I see everyone referencing reticle size when talking about mag ranges in scopes. I’m currently shooting a 3.5x18 mk5 and looking to upgrade. I been looking at getting a 4.5-27 or 6-36 and am having an hard time making a decision. I always see people talking about the higher magnification range scope’s having reticles that are unusable at lower magnification. But I was thinking .2 or .5 mill hash marks should look the same size on 5x or 10x from any ffp scope right. To me it doesn’t make sense for a higher magnification scope to have a smaller reticle then a lower magnification scope when they are both on the same power and both have the same reticle. A mill is a mill right? I wanted to get the bigger scope but I’ve seen people post that the reticle is unusable until you get in the higher mag range?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
PRS Talk Optic magnification/reticle size
- Thread starter Ronn
- Start date
An easy way to think about it is if you mounted a ruler on a target, then zoomed in and out with magnification. The ruler size would never change, but it would appear larger and smaller based on magnification.
A FFP reticle is nothing more than a ruler on the target.
As far as useable, not all reticles have the same thickness lines. As well as some reticles are darker/bolder than others. Those things play into what someone will consider "useable." Useable is more a matter of personal opinion/preference than anything.
There's people who think the difference in lines measure 0.03mil and 0.05mil are a significant difference in usability.
Consider the higher magnification scopes will have a thinner (finer) reticle. This keeps the reticle usable at the highest power.
I have a gen2 and gen3 Razor. With both at 15 power the gen2 (27 power) is easier to see.
I run the gen 3 at a higher power to keep the reticle clearer for my old eyes. This also me to measure/aim more quickly.
I have a gen2 and gen3 Razor. With both at 15 power the gen2 (27 power) is easier to see.
I run the gen 3 at a higher power to keep the reticle clearer for my old eyes. This also me to measure/aim more quickly.
Thanks that’s what I’m trying to decide between buying. Is the gen3 a lot better?
Yes the gen 3 is SIGNIFICANTLY better. I wouldn't even consider a gen 2 and unless it was like sub $1k at the point. The gen 3 glass is far better and compares with alpha glass.
Most people are shooting between 18-30x at matches depending on stage type. The extra mag not only helps ( scopes tend to not perform as well at the top end of mag as in middle) so having some more buffer in there is always good. 35/36x optics are also nice for load development and zeroing.
Now if you plan to stay with a mk5, you want the 525 which has better glass than the 735. Very few people run the 735mk5.
I'm in the camp of wanting thinner reticles. .035-.04 is perfect imo for about 20x.
Most people are shooting between 18-30x at matches depending on stage type. The extra mag not only helps ( scopes tend to not perform as well at the top end of mag as in middle) so having some more buffer in there is always good. 35/36x optics are also nice for load development and zeroing.
Now if you plan to stay with a mk5, you want the 525 which has better glass than the 735. Very few people run the 735mk5.
I'm in the camp of wanting thinner reticles. .035-.04 is perfect imo for about 20x.
Last edited:
The glass is much better on the gen 3. It’s is clearer, brighter and crisper. I see much more trace in the gen 3.
I currently run the gen 2 on my club gun and the Gen 3 on match gun.
I run the 3 at 18 power and the 2 at 15 power most stages. The field of view is about the same at those magnifications and the reticle -feels- about the same. In terms ease of picking up the windage marks.
What do you recommend between a mk5 5-25 and gen 3 razor? I have always been a leupold fan but I’ve read several posts about people talking about a wandering zero with the mk5
I shoot a Gen 3 in comps so maybe I am bias but I think its a much better optic than the MK5. It compares closer to the ZCO and Tangent (have owned all of them) than it does the MK5, NF, Kahles and other 2-2.5K optics. Glass, Turrets, Reticle, Eyebox, FOV all are in its favor IMO.
Obviously you can win with a MK5, its a proven scope. But I also know Leupolds history and talking with a bunch of their sponsored shooters over the years, some admit they have gone through a good number of them. I have shot alot of MK5 on demo guns and buddies guns over the last few years, and I really dislike them. They feel cheap and its like looking through a straw. The good thing is we have so many options today, you should be able to find an optic that suits your shooting style and likes.
Obviously you can win with a MK5, its a proven scope. But I also know Leupolds history and talking with a bunch of their sponsored shooters over the years, some admit they have gone through a good number of them. I have shot alot of MK5 on demo guns and buddies guns over the last few years, and I really dislike them. They feel cheap and its like looking through a straw. The good thing is we have so many options today, you should be able to find an optic that suits your shooting style and likes.
Put the PR2 or PR3 in a G3 body with G3 glass, get rid of the Vortex locking turrets and you'd have about the perfect PRS scope.
