Over the years I have noticed a lot of folks here prefer a 4A reticle over a standard duplex reticle. Why?
Get into some low light and every bit of non clutter becomes more appreciated especially as you get into your 50s. At least that’s my perspective.
Just try a 4 or 4a reticle and you will see for yourself For hunting I prefer just about any 4 a or 4a version over a duplex Love zeiss #60 especially illuminated
Agreed, it's great in lowlight and in all conditions it naturally draws your eye to the crosshair.
For general hunting, my favorite reticle.
The 4A reticle is my idea of a great hunting reticle. I have a heavy 4A in a Kahles Helia C and a 4A illuminated reticle in a Leica Visus, both 2.5-10x50 with 30 mm tubes. Suits me just fine.
The trijicon version is the best woods hunting reticle I’ve ever seen, by far.
Exactly, Low light reticle. All but 3 of my optics have this type of reticle.
I tried a 4A in the Swarovski 3-9x36 and really liked it. As others have said it seems to unclutter the view in the top half of the scope. I've since picked up a few more of the same scope and only bought the 4A models and passed up the duplex ones.
I tried a Burris with a 3P #4 illuminated reticle, and that began my drift away from duplex &/or holdover reticles. The dot was just the right size for the game & distances I hunt, and it worked in all light conditions. For my eyes, at this time in my life, this kind of reticle is as close to, "point 'n click" as it gets.
My most recent scope is a Meopta R2 1.7-10 with the 4C illuminated reticle. It's about everything I could want in a general hunting scope.
If I was into varmint or target shooting, I might choose differently, but I'm just a hunter.
FC
The nice thing about the 4A reticle is that the top section doesn't block out so much of the animal your aiming at. With the other three bold sections, a bold top section is not all that necessary, anyway.
Top section of a duplex is completely useless to me. I noticed less fidgeting for that perfect shot placement when it was removed the equation. I have let several friends look through one of my #4 and to a man each felt it got them on target faster.
I would take it a step further and vote for removing the bottom vertical post as well as the top one. Less obstruction there too would be an aid when doing holdover in low light. The two remaining horizontal beams would suffice to draw the eye into the center, no?
Where I don't like reticles other than simple thin crosshairs is when shooting paper targets at 50/100/200 yards. Since that encompasses 99% of my shooting anymore I seek out scopes with simple crosshairs, which is no easy task among scopes made today. There are indeed instances where the K.I.S.S. principle holds sway.
Gnoaahh- I can understand that I suppose. Different application than hunting.
OP I also tried #1 post before but didn't like it much. Not having the... let's call it "artificial horizon" of the crossbar had me missing that leveling effect. In contrast, I never once missed the upper vertical part of a duplex.
On the plus side the #1 as thick and likely good for very low-light stuff closer in if I could have warmed to it. I put it on Dad's 30-30 where I think it was better suited.
Follically challenged- I have that same Burris. Love it for hogs in low light - for anything and everything. The center dot is a bit large for target work but it was a heck of a deal from Natchez. A friend and I compared it to my vx-3 swapping back and forth past dark and it was at least as good and bright....which sort of ruffled me.
The 4A is easily amongst THE schittiest of reticles going and slams windows of opportunity shut...even when Illuminated. Hint.
Just sayin'...............