Riflescope for sheep hunting: multi crosshair reticles

[sneer]

I'm planning on picking up a tikka t3 lite in 270WSM. Trying to decide what scope to put on it.

I like higher power scopes for long distances (~14X)...and I like multi crosshair reticles like the Zeiss rapid-z 600 with windage points (I'm not a fan of turrets for hunting).

Besides the Zeiss conquest rapid z600 (4X14X44) and the Leupold VX-3 (4X14X40) with the varmint or B&C reticle, are there any other scopes with similar reticles? (preferably more in the $400 range...and not the $700-800 of the Zeiss and Leupold)

Bushnell's DOA reticle does not have the windage points.

[elkhunter11]

The 4.5-14x44 Conquest is not available with the Z600 reticle, but it is available with the Z800 reticle.

[Kurt505]

Minox ZA5

[elkhunter11]

Minox ZA5

The Minox scopes have fewer elevation hash marks, which aren't marked for yardage. In some cases, they can only have hash marks for three yardages.

A Rapid Z 800 is much better suited to a 270WSM.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The Minox scopes have fewer elevation hash marks, which aren't marked for yardage. In some cases, they can only have hash marks for three yardages.

The XR-BDC is the same as the rapid z-600, it has 4 hash marks under the cross hair, and in low light are more visible than the Zeiss. For the money, I'd go for the Minox, same glass as the Zeiss for a couple hundred less. If I had money to spend it would be on Swarovski Z6.

Originally Posted by Kurt505

The XR-BDC is the same as the rapid z-600, it has 4 hash marks under the cross hair, and in low light are more visible than the Zeiss. For the money, I'd go for the Minox, same glass as the Zeiss for a couple hundred less. If I had money to spend it would be on Swarovski Z6.

The Rapid Z also has 50 yard Hash marks. There are 7 total under the primary crosshair on the Rapid Z 600 but only the ones with 100 yard increments have windage marks as well. With the reticle properly focused there should be no low light issues.

[Squeeker]

I really love my Nikon Monarch 4-12x42mmSF. It has a BDC reticle and with the online software is totally customizable based on your elevation, temp, bullet type & caliber and bullet speed (a few other factors too) to give you multiple aim points on your reticle. It has a side focus instead of the old type on the big end of the scope so it's super quick to adjust your paralax acc to yardage and goes out to 1000yds so plenty of adj. there. The low light performance is outstanding, almost as good as a Ziess but I only paid $529 for my Monarch at Cabelas in Edm. Very very very impressed with this scope (I bought two lol) and if I want to put in on my .22 or my 7RM or even the 45-70 Govt all I do is go to the Nikon website and use the Spot-On program to find out what my POI will be for each reticle feature and at what magnification. I found the program to be very accurate as well. The scope is packed full of features and doesn't weigh a ton and you can still use medium height or even low mount rings to keep a slim profile. They have a model up from mine that's a 4-14x44 I believe and it wasn't much more than the one I got. - Squeek

[elkhunter11]

For the money, I'd go for the Minox, same glass as the Zeiss for a couple hundred less.

Why is it that some people assume that just because Minox buys their raw glass from Schott , that Minox uses the exact same glass as Zeiss? The manufacturers all supply their glass to meet the standards set by the customer, and all customers do not set the same standards. As a result, Schott supplies different grades of glass to different customers. As well, Zeiss and Minox each uses a different set of coatings, so in the end, the lenses are not the same.

The XR-BDC is the same as the rapid z-600, it has 4 hash marks under the cross hair

The Rapid Z also has 50 yard Hash marks. There are 7 total under the primary crosshair on the Rapid Z 600 but only the ones with 100 yard increments have windage marks as well.

So four hash marks is the same as seven hash marks, just like Minox and Zeiss use the same glass.

It's obvious that you would like to think that the Minox is the same as the Conquest, so that you can feel that you can get the same product for less money, but apparently, that isn't the case.

[Justin.C]

Why dont you go with a BDC... I think it is more accurate than any hold over... You just dial to the yardage. The other way in the heat of the moment you could possibly use the wrong hash mark. Also I dont like a real busy scope just a fine cross hair.

[bubba5794]

x2 on nikon monarch...i am looking at the 5-20 x 44...

[elkhunter11]

Why dont you go with a BDC... I think it is more accurate than any hold over... You just dial to the yardage. The other way in the heat of the moment you could possibly use the wrong hash mark. Also I dont like a real busy scope just a fine cross hair.

I use turrets on target rifles, but I tend to avoid them on hunting rifles due to the extra time that it takes to dial turrets. In some situations, you have plenty of time, but in other situations, you don't.

x2 on nikon monarch...i am looking at the 5-20 x 44...

I only own one Nikon Monarch, a 3-12x42 SF that I got for a great deal, and mounted on a 22lr. I won't be purchasing any more, as I find the optics disappointing.

[Justin.C]

[QUOTE=elkhunter11;1214078]I use turrets on target rifles, but I tend to avoid them on hunting rifles due to the extra time that it takes to dial turrets. In some situations, you have plenty of time, but in other situations, you don't.



for me I dont need one till past 400 yards... All guns have a 300 yard zero..

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Why is it that some people assume that just because Minox buys their raw glass from Schott , that Minox uses the exact same glass as Zeiss? The manufacturers all supply their glass to meet the standards set by the customer, and all customers do not set the same standards. As a result, Schott supplies different grades of glass to different customers. As well, Zeiss and Minox each uses a different set of coatings, so in the end, the lenses are not the same.






So four hash marks is the same as seven hash marks, just like Minox and Zeiss use the same glass.

It's obvious that you would like to think that the Minox is the same as the Conquest, so that you can feel that you can get the same product for less money, but apparently, that isn't the case.

Are you trying to pick a fight with me because I think Zeiss is over priced? The rapid Z is busiest scope on the market. Do a web search on comparisons between the two. The Minox has better contrast on darker objects in low light and the rectical is visible longer than the conquest. I just looked through the two side by side less than an hour ago. There is no way I'd buy a Zeiss before the Minox, that's my opinion. I would HIGHLY suggest the OP do the same and try them side by side, the clutter in the rapid z is way more than I want in a hunting scope. Plus Minox has a life time no fault warranty, if your gun falls out of your truck while your doing 100kph, at least you get a new scope, no questions asked.

I'm a bit confused how you can think the Minox reticle is the same as the Rapid Z. Other than they both have multiple croshairs, that's about where the comparison ends. The Minox hash marks do not represent fixed yardages nor is the reticle adjustable for a variety of loads nor is windage indicated. While some may consider the Rapid Z cluttered, others consider it a very useful tool that provides a wide variety of fixed and precise aim points for a wide range of yardages and wind conditions. I don't look at that as cluttered...I look at it as useful in precisely placing long range shots.

In your side by side comparison, did you focus the Rapid Z reticle precisely for your eye or did you just look through one that was handed to you. It's another feature that sets the Rapid Z apart from many other reticles.

[elkhunter11]

Do a web search on comparisons between the two. The Minox has better contrast on darker objects in low light and the rectical is visible longer than the conquest.

And in the same comparisons, the Minox suffered from significant flaring while the Conquest didn't, and the Minox was only clear in the center of the lens, and lost resolution towards the edges, while the Conquest didn't. Most of all, the Conquest is proven while the Minox scopes have suffered from frequent mechanical failures.

Quotes from the CGN forum.

My Minox ZA5 3-15X50 came apart while sighting it in. The objective lens came loose in the housing after 5 shots.
Waiting to see how this gets handled, I'm not ready to write it off as an inferior product but it sure made me question my choice.

Only saw 2 Minox at the range this year and both had warranty work made on them, people buying it over a Zeiss is hard to understand... JP.

Minoz ZA5 4-20X50 which was sent as a replacement for the Minox ZA5 3-15X50 which blew out its objective lens at the range after 5 shots. Two lemons in a row?

From the Opticstalk forum

FWIW, I ordered the 3-15x42. The ocular is loose and I can't get it to focus at higher magnification. The fast focus eye piece moves around taking the reticle with it. Eye relief is closer to 6 inches than 4. Overall not impressed with the one I received. Then again, as some of you know, I have a rare gift of getting the only bad scope a company ever makes.

I just wanted to report that I ordered a Minox 4-20x50 and had the same problems as jetwrnch. The scope tube behind the zoom ring would move up/down/side to side when pushed with my hand. The scope was impossible to use above 12x. The eye relief was also closer to 6" and impossible to mount and use do to a very finicky eye box. The glass was very clear in the center and very distorted and blurry about halfway out of the center. I am very disappointed with the scope and returned for a refund.

The scope I had did the same thing with point of impact moving significantly. I could look through the scope and push down on the rear of the scope as I watched through the scope and see the cross hairs move at least a foot at 100 yards. It was not only the eyepiece itself that would move but the whole tube behind the zoom ring. This would happen with the eyepiece screwed all the way in. I returned the scope I had and am exchanging it for the 3-15x50. Only reason I am trying the 3-15x50 is to see if it does the same thing. I will report back my findings when I get the new scope.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And in the same comparisons, the Minox suffered from significant flaring while the Conquest didn't, and the Minox was only clear in the center of the lens, and lost resolution towards the edges, while the Conquest didn't. Most of all, the Conquest is proven while the Minox scopes have suffered from frequent mechanical failures.

Quotes from the CGN forum.







From the Opticstalk forum

All of these problems were from their first run of rifle scopes and have since fixed the problem with no cost to the customers. They're later scopes don't have the problem as their first production run. They are also made now with a side focus which has fixed the focus issue. I guess I should have said check the recent reviews of the Minox scopes.

As far as when I just did the side by side, yes, I did focus in the scopes. I played with them, as well as a few others from Leupold and Trijicon for a while. For the money I would still by the Minox. I prefer the simplicity of the rectical on the Minox over the Zeiss. I prefer to hit the range and see where my bullets are hitting. I'm not a competition shooter, I'm just a hunter. I can see how using the numbers on the rapid z can definatly help, but for the extra $300-$400 it wouldn't be worth it for me. I'm in no way an authority on optics, I'm just giving the OP an option to look at.

[sneer]

Thanks for the input guys.

As with anything, there's lots of choices and lots of opinions.

Now I just need to go raid the piggy bank!

=Kurt505;1214239As far as when I just did the side by side, yes, I did focus in the scopes.

I didn't say focused the scope...I said focused the reticle...big difference. Most people don't understand how to properly set one up and unfortunately most selling them don't either. Simple to do but you need to know to do it. If the Rapd Z has one downfall, it's poor education of those using or considering them. They are so advanced but so simple it's hard for many to grasp....on both sides of the sales counter.

[elkhunter11]

All of these problems were from their first run of rifle scopes and have since fixed the problem with no cost to the customers.

That replacement scope that was mentioned on the CGN forum only arrived two weeks ago.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

That replacement scope that was mentioned on the CGN forum only arrived two weeks ago.

Zeiss scopes are over priced, you pay for the name. Every manufacturer has defective scopes including Zeiss. I read posts where the Zeiss was falling apart. The OP was looking for a scope with BDC that was less expensive than the Zeiss, not a biased opinion on what someone thinks is best. I own Swarovski, Leupold VX-III, and a Baush and Lomb 4200 and I'm in the market myself for a new scope. I don't want to spend $1000+ on this particular scope, and after doing alot of research, I think I'll be picking up the Minox XR-BDC 3-15x50 with side focus for $589 at Cabelas. Some people need a name on the side of their scope to make them feel better. If I can get what I need for less money, I don't care what it says on the scope. Minox has been around for a long time and have an excellent reputation. That along with their warranty and cs, I've got no worries on spending my money on one of their products.


Sneer, I hope you take a look at Minox, read some recent reviews on them, alot of people who make a living off of doing optic reviews speak very highly of them.

[elkhunter11]

Minox has been around for a long time and have an excellent reputation.

Minox as a company has been around a long time, but it's only recently that they started trying to break into the market with their rifle scopes.
I don't care what label a scope wears either, but I do need to trust a scope, and I can't trust a scope manufacturer that started out with so many issues in such a short time.Until they prove that they have a reliable product, I will leave the testing to other people.

[209x50]

Can anyone fill me in on the minox ballistic reticle? Is it adjustable like the Zeiss to match your cartridge or is it a "dumb" one like a mildot?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Minox as a company has been around a long time, but it's only recently that they started trying to break into the market with their rifle scopes. With such a short history in rifle scopes , and so many problems in that very short history, it will be years before I will trust them enough to buy their scopes.

Yep, that's true, they just started making scopes in 2009, and yes they had a few lemons come off the first production run. They have an excellent lifetime no fault warranty tho, so for $589 I see it as a "can't go wrong" deal. I'm not saying they are the best scope on the market, but I do think they offer the best bang for your buck on the market. I'll tell you what, I'll buy one try it out for a while and give you my honest opinion of it. All either of us know right now is what we've read on the net. I've been trying to get in contact with someone who has had hands on experience with them, but because they're so new it's been tough. I'm willing to spend $600 and find out first hand.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Can anyone fill me in on the minox ballistic reticle? Is it adjustable like the Zeiss to match your cartridge or is it a "dumb" one like a mildot?

I believe it's dumb. Here's the description.


Rebate Available - See Below For Details

• Waterproof and fogproof design
• Standard 1" monotube
• Fully multicoated lenses
• Field and Stream 2011 Best of the Best Awards winner

With MINOX Riflescopes, you get the peace of mind knowing you're purchasing optics from one of Germany’s finest sport optics companies at an uncompromising value. Crafted of incredibly tough, lightweight anodized aluminum, the standard 1" monotube allows for easy, low-profile mounting. The glass is manufactured from German glass specialist, Schott AG, and features fully multicoated lens using the Minox M coating (21 layers of coating on the glass surface for optimal light transmission, brightness, contrast, detail and color rendering). Precise windage and elevation adjustments and up to 5X magnification zoom ranges. The riflescope is system-purged with inert argon gas for waterproof protection, anti-fogging in the inner glass surface and corrosion protection. Smooth-operating soft-touch rubber variable power ring. Rubber-cushioned fast-focus eyepieces with long, 4" eye relief. Scopecoat™ protective field cover (scope cover not included on 56mm models). Manufacturer's full-coverage lifetime warranty.


The ZA 5 3-15x50 is $500 less than the Conquest 4.5-14x50

Don't think anyone is saying the Minox might not be a good scope in its price range but saying it's identical to the Zeiss just insn't true in so many ways. I think that's where you went off track. It may well be a good option for the OP who doesn't want to drop a grand....but identical to a Rapid Z....definitely not. Perhaps there's more reason why the Zeiss costs more than just the name stamped on it. You never answered my question about focusing the reticle on the Rapid Z.

[Marko]

For my sheep rifle, I use a 7MM WSM savage 16, accutrigger, with a nikon monarch 5x20 with the BDC, and I love it. Great in lowlight cond, and great zoom. Easy to use, and I even purchased an app for my iPhone from Nikon, for $5, and it gives you a lot of bullet drift, drop, POI, etc. Good luck, it's a tough decision to make.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Don't think anyone is saying the Minox might not be a good scope in its price range but saying it's identical to the Zeiss just insn't true in so many ways. I ythink that's where you went off track. It may well be a good option for the OP who doesn't want to drop a grand....but identical to a Rapid Z....definitely not. Perhaps there's more reason why the Zeiss costs more than just the name stamped on it. You never answered my question about focusing the reticle on the Rapid Z.

I guess what I should have said was the visual optics are pretty much the same. As for focusing in the reticle on the Z, no, I didn't set it, it didn't seem out of focus. The Minox has 4 hash marks below the main cross hair, in that respect I was comparing to the z 600. Like I said before I prefer the simplicity of the Minox over the clutter of the rapid z. I'd rather take my gun out to the range and know where my gun is shooting, and judge my windage, than have the clutter in my scope. Personal preference. And for my needs, I can't justify spending $500 more for the extra features when there is no optical advantage in the price difference.

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I I'd rather take my gun out to the range and know where my gun is shooting, and judge my windage, than have the clutter in my scope. Personal preference. And for my needs, I can't justify spending $500 more for the extra features when there is no optical advantage in the price difference.

Kurt, I suspect by reading your posts that your experience with ballistic reticles is limited. If you can't justify an extra $400-$500 that's perfectly understandable but to convice yourself that an inferior reticle is better just doesn't make any sense. A superior reticle that does everything the Rapid Z does is hardly clutter. BTW, all gun should be taken to the range to see where they are shooting, Zeiss included. The Minox may be good value in its price range but again, the reticles are light years apart. It's the Rapid Z that actually increases the price of the scope. You could buy a Conquest with Z-Plex for right around the same price as the Minox so I'd hope they are optically similar. Lots of good optics in that price range.

[ishootbambi]

ill avoid the silliness on scope talk and just politely point out that i dont think its even neccessary. ive never had any issues getting into bow range of sheep. they arent a particularly bright or wary animal. in fact....the next one i kill will be with my bow more than likely.