im looking at the Zeiss Diavari V 6-24x56* illuminated rifle scope but are there any reticals that are as thin as the varmint retical of my leupold which is very thin ????????
Registered User
im looking at the Zeiss Diavari V 6-24x56* illuminated rifle scope but are there any reticals that are as thin as the varmint retical of my leupold which is very thin ????????
......................
Have a look on here ... Rifles scopes -> Reticules
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A80033F8E4...2571C5004EAE5E
ATB
Alan
Registered User
No there not as thin as Leupold but I have shoot foxes with my zeiss out to 385 yds in day light and 348 yds in the dark (lamp) I would be good to go out to 400 - 500 if I could range it well, how far do you want to go LOLOriginally Posted by strud34
Registered User
your right i just like the thin retical if not as thin how do thay comper? ( spuds are quite small at 300 yards). Thanks sir-slots-alot dont you have a Zeiss? if so what one do you have and retical think i see in a vid of you with a tekka ?
......................
Mine have 43 ret - which is easily thin enough for my needs.
ATB
Alan
Last edited by sir-slots-alot; 28-12-2009 at 11:29 PM.
22/250 User.
well got mine today after wanting for one some months back.
didnt think i would get one but got there in the end.
a big scope. not as heavy as i guessed it was going to be.
good turrets postive clicks.
nice big px on the side marked out better then the conquest. so no guessing between numbers like on the conquest.
good ir on the side. no clicks just a controlled turn to get the chrosshair dim or bright. it holds the level you had it on to .which is a nice touch.
good field of view which i really like' and the glass is super clear and sharp
and the colour of things your looking at seam better then the conquest.
the victory is 3 times the price of a conquest so is it worth it ? well it is better thats a fact but 3 times the price better i dont no. only time and use will tell if i have done the right thing.
its not to bad as i still have the conquest to use on the 222
i didnt think i would like the mildot ir rectical number 43. but they are nice and fine so shouldnt be a problem.
have to get out and get at those foxes now. to see how it is at dusk and under the lamp.
should be superb
Registered Pheasant Fancier
well got mine today after wanting for one some months back.
didnt think i would get one but got there in the end.
a big scope. not as heavy as i guessed it was going to be.
good turrets postive clicks.
nice big px on the side marked out better then the conquest. so no guessing between numbers like on the conquest.
good ir on the side. no clicks just a controlled turn to get the chrosshair dim or bright. it holds the level you had it on to .which is a nice touch.
good field of view which i really like' and the glass is super clear and sharp
and the colour of things your looking at seam better then the conquest.
the victory is 3 times the price of a conquest so is it worth it ? well it is better thats a fact but 3 times the price better i dont no. only time and use will tell if i have done the right thing.
its not to bad as i still have the conquest to use on the 222
i didnt think i would like the mildot ir rectical number 43. but they are nice and fine so shouldnt be a problem.
have to get out and get at those foxes now. to see how it is at dusk and under the lamp.
should be superb
You really should have gone for the '60' reticule
22/250 User.
i wanted that one mark but by the the time my cash was freed up. uttings and other big gunshops had stopped stocking the older model.You really should have gone for the '60' reticule
due to this new fl range. so i had to go secondhand to find the older model and at the time the 43 ret was the only one i could find.
i will see how i get on with it. and if i cant. i will get it changed at zeiss.
Last edited by jamie g; 09-11-2011 at 09:56 AM.
Registered Pheasant Fancier
The '60' reticule on mine is very thin (same as Ballie's) I can highly recommend that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote