Rifle Scopes CCH reticle at low power

[dk-1]

I’ve tried a Google images search and came up empty so I’m asking the community here for help. I’m considering a VX3i LRP in 4.5-14x50 with the CCH reticle for a build I’m working on. There’s a good chance I will be using this scope on lower powers at times and I’m concerned about the CCH FFP reticle at the lower powers being hard to aim with. Would anyone with a CCH FFP equipped scope mind snapping a through the scope pic at around 5 power for me? I’d greatly appreciate it.

 

[DocPewPro]

I should be getting mine in the mail in a couple days and I can snap a picture for you.

 

[dk-1]

I should be getting mine in the mail in a couple days and I can snap a picture for you.

That would be outstanding, thanks!!

 

[MOUNTIC]

The CCH at low power in the two mk5 3-18s I had, we're absolutely unusable in the low mag range. The reticle is far to thin to recommend using under 8-10x. If it's for a hunting gun, I would pass. I tried using mine elk hunting last year and ended up using my backup gun with a LRHSi on it instead. I sold both the mk5 CCH scopes and went a different direction. It needs a thicker reticle or illumination to be useful.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

I have the cch in a 6.5-20 and under 12x thr reticle starts to get a little hard to see based on the background. At 10x you can make out the grid for hold overs but forget about making out the .25 mil subte sions. At 5x you've basically got a duplex reticle. In Leopold's literature they say its optimized for 12-16x i think and i believe that based on what ive seen. In my opinion its a by product of the reticle having all the open centers that it does and it being FFP.

 

[Tyler Kemp]

I find it very hard to see at low mags.

 

[4darkseid]

I own own a FX1000 4-16×50. It has illumination and better glass, but no magnification lever and 180 degree magnification throw that is traditionally stiff. The Nikon has a very fast diopter setting and the Leupold takes multiple turns and is finer but slower to dial in between shooters. The Leupold has a bit more forgiving depth of field on the parallax. The Leupold has the CCH retcle option which is IMO better than the Nikon for a FFP precision optic. The Leupold TMR would be close to the Nikon reticle.

 

[Tyler Kemp]

I own own a FX1000 4-16×50. It has illumination and better glass, but no magnification lever and 180 degree magnification throw that is traditionally stiff. The Nikon has a very fast diopter setting and the Leupold takes multiple turns and is finer but slower to dial in between shooters. The Leupold has a bit more forgiving depth of field on the parallax. The Leupold has the CCH retcle option which is IMO better than the Nikon for a FFP precision optic. The Leupold TMR would be close to the Nikon reticle.

I've got levers for you the Leupold nub is meh at best

 

[dk-1]

Thanks for the input, I think I'll just get the TMR then for this application.

 

[DocPewPro]

This is the best picture I could get with my phone. Building is at 80yds and scope is at 4.5x. Reticle is sharper in person as the phone wouldn’t focus on it well. I’d say depending on your eyesight that you could use the reticle fairly well at low power of needed but the heavy tapered post allow it to work like a duplex.

 

[Mjolnir23]

Looks pretty decent to me at low power as well.

 

[DocPewPro]

I will say that the lines kinda get lost when looking at natural terrain but the heavy lines at least give you reference.

 

[Blackfoot 7]

I will say that the lines kinda get lost when looking at natural terrain but the heavy lines at least give you reference.

I run my 3.6-18x at 10x and up, but it's on a rifle where I don't really need low magnification and I don't hunt with it. The reticle kicks ass in the higher magnification ranges and I like that if offers open centers at the .25 hash marks. As jwknutson17If mentioned, if you're planning on using it primarily for hunting I'd opt for something different unless Leupold starts offering illumination for it.