reticle to a #4 or just leave it as the Z-Plex. I like the idea of the #4, but on the only one I've had (a Leupold), the centerwire sub tension was too big (1" at 100 yards) to allow as precise a shot placement at longer distances as I would like. IIRC, Zeiss' #4 supposedly covers 1/2" at the same distance. That might be ok but I can't decide if that would still obscure too much target at longer distances to allow the most precise shot placement.

The purpose of this scope will be primarily hunting. Want to be able to place shots precisely at longer ranges, but still have a bold enough reticle for pigs at sunset +45 minutes. What do you guys think? Add the #4 or stay with the Z plex?

John

 

[tigerhawk]

Re: Your thoughts on the Zeiss #4 reticle?

It depends on how far you think your longest shots will be. For me, the #4 reticle is better in low light, and on moving targets, than the duplex, but only for hunting situations where I am expecting running game, heavy brush, etc. Bear and wild boar hunting are examples. I would not use such a reticle for mountain deer or sheep hunting.

If your hunting includes all of the above types, I suggest you stay with the duplex.

Good hunting!