Hello gents,

I´m about to purchase a Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50 scope for long range shooting but I´m not sure whether to get a Z-plex(#20) or mil dot(#43) reticle. I´m leaning towards the mil dot reticle but my main criteria for choosing between the two reticles is the thickness of the central crosshairs (I want which ever is thinner!). They appear the same thickness on Zeiss´s homepage but since no store here in Iceland has them I was hoping if someone who has actually compared the two reticles could tell me which reticle is the thinner one?

Thanks,
Jon

I have a Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50 scope with the Z-plex reticle. For my eyes, the cross hair looks finer than other plex reticles on my other brand scopes. In fact, when I first got it, I considered selling or trading due to crosshair, but have adapted and wouldn't part with it now! Can't help you with mil dot; have never used one.

I'll tell you all I can know ... and that is, I have a 4.5-14x50 conquest with Zplex reticle on my .223 ... and I can shoot MOA or better with it, no problems ... I figure that going from 14x to 20x magnification would make it just that much "thinner" covering the target ... which would be nice for iddy biddy targets ...

However, I've generally found that a MilDot reticle is very nice for long range shooting, even if you're not really using it to "mil" targets ... Basically speaking, the inner crosshairs are VERY thin, and the mildots are great for holding into the wind ... conversely, with a plex reticle, you've only got one "marker" on the reticle for holding ... and that's the change from the inner posts to the outers ...

I'd get the mildot, and never look back.

Thanks for your input guys. I just wanted to know because I have a Meopta artemis 2000 3-9x42 with plex reticle that I find the crosshairs to be way oversized for target shooting althogh it´s fine for hunting. If someone could do the direct comparison for me I would be thrilled but if not I´ll just go with the mildot.

I've got the mil-dot and I wouldn't get it again.

Thru my own fault I didn't read the specs close enough and the retical does NOT change with the power of the scope... meaning it's useless as a range finding tool and not really a mil-dot.

Other than that it's a fine scope and works very well.

quote:

Originally posted by Collins:
I've got the mil-dot and I wouldn't get it again.

Thru my own fault I didn't read the specs close enough and the retical does NOT change with the power of the scope... meaning it's useless as a range finding tool and not really a mil-dot.

Other than that it's a fine scope and works very well.

Better variable scopes use first plane reticle positioning so the reticle retains the same size relationship to the image at all magnifications. This is especially important for any reticle style that relies on the pattern to range the target.

Collins ...

What the hell are you talking about? MOST scopes are NOT "Front Focal Plane" ... As with MOST scopes, you have to set your scope to the appropriate magnification power to "mil" ... Normally, that is done on the highest power, but if you really want to be sure you're spot on, you need to test the mildot subtensions to see precisely what power to set it on when you are using it to mil...

Now, I'll agree that FFP scopes are great when they have range finding reticles ... this way, you can range on whatever power you're on at the time ... but more than likely, you're going to be turning the power up to the max to be able to range as precisely as possible ... I mean, why would you range on 4x when you can range on 14x?

With regards to all of this, why not just get a LRF, range your target, then twist up the turrets for elevation, put the xhairs precisely on target, and let 'er rip? THAT is by far the easiest and most reliable way to repeat the operation ...

IMO any variable scope that has a reticle pattern that requires a size relationship to the target should have that reticle placed in the 1st focal plane so the size relationship remains constant at any magnification.

Having that relationship changing with the magnification requires you to constantly wonder/check what exact magnification you have set on the scope and what adjustments you have to make to compensate for it at that particular setting.

Stupid way to design a scope/reticle combination...IMO.

Rick ...

I don't disagree with you at all on that position ... I too would love to see any/all variable power scopes with range finding reticles be of the FFP design ... However, the reality is that MOST are not ... and only the higher end, more expensive scopes are FFP ...

SFP configurations have been the "standard" for almost all of time ... and range finding reticles are nothing new either. It's really no big deal, for anyone that's going to actually use the range finding aspect of the reticle ... to "index" it at it's proper ranging power(s) and mark them as such on the scope using nail polish or the like ...

The only reason I responded as I did to Collins is that his post basically implies that it's stupid to have a range finding reticle in a SFP scope ... which of course, as I've already explained, is (and has been) commonplace for a LONG time ...

quote:

Originally posted by WGM:

The only reason I responded as I did to Collins is that his post basically implies that it's stupid to have a range finding reticle in a SFP scope ... which of course, as I've already explained, is (and has been) commonplace for a LONG time ...

I stand by my statement... I've got a Springfield Armory scope that maintains the relationship. For scopes without a "Ranging" reticle I don't really care where it is. A mil-dot scope is (to me) a very special puropse tactical tool and you shouldn't have to worry about the accuracy of your ranging depending on the power setting of your scope. I belive MOST mil dot scopes are FFP. As for lasing your target to get a range... There are situations where this would be a bad idea, letting brand "X" know your position.

Leupold, one of the major leaders in tactical scopes ... all of which are SFP ... Premier Reticles would do a FFP conversion for you, but not anymore since their relationship is down the drain.

USO makes FFP scopes, but they run you a mere $2500.00 ... Nighforce makes FFP scopes as well, but you're going to pay about $1600.00 for one. I think Burris makes a model they just came out with called the XTR ... have no clue if it's FFP or SFP ...

And, for the record, Springfield Armory scopes ... well, let's just say I'd pay to get rid of one if it came to that ... I've never owned one, but have used them a few times and found them to be lacking in EVERY category imaginable ... so please, don't try to tell me that there are "affordable" FFP scopes out there... if you want one worth a damn, you're going to pay out the wazoo for it ...

So back to the "argument" ... Unless you're prepared to pay a LOT of money, get used to using SFP scopes, and learning how to "mil" at a set power ... if that ability is beyond you, you might outta consider putting your weapons and optics down, and not ever picking them up again ...

Then again, as I said before, ... spend your money on a Leica 1200 scan rangefinder, and go with a standard SFP scope with a duplex reticle and target turrets ... and don't bother playing "sniper" with your mildot reticle ... Just range the target, dial in the dope, and pull the trigger ... That method trumps everything else discussed in this thread ... it's cheaper, easier, and more reliable ... go figure.

quote:

Originally posted by WGM:
Rick ...

I don't disagree with you at all on that position ... I too would love to see any/all variable power scopes with range finding reticles be of the FFP design ... However, the reality is that MOST are not ... and only the higher end, more expensive scopes are FFP ...

SFP configurations have been the "standard" for almost all of time ... and range finding reticles are nothing new either. It's really no big deal, for anyone that's going to actually use the range finding aspect of the reticle ... to "index" it at it's proper ranging power(s) and mark them as such on the scope using nail polish or the like ...

The only reason I responded as I did to Collins is that his post basically implies that it's stupid to have a range finding reticle in a SFP scope ... which of course, as I've already explained, is (and has been) commonplace for a LONG time ...

The only variable scope I own is A Leupold 3.5x10 that I purchased from Dick Thomas with his 1st focal plane GenII mil dot reticle installed. I think I paid around $500.00 for it (hardly top end, high price) and it went to Iraq with my son where he used it on his M4.

All the other mil dot reticles I use are on fixed power scopes, except for my Leupold 12-40x spotting scope and that also has a Dick Thomas Gen II reticle that keeps the relationship at all magnifications.

I wouldn’t own a variable scope with a mil dot reticle if it wasn’t 1st focal plane...just my opinion.

Wow, this is a lot like arguing with my ex...

You're right, I'm wrong...
I hope that settles it

I've messed with mil-dot type scopes for years and found them to be fairly useful for big-game, but my preference is the IOR scopes with the MP8 reticle, which is divided into 1/2 mils. Far more accurate ranging IMO. That said, a few years ago I bought a Leica LRF, and found it to be much more accurate than I ever was with the reticle alone. The 1/2 mil reticle is useful for quick hold over references, but for PD's, and big-game if I have the time, I prefer to twist turrets. I have one MP8 reticle left, and it is on IOR's excellent 2.5-10 mounted on my .300. I swapped out the MP8 scope on me 22-250 for their fine cross hair and prefer that for little furries waaay out there.