one of us
| The post & crosshair was one of the earliest reticle designs because it helped former soldiers make the transition from iron sights to scope. Looking thru the scope duplicates the peep and post that oh so many of us were taught to shoot with.
The thin crosshair provides an artificial horizon to prevent cant.
I only use a low powered scope if I need one, but I still use only post & crosshair reticles. |
| | | Posts: 2036 | Location: Roebling, NJ 08554 | Registered: 20 January 2002 | 
IP
|
|
one of us
| Well IMHO they're not!
I worked with a post and cross hairs for a couple of seasons stalking and about 5 years playing/competition. Kahles zf84 6x42.
For stalking I found that the improved ease of twilight visibility of the post was more than outweighed by the lack of vertical precision.
Aiming off on a more distant target is extremely difficult when the post covers most of the target and the sight picture doesn't self align in the way that a cross hair does.
For a dedicated dusk/dawn scope I can understand there use otherwise a 4/4a seem to be much better. |
| | | Posts: 2258 | Location: Bristol, England | Registered: 24 April 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Totally agree with 1894. The very early reticle design: German #1 (or "posts" as you call them) is primarily an advantage in low light situations. The #1 reticle is a royal pain in the posterior on the range, and a German #4 is probably almost as good in falling light, but much easier to shoot on the range due to its cross-hair design. There are variations of the post reticles, e.g. one that has a thin crosshair running horizontally on top of the lower post - supposed to be good for running game. These days, low light problems are better resolved with a lighted reticle.
- mike |
| | | Posts: 6653 | Location: Switzerland | Registered: 11 March 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| If they're really better than Leopold's heavy duplex, I guess I need to try them! Last year I shot my whitetail buck at about 15 yards in heavy brush with about 2 seconds of legal shooting light left. Just the other day I blasted a fast swimming muscrat to smithereens at 2:00 AM in only moonlight. I'm not sure I need anything better than that. ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) |
| | | Posts: 920 | Location: Mukilteo, WA | Registered: 29 November 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
|
[ 08-19-2003, 23:07: Message edited by: mho ]
|
| | | Posts: 6653 | Location: Switzerland | Registered: 11 March 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| quote:
Originally posted by KurtC:
The post & crosshair was one of the earliest reticle designs because it helped former soldiers make the transition from iron sights to scope. Looking thru the scope duplicates the peep and post that oh so many of us were taught to shoot with.
The thin crosshair provides an artificial horizon to prevent cant.
I only use a low powered scope if I need one, but I still use only post & crosshair reticles.
We found a Luddite. Does your house have electricity? |
| | |
One of Us
| I always thought a scope with post was a bad idea until I actually got one and started hunting with it. No, they aren't the best reticule for long range or tedious work. But for a strictly hunting scope (which is what they really are) I find a good post a delight to use. Very fast, easy and effective. I like them and wish I had a couple more. ![[Frown]](images/icons/frown.gif) |
| | |
Moderator
| quote:
Originally posted by Jon A:
If they're really better than Leopold's heavy duplex, I guess I need to try them! Last year I shot my whitetail buck at about 15 yards in heavy brush with about 2 seconds of legal shooting light left. Just the other day I blasted a fast swimming muscrat to smithereens at 2:00 AM in only moonlight.
I'm not sure I need anything better than that.
Try the 4a from premier reticles http://www.premierreticles.com/reticle4.html
It is the best blend of the heavy duplex, and fine duplex. |
| | |
