Im interested on opinions on comparing these two reticles. I like the look of the XR reticle but I'm wondering if the hold overs are really all that useful. I do like more of the reticle being lit in the XR vs the standard Gen II. I've heard that the topic of how much of the reticle should be lit was one of debate in the design of the Gen II mil dot. Can any body tell me why they decided to just illuminate the very center of the crosshairs?
Go with the standard Gen II. I had the XR in a 5-25 and didn't like it. Too fine and the dots are too small at .1 mil instead of the Gen II .2 mils. I have had the standard Gen II in Leupold, Premier and S&B scopes and like it alot.
Rob,
Do you like the small lit portion of the reticle vs the larger portion? Also, how did you like the thickness of the Gen II at full magnafication? Was it a little too thick or did you think it was just right? By the way I have already ordered a PH in 3-15 with the XR reticle. I'm just having a few second thoughts about which reticle would be the best choice. Correct me if I'm wrong but the size change in the reticle shouldn't be as extreme with the 3-15 as it was with your 5-25. Would that help with the XR reticle being too fine as you stated?
I never really used the illumination on the Premiers I had and the Leupold didn't have it. The S&B with the Gen II has just the center lit. I would rather have more but it's workable.
I have the Gen II in a 5-25 S&B and it's not too thick at max power. The reticle will subtend the same at any power so 15x in a 5-25 will be the same as 15x in a 3-15. Get it and try it. You might like it but I didn't care for it.
The reticle will subtend the same at any power so 15x in a 5-25 will be the same as 15x in a 3-15. Get it and try it. You might like it but I didn't care for it.
I thought that since they were both 5x magnification, then the 3-15 at 3x would have the same thickness as the 5-25 at 5x, so the recticle doesn't become too thick at 25x and too thin on the 3x. Or am I incorrect?
I thought that since they were both 5x magnification, then the 3-15 at 3x would have the same thickness as the 5-25 at 5x, so the recticle doesn't become too thick at 25x and too thin on the 3x. Or am I incorrect?[/quote]
I think I understand what Rob is saying. For example the small dots in XR reticle subtend at .1 mil in both the 3-15 and the 5-25 models. Since both scopes are FFP the dots will subtend at .1 mils no matter what power they are set at. That means when the 3-15 model is set at say 10x the reticle will be the exact same size as the reticle in the 5-25 model when it is set on 10x.
I've got the Gen 2 XR and love the reticle. I think it is an excellent design. However I do think that the Gen 2 Mil-Dot is nice also and has a place. For 800 meters or less I think the Gen 2 Mil-Dot is the better choice. However when you start talking about 1000 plus yards the Gen 2 XR work better.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Sniper & Sharpshooter Forums
466.3K posts
47.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to Sharpshooters and Sniper enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, modifications, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!