Mark 5 3.6-18

[Joefrazell]

Hey guys, just bought a new mark 5 3.6-18 it's in the pr1-moa reticle. This is my first higher end optic/ first focal plane. Ice got it on a Tikka ctr in hawkins rings. Anyways. Ice taken it out shooting a couple of times and have noticed the reticle seems to be awkwardly in the way of what Im aiming at if that makes any sense . I shot a couple of great groups while zeroing the rifle. Made good hits on a plate at 975 but felt the reticle was too thick and crowding the target image. Is this something I just need to get used to with a ffp scope?

 

[Recon$$]

On the higher end of the magnification range the reticle will be fairly large as it will seem "to small" on the lower end. It will take some time but FFP has its advantages. I would just work within the 6-14 for most applications with that particular scope. I own a few, you won't be disappointed.

 

[Onesock]

Thats why I wont own a ffp scope.

 

[Joefrazell]

Yeah I really love that I can hold for wind on all magnification. I got the illuminated version and it seemed to help a bit with the illumination on when shooting at a black plate. It's just gunna take some.getting use to

 

[Idaho Trecker]

One thing I didnt realize when I purchased the same scope was the reticle subtensions on the illuminated model are thicker than non illuminated. To me that is backwards. I didnt do enough research before ordering and just assumed it was the same. I already had the 5-25 version non illuminated which I love and wanted illuminated for the smaller version on more of a hunting rig vs my target rig. These are my first ffp scopes also and has taken some getting use to but I do like them a lot!

 

[Joefrazell]

One thing I didnt realize when I purchased the same scope was the reticle subtensions on the illuminated model are thicker than non illuminated. To me that is backwards. I didnt do enough research before ordering and just assumed it was the same. I already had the 5-25 version non illuminated which I love and wanted illuminated for the smaller version on more of a hunting rig vs my target rig. These are my first ffp scopes also and has taken some getting use to but I do like them a lot!

So with the floating dot being a .3 moa for compared to a .2 moa dot and the reticle lines do you see the difference when shooting? I didn't think it would make much of a difference being .1 moa difference is only 1" at 1000 for all practical purpose but than again it's 50% larger. Is like to here your thoughts on that. I love the illumination but am wondering if is of been better off without.

 

[Ckleeves]

I can't find the subtension chart anywhere to see the exact size difference, but the Bushnell G3 Illuminated vs non illuminated is like looking thru a different scope IMO. I prefer the non ill. For anything real precise just because the illuminated version gets pretty blocky. That being said the illuminated fatter reticle more then likely won't ever hold you back in a hunting situation and is probably a better hunting optic because you can pick it up easier at lower mag. Pros and cons to both just gotta match the scope to what your needs are.

 

[Joefrazell]

Yeah, the scope is for a lr hunting rifle but I shoot my rifles ALOT for practice and for fun. Gotta keep fresh in the fundamentals. Im going to continue to use mine a and see if I can get use to it. It's not bad it's just a bit thicker than I'd prefer and expected

 

[highdrum]

I want the new pr1-mil reticle in this scope model, already had the illuminated pr1-moa and sold it. Same complaints as you, too cluttered in towards the center aiming dot, the non illum was great. I hope they keep better spacing on the mil versions. Leupold has photos of both the non and illum but no subtensions published that I can find.