I've always wondered. I myself prefer a german #1 reticle or the old lyman/weaver style of post reticle. They are thick and easy to pick up quickly in poor light, but also have the advantage of not obscuring your aiming point. In fact, this is the only type that does not cover your aiming point, and it is easier to shoot smaller groups with them at the range with low powered scopes. Work basically like a front sight. Put whatever you want to hit at the top of the post and pull the trigger. It seems like the only scopes that you can get these on are either leupold or the very high end scopes. No Nikon Monarch or Weaver Grand Slams
So why aren't they more popular?

Wes

Don't know, but the last time I used a post, and needed a bit more elevation for a long shot, it didn't just cover the impact point, it covered the whole dammed animal.

Plain, medium to heavy crosshairs and/or duplex reticles (with or without mil dots or aiming points) are pretty hard to beat for all around handiness and acquiring a fast sight picture.

Most, if not all others are just gimmicks in my opinion.

I had an old Pecar 6X with a post and didn't like it as much as cross hairs. In my case the top of the post was pointed and I didn't like how I had to "guess" exactly where the tip of the point was for long shots. A cross hair gives you that point clearly, right at the cross. Thin cross hairs in the middle with wider hairs towards the outside is the best I've used. I wouldn't toss a scope with a post, but I wouldn't order one new.

I'm with mt Al.

The only place a #1 is truely "#1" is in very low light. But you pay the price when you want to sight in your rifle, or otherwise have to shoot accurately. Therefore reticles like a #4 are a better compromise. They offer practically the same performance in low light, but the cross hairs allow them to be used far more easily for accurate shooting.

JMHO, naturally. If you like the #1, go for it. You are not the only one, after all.

- mike

Okay, I am a newbie so go easy on me. I have an older steel tube K6 Weaver on my 340 Weatherby, that I just love. It is post and crosshair, but instead opf the post being Flat Topped like a 2.5 Weaver4 I have, it has a pointed post. The cross hair intersects the post right at the shoulders of the point. The point sticks up like one sixteenth of an inch above the crosshair. I do all my sighting in so that the bullets strike right at the tip of the point. Have any of the rest of you seen this type of post?

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Have any of the rest of you seen this type of post?

Sounds just like the one I was complaining about above. Was on a Pecar 4x81.

They should be good on big game and in bad light, but one day if you try for a 400yd shot on a coyoteee or whatever, he'll probably be "somewhere" behind the post.

Would you believe it? my new/old .458WM came with a Pecar and an extreemly fine cross hair.

Now if I still had the other one I could swap the reticules over in seconds. Why me?

Crazy.....

Yeah, I know what you mean with that little pointy bit above the crosshair. Like mho said you can try to use it at range to accomodate for the rest of the "fat" parts, 'cause they really tend to cover the target at range.

Those #1 reticles are called that on purpose. Here in Germany the remain the #1 choice simply due to the amount of evening and night time use they receive. They do stand out in poor light but are difficult to compensate with for long(er) range use. Here a long night time shot at a Wild Boar would be anything over 60 meters but I'd not want to try and pop a Mule Deer out West at 300 meters with that reticle either.

I guess I should have added that I actually like the pointed post instead of the flat topped ones. I try not to do any long range shooting if I can help it. I did take a cow elk at about 250 yards or so with the 340 and this scope.

If you look hard enough you can find reticles of just about every shape, size, color, and pattern imaginable. I guess it all comes down to what a guy likes or doesn’t like.

The trouble I find with “specialized†reticles is just that...they are designed for “special†situations and they don’t really lend themselves well to other types of shooting.

Crazy,

I haven't seen one like that, sounds like a great scope though, old Weavers are wonderful. My K4 gave up the ghost after 20 years in my hands and at least 15 in other people's. I plan on having it rebuilt.

I had a K2.5 with a thin-ish post and very, very thin cross hairs. Yours sounds more useful, it obviously can handle the recoil as well! I'll bet that 340 did a number on that cow.

Posts must work very well in low light, based on what Gerry mentioned. In Montana we're more often shooting in bright light at longer ranges, though not always. I can see how a post would work in those conditions.

Now its time for us to have Leupold create a scope with changeable reticles, LCD should do it just fine. Post for low light, red cross hairs with a circle for dangerous game and a fine cross w/thicker posts for middle o' the day long range shots.

“Now its time for us to have Leupold create a scope with changeable reticles, LCD should do it just fine. Post for low light, red cross hairs with a circle for dangerous game and a fine cross w/thicker posts for middle o' the day long range shotsâ€

I bet you‘ll see that within a year or less. The technology is already there and Leupold is using it in their new laser range finders. You can select from a number of digital reticles stored in the memory of the unit.

Some interesting comments here. To each his own. I guess no reticle is best for every condition. The post is hardly a "gimmick" reticle as it is one of the oldest styles. I would consider the mildot reticle to be much more of a gimmick which works very well, but take significant practice and discipline to use correctly. Hardly something which is easy to utilize when you have only a few seconds to take a shot.
The bane of the post reticle, as others have pointed out, is shots of sufficient distance that would require you to aim above the game animal's back (in which case a large part of it would be blocked). On small animals, this could be 200 yards, but on big game animals, the post will get you out to 300 easily.

I guess a large part of my personal bias for the flat top post comes from the fact that I am much more likely to shoot at an animal just after sunrise than at >300 yards.

I think the take home message is that the duplex is a good compromise for most situations. The post has its own advantages but is not as versatile. I just wish that I had more options in scopes.

A few comments that I would disagree with are:
1. That post reticles make precision shooting more difficult.....To the contrary, I find that with appropriate magnification, a FLAT topped post is very good for target shooting as your aiming point is not covered with crosshairs. Certainly, at a certain magnification, the amount of target covered by crosshairs is negligible. At 4x however, many scopes' crosshairs cover nearly an inch of target. I find that this makes shooting very small groups more difficult. However, it is certainly a disaster to have a post in the first focal plane. This may be related to Gerry's comments about the reticle being too large. On the euro scopes, the reticle is often in the first plane which only hurts you for precision shooting.

2. That the crosshair is hard to beat for speed of target acquisition. Just personal observation here, but it has always seemed that the conventional duplex reticle is slower for me to pick up (especially in early morning) or on moving targets. That thin inner duplex part tends to disappear on darkly colored/ moving targets.

Thanks for the comments.

Wes

On the contrary, a mil dot reticle is literally nothing more than a duplex with dots. It can be used as a normal set of cross hairs in good or bad light and the mil feature of the dots can be used or not used at your choice. The dots are small enough that they do not obstruct you field of view at all.

But...as you said, to each his own.

I really like the post for close range shooting. I still have my Dad's old Bushnell Scopechief with the "command post" that would pop up with a turn of a ring. It was a really good idea I think. The scope itself isn't very good but it would be nice if this was featured on a well made scope.

I don't know why post reticles are not more popular, perhaps its a younger generation's thing. I have used post and crosshair most of my hunting career. (43 years). I think most hunters need to learn how to judge range rather than how far there gun will shoot. A short "he who is without sin story". Last fall we were watching a herd of elk. Deer season was open,elk season was not. I estimated they were 350-375 yards and yes, I could have made the shot with the post/crosshair. My buddy had a rangefinder - 495 yds. The post/crossahair would have allowed me to make a shot that my rifle and myself were marginally (very marginally !!!!) capable of.

For me the #1 works very well.
I use it for deer and coyotes. I started out with Leupolds duplex, and while certainly able to take game, I sometimes found myself fiddling around to make the precise shot. While I wasn't about to buy several scopes just to find the right one, i spent alot of time looking at reticles at various websites.
My criteria was that my eye must be instantly attracted to the point of aim.
It must be easily visible in very low light....in moonlight.
The less it obscured the target the better.
It must be second focal plane.
I am sure everyones eye perceives reticles differently. As far as precision, I just crank up the magnification on longer shots. Target shooting, I don not have a problem but view it as more of a hunting reticle. The big downside to a #1 is I cannot subtend. My solution is to buy the Leupold model I want, send it to Leupold to have the reticle changed and while it is there, have them install an elevation turret. It is a longer and more expensive process, but for me well worth it.

I have an old Redfield widefield 6x with a post. Bought it years ago for $60.00. It's good on big game, but have always had trouble shooting small groups with it. I tend to keep it as a spare and put it on rifles till I get something I like better.

I used a weaver with a post and cross hair for years It sucked. But it was the only thing a I had and about any scope is better then open sights.

I find the duplex or now the multi plex or mildot scopes to be much better aiming point or points.

I found the post not to be much good for aiming higher tough to get the post on target ect. I still think I have it laying around well not go on another rifle.

It was designed for fast sight acquisition at close to moderate range and for that it has no equal, imho. I used one (Weaver) on my Ruger .44 Carbine for many years and it was a game getter.

Everyone’s eyes and brains are different, and whatever reticle allows you to quickly and accurately acquire a sight picture is a good one for you.

I may not have the whole answer, but a few things have filtered in:

1. The post and cross hair is a classic European Reticle. Designed for a day when ranges were relatively short and light was bad.

2. They simulate open sights when used at short range on dangerous game, another plus for quick shots when the grass is tall and the danger significant.

3. Being that European gun owners tend to be conservative about their art, change doesn't come fast. Sort of like the USMC or HMRM: Still be using muskets if the other fellow didn't cheat with that damn Mauser, What?

quote:

The post was intended to resemble a flat topped front sight and was designed for use by those who were so used to shooting with iron sights that they had a problem adjusting to a scope with a crosshair reticle. A post reticle should always have a flat top. In dim light the tip of a pointed post, one shaped like a picket fence post, becomes very hard to see and the shooter ends up aiming farther down the reticle and shooting over the target.- Scope Reticles By Chuck Hawks

P Dog Shooter, what power is that sucky old Weaver and would you be willing to sell it?