Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Ask John Barsness Questions About "Rifle Scope Reticles"

RIFLESCOPE RETICLES

This will date me some, but when I started hunting the basic choices in scope reticles were plain crosshairs, post and dot. Dot reticles were hung on the intersection of thin crosshairs, and usually post reticles had a horizontal crosshair, but not always. A few other specialized reticles existed, but I never saw any until much later, after starting to write about hunting optics and collecting a few old scopes. As far as I know, no reticles back then were etched on glass, as so many are today. Instead they were actual crosshairs, posts and dots, usually attached to tiny screws on a reticle "cell," a metal ring mounted inside the scope.

Some purists point out that "crosshairs" aren't actually hairs, but fine wire, so call them crosswires, a term that's never caught on with the general public, including most shooters. But very early rifle scopes often did use actual hair for reticles, and in fact back when I was young and poor one of the crosswires in a cheap 4x scope broke. Back then most scopes could still be taken apart by hand, so I managed to get the reticle cell out of the tube and replaced both crosswires with my own hair. This worked pretty well, partly because back then my hair was all black, and the reticle never turned silver or brass when the sun angled over my shoulder when looking through the scope, as crosswires often do.

None of those three reticles worked great for all hunting. If the crosshairs were thin, to aid precise aiming, they tended to disappear in sunless woods, partly because most scopes weren't very bright optically, so there wasn't much contrast between woods and reticle. With heavier crosshairs some aiming precision was lost. The same principle also applied to dot reticles or various sizes, the reason most hunters (including gun writers) advised using post reticles for woods hunting big game, and crosshairs for smaller game, whether edible or varmint.

Leupold introduced their Duplex reticle in 1962, a little before I started using scopes, but I didn't know anybody who used a Leupold, since they were comparatively pricey compared to the Weavers most hunters used, and a lot more expensive than the "off brand" Japanese scopes then flooding the market. The Duplex consisted of four heavier posts surrounding finer crosshairs in the middle, which wasn't a new idea: European scope manufacturers had provided similar reticles for decades, because many European countries allowed shooting longer before sunrise and after sunset than the semi-standard America half-hour--or even all night.

But apparently most American scope manufacturers either didn't think such reticles were necessary for daylight hunting, or couldn't figure out how to make them. Leupold did it by flattening the outer portion of the crosswires. This weakened the wires slightly, and in fact the few Duplex reticles that have broken in my Leupolds snapped right at the juncture of the flat and round sections. But in general they hold up pretty well.


For most hunting a basic plex-type reticle works very well, like the one in the scope on Eileen's NULA .257 Roberts that took this late-evening whitetail.


Soon other companies offered the same basic reticle, often with names including "plex," and by the 1970's they were more common than plain crosshairs, and far more popular than posts or dots. Some hunters discovered a plex reticle could be used to estimate range by comparing the distance between the tip of the bottom post to the intersection of the crosshairs to the size an animal--and the same tip could be used as a secondary aiming point at longer ranges.

Neither of these principles were totally new. Some previous reticles had included extra horizontal crosshairs, or dots on the vertical crosshair, for range-gauging and aiming at longer distances, and in fact Elmer Keith used a scope equipped with such a reticle hunting antelope, but plex reticles provided a simpler, more visible variation.

I used a 3-9x Weaver with their plex reticle when guiding pronghorn hunters in the 1980's, and it proved to be much more accurate at longer ranges than "holding a little high," partly because it bypassed the common advice of estimating how many football fields stretched between a hunter and a distant animal. I killed several bucks at 450-550 yards, both during my own hunting and when finishing off wounded bucks shot by others, and eventually used the method on other big game.

But antelope were the big teacher, partly because they're pretty uniform in size, with a mature Montana doe or buck measuring 15-16 inches from the bottom of the chest to the top of the shoulders. This provided a range estimation that can theoretically vary about 7%, but in practice is usually less, sufficient to place shots into the volleyball-sized vitals with a flat-shooting rifle out to 500 yards. But beyond 500 yards just about any bullet started dropping too steeply for the method to work consistently.

When laser rangefinders started appearing in the late 1990's, scopes with several aiming points on their reticles started appearing as well, and eventually we could choose among dozens of versions. I found just about any of them were an improvement over a simple plex, especially on long-range varmints, where aiming had to be more precise than on a pronghorn. By then plastic-tipped bullets had increased the potential range of prairie dog rifles, both by increasing ballistic coefficient and expanding violently much further out than softpoints or, especially, hollowpoints.

Before lasers and multi-point reticles, most PD shooters used a mild cartridge for shooting out to 250-300 yards, usually a .222 or .223 Remington, and bigger cartridges like the .22-250, .220 Swift or .243 Winchester for longer ranges. But post-laser, many started using .223's for almost all their shooting, partly because with a heavy-barreled .223 they could spot their long-range misses through the scope, instead of relying on somebody else to say, "A little high and right." Which meant just about zip with some so-called spotters.

I started using the .223 as my primary PD cartridge around 2000, but even with all the advancements many shooters clung to larger cartridges for longer ranges, partly because many also clung to plex reticles or even plain crosshairs. I startled one such shooter on a Wyoming prairie dog hunt. He'd been whacking away with his .22-250 at a group of PD's around 550 yards away, and had already missed several times. My .223 had a Swarovski scope with their early "Christmas tree" reticle, featuring increasingly long horizontal lines on the vertical crosshair, which helped considerably when compensating not only for range but the near-constant prairie wind. My first shot just missed, but my second didn't, and he was astonished to find "his" dog had been shot with a .223 instead of some larger cartridge.

Of course, it didn't take long post-laser for some hunters to start twisting the elevation dial for more precise aiming at longer ranges. This also wasn't a new idea, even in hunting scopes. For quite a while I owned a 2-1/2x Noske scope, made in the 1940's, with an elevation dial marked out to 800 yards for the 150-grain .270 Winchester load. It actually worked pretty well when I tried it on rocks, but the reticle was a thick post, not the best for long-range aiming.

In the late 1970's Bushnell introduced what I recall was called the BDC dial. Like many such systems, they provided several turrets marked in yards for various trajectories, with a list which loads worked with each turret. It worked, sort of. The big problem, again, was accurate ranging.

Bushnell suggested pairing the BDC scopes with their mirror rangefinder, which worked on the convergent principle featured in artillery rangefinders. You looked through a viewfinder on one end of the scope, finding two images of the target, due to an angled mirror at the other end. You turned a dial until the two images merged, and read the range on a dial.

But the rangefinder was maybe 18 inches long, which wasn't enough for accurate readings beyond about 200 yards--where the system might start to be useful. Plus, the exposed elevation turret didn't have firm clicks, so tended the "reset" itself in the field, as I learned during my first hunt with the scope. I had the dial set on 250 yards, just about the range to the pronghorn buck I stalked in the Missouri Breaks.

I lay prone and shot, whereupon the buck looked around, obviously untouched. I shot again, and he started trotting away, then slowed and stopped. After the third miss he started running, and at somewhere around 300 yards I held about 5-6 in front of his chest whereupon the bullet broke his spine behind the shoulders. This was because the scope's dial had somehow twirled to 325 yards, not 250.

Today's dialing scopes usually have much firmer clicks, and scopes specifically designed for hunting often have capped turrets. This makes sense, as just about any modern bolt-action big game round shoots flat enough to aim in the middle of a pronghorn's chest out to 250 yards, when the rifle's sighted-in two inches high at 100. At longer ranges there's usually time to unscrew the elevation cap and make an adjustment.


Many dialing scopes have an exposed elevation turret, but some designed specifically for hunting, like this Nightforce SHV, have a capped turret.

Field-adjustable turrets would seem to bypass the need for multi-point reticles, yet most dialing scopes have some sort of fairly fancy reticle, for a couple of reasons. First, very few long-range hunters dial for windage, partly because wind often varies somewhat over several seconds, and a dialed-in compensation may not remain correct. Instead most scopes have windage hashmarks on the horizontal crosshair, so the shooter can instantly choose the correct hashmark for that moment's wind.

Some long-range shooters also use range hashmarks on the vertical crosshair to correct for misses, and in fact some hunters take what are essentially "ranging" shots at distant animals. Or rather, at some object several yards from an animal, to see where the bullet actually lands. At really long range this usually doesn't disturb the animal much, if at all, and as a result subsequent shots can be adjusted for error.

I haven't done this with big game, but have quite a bit with prairie dogs, though usually I aim right at the dog for the first shot. I've found the best reticles for this work have LOTS of aiming points in some sort of grid pattern. In relatively steady winds, consistent hits can be made at pretty long ranges even on PD's. The Ramshot powder people once offered a varmint scope with such a reticle, and it's still on Eileen's primary varmint centerfire, a heavy-barreled .223. It makes consistently hitting dogs (meaning more get hit than missed) possible out to 600 yards in modest breezes.

Of course, these fancier reticles can't be produced with wire, the reason most multi-point reticles are etched on plain glass. This is a pretty good system, though despite what some shooters believe, etched reticles can still glare like wire reticles when aiming away from the sun.

They can also break, though not often. One scope manufacturer used to make steel-tube scopes, because they were theoretically stronger. One of their guys confessed to me, years ago, that they discontinued steel-tubes scopes partly because etched reticles broke more often, apparently because steel transmitted more force to the reticle than aluminum tubes, both during firing and if the rifle got dropped.

One other minor disadvantage of etched reticles is they slightly reduce the amount of light transmitted through the scope, by introducing two more glass surfaces. This doesn't amount to much, and in modern, multicoated scopes, a little extra brightness isn't as valuable as many hunters think. Instead, the ability to see the reticle is more important, and our grandfathers discovered with post reticles.

All of which is one reason more scopes have illuminated reticles these days. As reticles have grown more complex, they've also gotten finer, often just as fine as very thin crosshairs. The common solution is to install a tiny light-source inside the scope, which went turned on lights up the etched reticle, usually in red. It helps to be able to adjust the amount of light, because a too-bright reticle can overwhelm the image of the target.

Today's batteries are so good they'll often last for years when operating illuminated reticles, but another solution is to have the reticle itself glow. More than one company has produced such scopes, but probably the best-known is Trijicon, which offers several models with aiming points made of a combination of tritium and fiber optics. Brightness is either self-adjusting to available light, or manually adjusted with a sliding, waterproof window on the side of the scope next to the reticle. They work very well--I've used Trijicon AccuPoints from Alaska to Africa--but usually offer only a single illuminated aiming point.


Trijicon's tritium/fiber-optic reticles work very well, and don't require electricity. I used a 1.25-4x AccuPoint on this Alaskan grizzly.

Yet another interesting variation is Burris's Eliminator scopes, which have an interior laser rangefinder that lights up one of 96 tiny dots along the vertical crosshair, which dot according to the range. The scope is easily programmed for the velocity and ballistic coefficient of your bullet, and is remarkably accurate, since each dot is only 1/3 MOA from the next. The dot's illumination isn't adjustable, but they're so small they don't overwhelm the target in dim light.

Personally, after using a bunch of different reticles over the decades, these days I'm pretty well satisfied with plex-type reticle, perhaps with an illuminated dot in the middle or, in a dialing scope, windage hashmarks on the horizontal crosshair. You, of course, might want something else, and luckily today there are far more choices than crosshairs, post or dot.


Burris Eliminator scopes have an internal laser rangefinder, which lights up one of 96 dots for shooting at longer ranges. However, this New Mexico mule deer was only 101 yards away--but the scope also features a conventional multi-point reticle, so worked fine.

Cool article. Thanks MD

I agree with the notion that a plex reticle does much of what I need, although I've gotten spoiled by having extras like a center dot illumination, or perhaps a couple of extra dots or hashes for simple hitting at pre-determined ranges. Probably 90% of the time, I'm still killing with the center duplex though, even when those other features are present.

On a side note, I happened to notice recently that a heavy-duty FFP scope I bought for turret spinning, steel shooting, and hunting actually offers usable basic hold-over points with its mil-based reticle. I'd not have expected that, but JBM Ballistics indicates a zero around 200yds should allow the first three hash-marks to be "killing close" at 300,350,and 400yds. That wasn't why I bought the scope, but it may turn out to be a fortunate feature in the hunting field. Options certainly abound these days.

I LOVE the MilQuad reticle in the SS scopes but on a couple of my rifles that are decently quick the plain old Leupold LR Duplex is a good killing reticle for me. Allows a 3” high zero at a 100 with the 7mm Mashburn and 175 Partitions that makes 0-300 on the main reticle and the dots line up nicely at 400 and 500 with the tip of the post being usable at 600. It’s not perfect but it’s light and easy to center up on deer and elk. Takes a bit more range time to get everything squared up but it’s worth it to me when I don’t want the weight of an SS or NF.

I prefer a clean, wide duplex. I don't need a reticle with all the clutter of dots and dashes.

I had much the same experience when I was young and poor. The crosshair broke on a cheap 4x. Unlike you I didn't repair it, though I did take the opportunity to pull the scope apart to see how it worked. I figured it was $10 down the drain, so I might as well get something out of it. . I replaced that scope with a rather better one, though still of Japanese make, which actually gave many years of reliable service. It had a duplex reticle (we're talking roughly 1977 or 78 here), as did the Weaver I bought not long after. I still like the duplex, though I particularly like the German variety with heavy side-bars, or the German Nr 4, for the way they seem to show up fast and in poor light without blocking the aiming mark.

I have a couple of scopes with little hash marks for holdover, and I quite like them on the rifles they are on. The ones I have are pretty simple and not busy, which suits me. One, for example, a Burris, sits on a .22 Hornet, and the first hash mark below the crosshair aligns with 200 metres with my usual load and zero, which is about as far as I want to push the Hornet on small game.

I've tried a few other varieties of reticle, including those with posts, circles, "Christmas trees" and one or two others. I've never much liked them. Some make it hard to get a good precise aim, or a consistent aim, or are simply too busy. I'm not much of a fan of illuminated reticles either, at least for my purposes. Those that I've tried seem to me to be unnecessary in good light, and to affect your night vision when it is dark. There again, if it is properly dark - too dark to aim - I'll either knock off for the day or get the electric sunlight out, depending on where I am and what I'm after. No doubt there are some which can work, and I'll admit I haven't given them much of a run, but I don't personally see a need for them, for my purposes.

Obviously the reticles and scopes we prefer are a reflection of personal views and prejudices though, as well as the way we use them.

Dan,

Sounds your Burris on the .22 Hornet has their Ballistic Plex reticle--which is the same scope I've had on my Hornet for years now.

Christmas tree reticles primarily appeared as an early solution to shooting farther, after laser rangefinders appeared. Many (perhaps most) were too coarse for hitting small varmints consistently at ranges where holdover was necessary. Which is one reason I have the Burris on my Hornet (its simple little hashmarks work very well at such ranges), but tend to "dial" elevation for shots much beyond Hornet range. It's quite common to shoot some varmints at 500 yards or even much farther here.

One reason illuminated reticles are often used by U.S. hunters are laws that limit legal shooting hours (usually 1/2 hour before sunrise and 1/2 hour after sunset) for shooting "game," as opposed to varmints--along with a general law against shooting game with the aid of electric light. White-tailed deer are by far the most popular big game, and they're pretty nocturnal by nature, and become even more so with hunting pressure during the season. Being able to see the aiming point better at the very edge of legal light can help a lot, and one reason for the self-illuminated Trijicon reticles is they provide that aiming point, but don't overwhelm the view with too much light, as some of the electronic reticles can when turned up too high. (Varmint shooting is another deal. It's often legal to shoot some of them, especially predators and feral pigs, at night with the aid of a light, or even more sophisticated night-vision or thermal scopes.)

John,

Do you think that reticle choices, at least back when scopes were often offered with multiple reticle options, were often a regional thing?

When I started hunting deer in northern New England 50 years ago, low magnification fixed power scopes from Lyman, Redfield, and Weaver were often purchased with post & cross-hair reticles. My first 2 deer rifles were a Remington 660 in 6mm with a Weaver V7 that had a duplex reticle, intended for over-watching open areas, and a Ruger 44 International with a Weaver K3 that had a post & cross-hair reticle, intended to still-hunting in cover.

Since moving to Nebraska in 1990, I've looked at thousands of used rifles that had scopes installed and have come across very few with reticles other than cross-hair and duplex. Also, while Weaver K2.5 and K3 scopes were quite common in New England, their scarcity on used rifles out here suggests that they weren't nearly as popular in CO/IA/KS/MO/NE/SD/WY as they were in ME/NH/VT.

I've become a fan of Leupold's heavy duplex reticle, but most of my deer hunting happens under 200 yards.

EDIT: Leupold's decision to drop the heavy duplex reticle and to raise their fee for changing reticles has forced me to look for other options. Do you have any suggestions?

EDIT2: I had www.ironsightinc.com install their #1 heavy European style reticle on a couple of Denver Redfield 2-7x scopes that I installed on a pair of Interarms Mark X mannlichers in 7x57 and 9.3x62. They are almost too heavy, thick, but they do take/lead the shooter's eye to center on a POA very quickly.

Sorry I missed this port--it somtimes happens when the column thread gets pinned!

Yeah, while traveling around the country (and the rest of the world) for hunting I've noticed definite regional trends. One is the same you noted: Not many post reticles, which were THE reticle advised for woods hunters back when I started hunting, and also not as many lower-power fixed scopes. Even in the 1960's, before variables became really popular, most hunters used at least 4x, and some even used 6x back then, just about always with pretty fine crosshairs, because a lot of Montana hunting (though by no means all) was in pretty open country.

Have also of course noticed regional preferences in rifles and cartridges, but one of the most striking examples was pointed out to me by Charlie Sisk, the custom rifle maker. When he was a young gunsmith in Texas, he noticed that Ruger No. 1's were really popular at one end of the state (if I recall correctly East Texas, but could be wrong), and not very popular at the other end. He'd visit gunshops in the part of the state where No. 1's weren't very popular, so the prices were low. He'd buy 'em and sell 'em in other end of the state for a good profit!

I looked through a German PH's scope in Africa and decided I wanted a German No.4 crosshair...I now have it in a Meopta 6x42 and am very satisfied..

Good read.
I am particularly interested in the ranging with duplex reticles bit.

As you seem very well informed and experienced i will pose a question that customer service at Bushnell, Vista, Weaver couldn't:

Any idea of the thin wire length (in moa) of the "made in USA" era Weaver duplex reticles?

Seems better to "know" than to try and measure by putting a yardstick out a known distance.
Thanks.

I've never had to range anything using this method, but if I did I wouldn't try to range anything over about six inches away.

Noted will edit..
Personally I prefer to maintain a range of greater than one leg length....
Particularly if you have offended someone...

I think you and I are thinking of two entirely different uses of testicles, but I sure understand there are times you'd rather be more than a leg's length away!





You must be using a phone with the latest and greatest autocorrupt software.

Risk management. Better than pain management.
You may be right..
Or I have too much memory consumed...
Responses seem a bit slow.

My favorite rifle (280 Ackley) is topped with a Leupold VX-6 in 2 - 12 x 42 .. Love the scope hate the standard Duplex Reticle... Is there any company that will replace reticles and also offer choices..

John, do you know of any oddball post and crosshair reticle versions that Lyman ever put into their 2.5X Alaskan? I have one that I am trying to price to sell, and it is basically a standard post and crosshair reticle, but the vertical post doesn't taper. It stays straight until just above the horizontal crosshair, then instead of a sharp or rounded point, it 45s off on each side and then 45s again to make a flat top, like a K98 T post reticle but without the 45's at the top of the post. Hopefully that makes at least some sense. I wish I had a picture to show you but don't have the scope with me.

Everything I have seen on the web with these scopes reflect them having tapered posts, not one 45'd off like this one is. I am curious if I have some special non-cataloged version, or if is nothing special at all.

Thanks!

Have never seen that reticle, but would guess it was a custom variation. However, have never run across a mention of anything like that in any of my reference books--and have quite a few.

Huh...OK. Thanks for that!

Do you know of any Lyman guru or other scope company that may have more info?