Hi everyone:
I'm looking at a few Leupold Mk4HD FFP scopes and looking for people’s experiences using the PR1, PR2, and PR3 reticles. Here are the four configurations I'm looking at and my thoughts on each one.
2.5-10x42 with PR1-MOA reticle (not illuminated)
- Likes: Reticle and mag range
- Dislikes: Not in MILS and no parallax adjustment (would this really be a problem in this mag range??)
4.5-18x52 with PR1-MIL reticle (illuminated)
- Likes: Reticle, mag range, and adjustable parallax
- Dislikes: Based off a video review I watched, the illuminated PR1 reticle looks thicker than the non-illuminated PR1
4.5-18x52 with PR2-MIL reticle (not illuminated)
- Likes: Mag range and adjustable parallax
- Dislikes: The PR2 reticle seems like it would be too thin to use at lower magnifcations and get washed out in busy/low-light/shaded backgrounds. I want a reticle that is usable at all mag ranges.
6-24x52 with PR3-MIL reticle (not illuminated)
- Likes: Reticle, adjustable parallax, and magnification range
- Dislikes: Not really a dislike, but I’m questioning if 6-24 power would be too much magnification
Application: Long range target rig (mostly casual field shooting but may try my hand at competition)
Caliber: Starting with 308 or similar and moving up to bigger calibers as my skill level improves. 300 Win Mag would probably be the biggest I would ever use.
Distances: 250-1000 Yards (maybe more as my skill level improves)
Target Size: A standard soda can would be my smallest target
Budget: These scopes are at the top end of what I can afford and will be a "buy once cry once" purchase
Notes: I'm leaning toward the PR1 or PR3. Personally, I prefer the non-illuminated PR1 reticle because it is clean and simple. If Leupold offered a finer non-illuminated PR1-MIL reticle in 2.5-10 or 4.5-18, I would be all over that. But Leupold doesn’t offer this, which seems kind of dumb. But I digress…
With the use case I have in mind, which magnification/reticle combo listed would work better for what I want to accomplish?
Thanks!