New Leupold reticle

[Scot E]

The e-mail I got was from LRH tHE reticule is in conjuntion w/ Darrell Holland, and is the Moa ART, I think you could get the mil model which would interest me, because it has more detail than TMR AND numbers for counting moa or mil. The moa model has 30 moa down and 4moa for wind, says release date Feb. I LIKE EM

I like his MIL reticle too. The new MOA reticle looks very nice as well. Now if I could just get them in an FFP scope I like!

Scot E.

 

[sp6x6]

I like his MIL reticle too. The new MOA reticle looks very nice as well. Now if I could just get them in an FFP scope I like!

Scot E.

At Hollans site he lists them in leupold,NF and S&B. The email I received showed several Leupold models and pertained to ffp.

 

[82ndreddevil]

I was the one that initially started this post and I am very impressed with the amount of input I have seen. Some of you guys bring up some good points and show a wealth of knowledge. I think back to when I was in the Army carrying the M-24 which was obviously a few days ago and I remember how haji does not ever stand still long enough for you to mil him. He also never gives you the full silhouette either. In fact I think the only time I have ever been able to use a mil dot in order to accurately estimate range was on the rifle range. We would set up steel targets such as larues and silhouettes at unknown distances and then we had to mil them for the distance. Today for hunting I use my mils for hold off only. The problem I have using mils is that unless you know the exact size of your target it wont be accurate. Sometimes at long distances it is hard to determine if that is an average size animal or big one or even a small one.
A few of you guys mentioned laser range finders, does anyone have a good recommendation for one that is reasonably priced? And yea I am sure they are just like any other optic, you get what you pay for. But I am not looking to spend a thousand on one either.

 

[fishwater]

Here is a pic of the Darrell Holland reticle.

I just got off the phone with Leupold. They said that THEIR OWN VERSION of an MOA reticle should be out in a couple months...

I haven't seen any pics of Leupolds own version of an MOA reticle yet either.

If anybody has one, I would like to see that one as well!!!

 

[cummins cowboy]

Here is a pic of the Darrell Holland reticle.

I just got off the phone with Leupold. They said that THEIR OWN VERSION of an MOA reticle should be out in a couple months...

I haven't seen any pics of Leupolds own version of an MOA reticle yet either.

If anybody has one, I would like to see that one as well!!!

lets break this down, the way I see it is the reticle is marked in 1 moa hashes above the the horizontal bar, and 1.5 moa hashes below. I am really puzzled as to what they are trying to do with it. wouldn't you want the finer graduated hash marks BELOW the horizontal for hold overs???? why put the courser measurements there?? also the horizontal bar looks to be in 2 MOA graduations, this is also something puzzling, I think the graybull and huskemaw reticles have shown the value in this being graduated in 1 MOA markings, 2 moa is courser than it needs to be.

IMO the reticle sucks, its trying to do way way too much. for a long range rig I want to dial for elevation hold for wind. if I am going to use the reticle for aim points I think most people would agree the horus setup has that covered, so really the only thing left to say is they are trying to use the reticle to range with which doesn't work accurately enough once you get past 500 yards. the cluttered looks pretty much sucks too.

 

[82ndreddevil]

Cummins Cowboy,

I could not agree more with you even though it puts me at risk of getting a tongue lashing from someone else. I asked the same thing on why it has 1 MOA increments going up and 1.5 going down, specifically for the purpose of holdover. That reticle actually reminds me of what you would see in M-8 binos used for giving corrections with artillery.

 

[Michael Eichele]

Yuck!

 

[Scot E]

The concept is that the upper portion is used for ranging so finer subtentions are provided. Below the main crosshair there are 1.5 MOA marks to try to find a good balance between subtention coarseness and not getting too cluttered.

FWIW, I have shot with a few 1 MOA reticles and they are very cluttered and very easy to loose track of where you are at, at least for me. I much prefer a 2 MOA reticle. The 1.5 MOA may be what he considers to be a good balance.

His reticle concept has been around for years. It is a different concept but there are some advantages once you understand it and get used to it.

Scot E.

 

[cummins cowboy]

The concept is that the upper portion is used for ranging so finer subtentions are provided. Below the main crosshair there are 1.5 MOA marks to try to find a good balance between subtention coarseness and not getting too cluttered.

FWIW, I have shot with a few 1 MOA reticles and they are very cluttered and very easy to loose track of where you are at, at least for me. I much prefer a 2 MOA reticle. The 1.5 MOA may be what he considers to be a good balance.

His reticle concept has been around for years. It is a different concept but there are some advantages once you understand it and get used to it.

Scot E.

well ok then, why not skip all the markings and clutter above the horizontal and just go with MOA on the bottom that should provide all the ranging ability anybody could ever need and then some. good lord are we trying to range freaking sky scrapers what could anyone manage to need to range that would need all those markings to range it with.

as to 1 MOA markings being too much clutter, hooey go check out a huskemaw or graybull reticle, those are excellent reticles that handle the intended job. using the reticle to range with is only done in a pinch and only out to 500 or so yards it does not make sense to handicap a reticle to this extent for the unlikely and maybe not ever needed task of ranging.

 

[Scot E]

well ok then, why not skip all the markings and clutter above the horizontal and just go with MOA on the bottom that should provide all the ranging ability anybody could ever need and then some. good lord are we trying to range freaking sky scrapers what could anyone manage to need to range that would need all those markings to range it with.

as to 1 MOA markings being too much clutter, hooey go check out a huskemaw or graybull reticle, those are excellent reticles that handle the intended job. using the reticle to range with is only done in a pinch and only out to 500 or so yards it does not make sense to handicap a reticle to this extent for the unlikely and maybe not ever needed task of ranging.

I am only stating what the concept is not whether it is my or your preferred method.

I find 1 MOA too cluttered, I didn't say there weren't a number of them on the market.

I have read his brochure and watched his DVD and have talked to him on the phone and am simply stating there is a method to his system. He is a very nice guy and even more knowledgeable at building rifles and shooting in general. It may not be your thing but you may want to understand it before you completely disregard it. There is a lot of info on his site and he will send out a brochure and DVD explaining his system if you like.

He provides software to print data cards if you get one of his reticles. The card is animal specific and gives very easy ranging subtentions that correlates to the specific animal you are shooting and each yardage increment on the card. So you very quickly range with the upper portion of the reticle then read the yardage off the card, ( if nothing else this can be used to double check your rangefinder reading), then hold the listed amount on the bottom portion of the reticle. It is actually a pretty quick process once you understand the concept.

18 MOA for ranging seems about right to me for most big game. Of course the reticle above the main cross hair could also be used for hold under for those that choose to have a LR zero

Scot E.

 

[C.O. Shooter]

I spoke with Leupold Technical Services today and asked about a new MOA reticle. They said something is in the works and obviously could say when! I know this is already known, just giving an update!

 

[brentc]

I don't see why leupold makes such a big deal about producing an MOA reticle. All they have to do is market a TMR type reticle that subtends to MOA. It really is that simple. I think it's ridiculous that they continue to avoid customers that want an MOA reticle when in all reality it should be so blasted easy for them to do.

Shoot, they could quiet a lot of complaints just by telling people that their TMR reticle is an MOA reticle at slightly less than max power on the SFP models.

 

[C.O. Shooter]

TMR reticle is an MOA reticle at slightly less than max power on the SFP models.

How so? Can you or some expand on this?

 

[Scot E]

How so? Can you or some expand on this?

I assume he means this. I believe the hashmarks on the TMR reticle are 1/2 MIL. If so this equates to about 1.7 MOA approximately. On an SFP reticle the subtentions (measurements) of the distance between the hashmarks change as the magnification is changed so there is only one power setting where they will be correct, which is usually at the highest power setting. So if a guy was to drop the power a bit he could get the hashmarks to grow in size in relation to the target and you could come up with a 2 MOA subtention per hash which in a way makes it an MOA reticle.

The thing I don't like about all SFP scopes when using the reticle for aiming is that you better be sure you have the power ring set to the exact same spot each time or else your reticle subtentions will be different every time and so will your POI. That is one of the reasons that many manufacturers use the highest setting or have a detent for the proper setting so it is more repeatable.


Scot E.