Rifle Scopes Leupold Mark 5hd illuminated reticle

[LAcpa]

i am considering a Leupold Mark 5hd 3.6-18x44. I was looking at the illuminated versions (Tmr and Pr-1moa) and both look same setup, just mil v moa. However, the thickness of the main line of the reticle doubles on the illuminated versions - MOA .15 non-illum Vs .3 illum and Mil .05 non illim Vs .1 illum. Anyone with illuminated version care to share their experience? Illuminated Reticles at max magnification seem too thick to use. And doesnt it seem backwards? I get it if non illuminated reticles were a little thicker to make them easier to see in poor lighting or dark background, but why make the illuminated reticles thicker??

 

[Birddog6424]

i am considering a Leupold Mark 5hd 3.6-18x44. I was looking at the illuminated versions (Tmr and Pr-1moa) and both look same setup, just mil v moa. However, the thickness of the main line of the reticle doubles on the illuminated versions - MOA .15 non-illum Vs .3 illum and Mil .05 non illim Vs .1 illum. Anyone with illuminated version care to share their experience? Illuminated Reticles at max magnification seem too thick to use. And doesnt it seem backwards? I get it if non illuminated reticles were a little thicker to make them easier to see in poor lighting or dark background, but why make the illuminated reticles thicker??

You're jumping into a well-debated topic.

If the manufacturer makes a non-illuminated thin reticle optimized for competition and higher magnification usage, shooters complain its too thin and not useable at low magnification.

Make it thicker so that the illumination functions as intended and looks good, and its very thick at 25x and 30x. But its useable at <10x.

In my experience, shooters will complain about both options. Reticles are a very personal choice.

 

[SageRatSafaris]

I’m guessing that the thicker lines on the illuminated reticle are to provide more surface area to bounce illumination off of to enhance the illumination visibility.

 

[rustyinbend]

My guess is that it's about "photonic real estate" ... to illuminate properly without bleed-out or other distortion, the thicker reticle is the result. I have illumination on other long-distance scopes, and it's hard to read lines and numbers when the etching is very small, with bleed-through off the lines impacting the view. No such problem on my illuminated Leopold scopes due (I'm assuming) to the larger etching providing a more consistent landing pad for the illumination. All just a theory though.

 

[Birddog6424]

Yes, the reticle etching needs to be thicker for illumination.

 

[TDFT1]

LEUPOLD nails ya hard for Illum at least on the Tremor 3 $500 like Dayum!!

 

[LAcpa]

LEUPOLD nails ya hard for Illum at least on the Tremor 3 $500 like Dayum!!

I wonder if the illumination is resistant to EMP?

 

[Black max]

The illuminated TMR reticle has a center dot and makes a great aiming point. I only own an illuminated TMR and an illuminated Tremor 3, cannot speak to their moa reticles.

 

[M_R_Woodard]

I liked the center dot on the illuminated tmr but I thought the hashes were to thick. When holding for wind it made precise holds on small targets difficult.I ended up trading it for a non illuminated version, but I do miss the center dot.

 

[LAcpa]

The illuminated TMR reticle has a center dot and makes a great aiming point. I only own an illuminated TMR and an illuminated Tremor 3, cannot speak to their moa reticles.

Is the reticle too big at max magnification? which scope do you have with the illuminated tmr?

 

[Black max]

I have the 3-18 with illuminated tmr. I don't have any issues with it whatsoever. I only shoot moa or bigger targets so holding off for wind is a non issue for me. Couldn't imagine trying to hold wind and shoot tiny groups at distance with any reticle, as always ymmv.

 

[Uscmarine]

Do you think switching to ps1mil illuminated is better choice than TMR illuminated for 3.6-18x44 mk5hd ?

I’m torn on which one to get. It is mostly for bench shooting recreationally

 

[918v]

i am considering a Leupold Mark 5hd 3.6-18x44. I was looking at the illuminated versions (Tmr and Pr-1moa) and both look same setup, just mil v moa. However, the thickness of the main line of the reticle doubles on the illuminated versions - MOA .15 non-illum Vs .3 illum and Mil .05 non illim Vs .1 illum. Anyone with illuminated version care to share their experience? Illuminated Reticles at max magnification seem too thick to use. And doesnt it seem backwards? I get it if non illuminated reticles were a little thicker to make them easier to see in poor lighting or dark background, but why make the illuminated reticles thicker??

That is really interesting because other manufacturers are able to illuminate reticle lines as thin as .025 mil. I wonder why Leupold cannot illuminate their .05 mil reticle lines.

 

[rustyinbend]

That is really interesting because other manufacturers are able to illuminate reticle lines as thin as .025 mil. I wonder why Leupold cannot illuminate their .05 mil reticle lines.

Interestingly ... using the illumination or not, the larger reticle lines on my Leupold MK5-HD scopes (I have 7 of them) are easier for my old eyes to see. If they made it for us old guys "by accident" ... it's still appreciated.

 

[918v]

Interestingly ... using the illumination or not, the larger reticle lines on my Leupold MK5-HD scopes (I have 7 of them) are easier for my old eyes to see. If they made it for us old guys "by accident" ... it's still appreciated.

Maybe you’re right. And maybe it makes sense why the illumination costs so much on these scopes.

 

[rustyinbend]

Maybe you’re right. And maybe it makes sense why the illumination costs so much on these scopes.

Answer is easy ... because ... people will pay the price. Luckily, I get the VIP Vets Discount, which is actually really a good amount.

 

[Uscmarine]

Pr1mil illum reticle is better than tmoa illum. Compared both.