Spotting scope, glass vs reticle

[Formidilosus]

As a field spotter, the Leupold is a much better tool than the Swarovski above for a few reasons.

1st, eye relief. The eye relief is so short, that to get a full sight picture it has to touch your face even at the lowest power (this is the case with all/nearly all Swaro’s, Kowa’s, etc.). Add any instability at all, and you touching the eyepiece makes growing through it a poor experience.


2nd, minimum magnification. The above Swaro’s minimum magnification is 25x- this a problem for quickly finding animals and getting setup. It can and does cause issues with spotting trace in higher mirage situations, and is a problem keeping it on game if they move. It also hurts in anything but bright light.


Yes the clarity is very good, but its criticalness in use negates nearly all of the optical quality when actually trying to use it as a device to help find and kill things. My last use of it is an example. Sheep hunting this past year and took the Swaro. Leupold was back at the mothership getting repaired after 14 years of heinous use, and I chose the Swaro over the 15x binos because “sheep”. 100% the 15x binos would have been better.

25x was too much min mag for scanning. In broken steep terrain getting it set to look through was a pain due to the extremely short eye relief, and even when I did- it touching my face made the image shake so bad it was mostly worthless.


This isn’t just me either/ we had 12 Roksliders last summer and once they used them side by side, most did not want to use either Swaro that was present.

 

[Wyo_hntr]

Hmmmm food for thought.

I wish a third party would make a fixed power mil reticle for kowa's.

 

[Formidilosus]

99.99% of time behind a spotting scope is searching for game -

You search- that is scan for game with a spotter for long periods of time? What game?

Everyone I have hunted with and been around uses binos to scan and search, the spotter to examine. You cannot use one eye to scan/search for hours without eye strain and a headache- it’s almost always the wrong tool for the job.

do you not find looking through and around a mil reticle to be distracting?

Thats a poor reticle design. The reticle should not cover the center of the FOV. Ideally it should be an “L” shape reticle in the corner of the FOV, unfortunately manufactures are filled with people that design things but don’t use them in the field. The next best reticle in a spotter is the Horus H32 with the top 50% of the FOV clear.


This is a poor pic through the spotter in low light, but you can see how much of the FOV is above the reticle-



This is zoomed way in on the camera to show the center of the FOV, but the reticle stops at 50% on 12x and takes up less and less of the FOV as power is increased.




That is not an ideal reticle, but no- it is not distracting at all to use.

 

[Fire_9]

Minox used to make a spotter with a reticle. I have one of their smaller spotters and I really feel that thing punches above its weight for what it is.

 

[Shortschaf]

If you can teach them (and you can) to use the reticle correctly while spotting for you, or you for them- absolutely one with a reticle.

If with a new shooter that wouldn't be able to understand MIL corrections (due to time and/or life constraints), I'm not letting them shoot unless I can guarentee a hit

For all the people saying no reticle, how much experience do yall have calling shots both practicing off a flat range and hunting for another shooter?

Enough to know that a reticle is invaluable in certain cases. You obviously are right that they are superior for calling shots.

But to the OP's question:
For MOST rifle hunters in the west, I say better glass will serve them better. I say that because in my experience, a reticle is only truly useful when all of the following are true

• Shooter understands holdovers
• Shooter has a FFP reticle
• Shooter has a spotter
• Shooter can't see their own impacts
• Spotter knows how to call impacts
• Spotter can see the impacts
• If spotter's reticle and shooter's reticle are mismatched MOA/MIL, spotter can quickly convert for the shooter

Often, they are not all true. When they are, yes, I want a reticle.

Proficient MIL based shooters who shoot with other proficient MIL based shooters are probably better served with a reticle in their spotter. I'd softly argue that those same people are just as capable of spotting with their riflescopes. But most importantly, "proficient MIL based shooter" doesn't describe the majority of hunters in my opinion.

Do I think that the MK4 is a bad spotter to bring with hunting? No. I have one and love it.
Would I bring that over a Kowa compact for a sheep hunt? Probably not.

 

[TaperPin]

You search- that is scan for game with a spotter for long periods of time? What game?

Everyone I have hunted with and been around uses binos to scan and search, the spotter to examine. You cannot use one eye to scan/search for hours without eye strain and a headache- it’s almost always the wrong tool for the job.

We just hunt differently. I scan with binoculars, then go back over the same area with a spotting scope to pick the area apart - I assumed most western hunters do that, but I guess not. I’ve found many big deer bedded down in the brush or krumholtz that were invisible with binoculars. A lot of guys can use a spotter for hours every day at high power.

 

[mtnwrunner]

I have a midrange glass quality spotter (bushnell lmss2 tremor4 reticle) and it's been very adequate and it does what i need it to do. Not alpha glass but I need a reticle for my system and I have no issue with the reticle clogging things up.

Randy

 

[Elkangle]

I've literally put a leupold spot on elk with a swaro on the same elk and told the leupold lover to find the elk and they couldn't and then looked into the swaro and they just about pooped there pants

I would absolutely love a small reticle, for shooting and scoring but zero chance I can give up the opportunity of Spotting the game

I don't glass for hours on end with a spotter, I grid with the binos and then scan with the spotter...90% binos, 10% spotter...it's annoying how many animals I find with that last 10% of time with the spotter..I do this all day

 

[JGRaider]

95% of the time you'll kill game under 300 yards so you won't need a MIL reticle anyway. If you're bound and determined to have one, Tract makes a badass spotter with interchangeable eyepieces so you can have the best of both worlds.

 

[Formidilosus]

If with a new shooter that wouldn't be able to understand MIL corrections (due to time and/or life constraints), I'm not letting them shoot unless I can guarentee a hit

How do you guarantee a new shooter a hit? What do you do when they miss? Because all shooters will miss at some point? And are you letting new shooters shoot at it past 400 yards as the OP stated he is?

Why are you and others making up scenarios? The OP asked between a reticle and no reticle, and said at least 60% of the time he is hunting with someone else. I teach nearly everyone, including brand new people how to use a mil reticle and make corrections from a spotter while we are hunting. It takes 10 minutes of explanation and practice to do so. Then continuous talk ons to an object picked out, and have them give corrections.

It’s not that hard.

Enough to know that a reticle is invaluable in certain cases. You obviously are right that they are superior for calling shots.

But to the OP's question:
For MOST rifle hunters in the west, I say better glass will serve them better. I say that because in my experience, a reticle is only truly useful when all of the following are true

• Shooter understands holdovers
• Shooter has a FFP reticle
• Shooter has a spotter
• Shooter can't see their own impacts
• Spotter knows how to call impacts
• Spotter can see the impacts
• If spotter's reticle and shooter's reticle are mismatched MOA/MIL, spotter can quickly convert for the shooter

Often, they are not all true. When they are, yes, I want a reticle.

There are several that aren’t objectively true, or are very easy to correct- however how many people shooting in the field in the west are seeing every single one of their splash or impacts while hunting?

Proficient MIL based shooters who shoot with other proficient MIL based shooters are probably better served with a reticle in their spotter. I'd softly argue that those same people are just as capable of spotting with their riflescopes. But most importantly, "proficient MIL based shooter" doesn't describe the majority of hunters in my opinion.

I can count on one hand in the last 3-4 years people that consistently see their own splash/impacts while hunting. Thats out of dozens of shooters/hunters including national and world class.

Do I think that the MK4 is a bad spotter to bring with hunting? No. I have one and love it.
Would I bring that over a Kowa compact for a sheep hunt? Probably not.

Sheep hunting is specialized. Coues deer hunting can be specialized. General elk, deer, bear, antelope is not specialized- it’s general.

 

[Wyo_hntr]

I doubt I ever get rid of my kowa, it's just too good (and honestly I use it to just observe wildlife year round...yes kinda a bird nerd). Or maybe I will. Hard to have the best of both worlds.

But the GPOtac45 looks interesting. The revic acura would be great if it wasn't so moa heavy. Perhaps Vortex with a reticle eyepiece (or tract).

 

[Alex Genereux]

View attachment 668845

As a field spotter, the Leupold is a much better tool than the Swarovski above for a few reasons.

1st, eye relief. The eye relief is so short, that to get a full sight picture it has to touch your face even at the lowest power (this is the case with all/nearly all Swaro’s, Kowa’s, etc.). Add any instability at all, and you touching the eyepiece makes growing through it a poor experience.


2nd, minimum magnification. The above Swaro’s minimum magnification is 25x- this a problem for quickly finding animals and getting setup. It can and does cause issues with spotting trace in higher mirage situations, and is a problem keeping it on game if they move. It also hurts in anything but bright light.


Yes the clarity is very good, but its criticalness in use negates nearly all of the optical quality when actually trying to use it as a device to help find and kill things. My last use of it is an example. Sheep hunting this past year and took the Swaro. Leupold was back at the mothership getting repaired after 14 years of heinous use, and I chose the Swaro over the 15x binos because “sheep”. 100% the 15x binos would have been better.

25x was too much min mag for scanning. In broken steep terrain getting it set to look through was a pain due to the extremely short eye relief, and even when I did- it touching my face made the image shake so bad it was mostly worthless.


This isn’t just me either/ we had 12 Roksliders last summer and once they used them side by side, most did not want to use either Swaro that was present.

Have you tried the revic s65a is so how does it compare to the leupold that you like best?

 

[Shortschaf]

How do you guarantee a new shooter a hit? What do you do when they miss? Because all shooters will miss at some point? And are you letting new shooters shoot at it past 400 yards as the OP stated he is?

Answering all these just by answering the last one--no. I did not suggest the OP was a new shooter

Why are you and others making up scenarios? The OP asked between a reticle and no reticle, and said at least 60% of the time he is hunting with someone else. I teach nearly everyone, including brand new people how to use a mil reticle and make corrections from a spotter while we are hunting. It takes 10 minutes of explanation and practice to do so. Then continuous talk ons to an object picked out, and have them give corrections.

I was answering the original post for the sake of internet archive, and not necessarily the original poster's unique situation.

It’s not that hard.

Agree. But I'm not gunning to get my 12 year old neice nor anyone's 50 year old dad/uncle to understand holdovers just for their yearly deer.

There are several that aren’t objectively true, or are very easy to correct-

I agree that there are some that are easy to correct. Some not at all. And I think the only subjective one is the FFP statement, if not please point out. Regardless of objectivity do you disagree with any in a big way?

however how many people shooting in the field in the west are seeing every single one of their splash or impacts while hunting?

Nobody is seeing or suggesting thst you see "every single one". From 400+ yards, I'd say over 50% of the time from a good position. Inside 400 yards, or not a solid rest? Forget it. Have a spotter.

Unless of course you're shooting a 223, 6creed, 6UM etc with a Rokstok and your scope at 6x... why aren't you seeing your impacts? (Not the point of the discussion, but you asked and I thought it was funny ha)

I can count on one hand in the last 3-4 years people that consistently see their own splash/impacts while hunting. Thats out of dozens of shooters/hunters including national and world class.

This was in reply to my comment about proficient shooters, but I was not suggesting that all proficient shooters spot their impacts in my comment. I was suggesting that if there is a pair/group of them hunting together, they will all satisfy the "criteria" I listed, and will benefit from a reticle in a spotter. They are also fully capable of using a riflescope for spotting misses if needed 90% of the time. They are also capable of talking and correcting in inches if it was necessary due to lack of reticle.

I, in no way, suggest reticles are BAD. But if you forced me and to choose between having good glass or a having a reticle (root question of original post), I choose glass. To me there's more perceived benefit. I'd really rather NOT choose and just have both.

 

[Wrongside]

95% of the time you'll kill game under 300 yards so you won't need a MIL reticle anyway. If you're bound and determined to have one, Tract makes a badass spotter with interchangeable eyepieces so you can have the best of both worlds.

The reticle is useful for more than just spotting shots IME. It’s great to have for measuring/judging animals, etc.

I have a 85mm spotter w/ fixed Mil eyepiece that is just adequate optically. I’ve been wanting to upgrade for years. But none of the available options are perfect, IMO. The Tract 65mm is very, very good optically, thru both eyepieces. But the MRad reticle eyepiece design, reticle design and location are less than ideal. Or I’d have purchased one the day I was able to try one out.

It’d be nice if one of the higher end optical manufactures would make a good quality FFP variable 65mm spotter, with stellar glass. They’d sell a boatload.

 

[rbutcher1234]

Best system I have found is a reticle spotting scope, scan with rangefinding binos. Rangefinding binos just cuts out a step.

Way easier to tell a shooter to send their second shot “.1 mil up, .6 mil right” than to say “hey man you missed maybe 2-3 inches high and 10 inches off the side”

Much faster under stress to use the references given to you than to try and translate what someone said into your scopes measurement value and then do the opposite what they said to correct.


(*these numbers are made up for illustrative purposes, don’t try to crunch the ballistics for those numbers and concoct a scenario)

 

[TaperPin]

I have a midrange glass quality spotter (bushnell lmss2 tremor4 reticle) and it's been very adequate and it does what i need it to doView attachment 668867View attachment 668868View attachment 668870. Not alpha glass but I need a reticle for my system and I have no issue with the reticle clogging things up.

Randy

The way many of us glass with a spotter, we scan every part of the available image for an antler, leg, horizontal object, or patch of hair, move the scope slightly, rinse and repeat. Nothing prevents someone from doing that with your reticle, but the lower 1/3 of the image wouldn’t be usable for me. Making 1/3 more scope moves to cover the same amount of countryside wouldn‘t be horrible, so I’m starting to see how it would still be usable.

 

[JGRaider]

The reticle is useful for more than just spotting shots IME. It’s great to have for measuring/judging animals, etc.

I have a 85mm spotter w/ fixed Mil eyepiece that is just adequate optically. I’ve been wanting to upgrade for years. But none of the available options are perfect, IMO. The Tract 65mm is very, very good optically, thru both eyepieces. But the MRad reticle eyepiece design, reticle design and location are less than ideal. Or I’d have purchased one the day I was able to try one out.

It’d be nice if one of the higher end optical manufactures would make a good quality FFP variable 65mm spotter, with stellar glass. They’d sell a boatload.

I'd be willing to be I could judge an animal in 1/5th the time it takes to figure it out using a MIL reticle.

 

[huntsman22]

My solution is a scope with good glass and a fixed 30x eyepiece with an unobtrusive mil reticle. Swaro 65 with Vortex gen1 eyepiece.

 

[Shortschaf]

My solution is a scope with good glass and a fixed 30x eyepiece with an unobtrusive mil reticle. Swaro 65 with Vortex gen1 eyepiece.

A mk4 spotter has got to be better optical quality than that combo. No?

 

[huntsman22]

I really doubt it..... leupold don't make anything that will hang with a swaro.