Ok, I realize that this is a highly subjective question to ones own preference. So I expect some differences of opinion. I am setting up my 338 Lapua A.I. primarily for long range hunting. In the area I live there are no stores that carry the S&B PMII, so I cannot get my hands on them to view the reticles. I have been leaning towards the P4-Fine. I have read that it allows for precise aiming on high magnification because of its smaller width. However recently I have heard the H2CMR is gaining favor.. What can anyone tell me about their preference of these reticles or another favorite S&B reticle for hunting?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes S&B reticle choice P4-Fine or H2CMR
- Thread starter SummitRoofs
- Start date
I cant tell you about P4f but I own a H2CMR.
What I liked about H2 was that it was easily readable by me, a novice scope guy. I was originally thinking of getting MSR but after viewing a post by ROB01 with some pics through the scope I liked what I saw.
H2 could do everything MSR does without the busy features. I like the open mil bubbles. After looking through a S&B equipped MSR I seem to think the reticle is thinner allowing for better shooting on paper.
What I liked about H2 was that it was easily readable by me, a novice scope guy. I was originally thinking of getting MSR but after viewing a post by ROB01 with some pics through the scope I liked what I saw.
H2 could do everything MSR does without the busy features. I like the open mil bubbles. After looking through a S&B equipped MSR I seem to think the reticle is thinner allowing for better shooting on paper.
The .2mil wind brackets allow for more accurate wind holds. The reticle also allows for more accurate ranging than the P4F if you need to do that.
Which model PMII? In the 3-20x50 the reticle thicknesses of the H2CMR and p4f are different, with the H2CMR being 0.05 mils thick and p4f being 0.035. In the 5-25x56 I believe both are 0.035 mil for the mainlines.
FWIW, I like my H2CMR for the reason pmclaine stated. All the functionality of the MSR without clutter and you have 0.2 mil wind holds.
I would hesitate to recommend it for an all around hunting set up though because the outer portion of the stadia are not thick like on most reticles. It can be difficult to pick up the reticle without illumination when zoomed all the way out. I get from your post that you are probably not planning on shooting at 100 yard animals though so it may not matter to you if woods walking is not what you intend.
For example, here's a bad iPhone pic through my 3-20x50 H2CMR at 3x, notice there are no thick outer bars to draw your eye to the center? On second thought, this could also be an advantage for long range hunting, the lack of thick bars increases the scope's viability as a spotter.
For long range I love having the wind holds and easy bracketing/fine break down of the H2CMR, I have never used a p4F.
FWIW, I like my H2CMR for the reason pmclaine stated. All the functionality of the MSR without clutter and you have 0.2 mil wind holds.
I would hesitate to recommend it for an all around hunting set up though because the outer portion of the stadia are not thick like on most reticles. It can be difficult to pick up the reticle without illumination when zoomed all the way out. I get from your post that you are probably not planning on shooting at 100 yard animals though so it may not matter to you if woods walking is not what you intend.
For example, here's a bad iPhone pic through my 3-20x50 H2CMR at 3x, notice there are no thick outer bars to draw your eye to the center? On second thought, this could also be an advantage for long range hunting, the lack of thick bars increases the scope's viability as a spotter.
For long range I love having the wind holds and easy bracketing/fine break down of the H2CMR, I have never used a p4F.
Last edited:
My preference is the the H2CMR, but then again, I do have a bias towards it. I find it to be very functional as well as very quick and easy to read.
Similar threads
