Author Topic: mill dot or truplex (Read 1148 times)

rbseagle · « **on:** February 15, 2005, 05:36:46 AM »

first time posting so any advice whould be helpfull. i'am going to buy a scope for my benchrest rifle. the scope i decided on is the simmons 44 mag 6x24 w/ target turrest. what i don't know is to get the milldot or the truplex one. i have never used a milldot scope before, but looks to me it might be easier to see the bullseye with than the truplex.

Zachary · « **Reply #1 on:** February 15, 2005, 04:00:15 PM »

Well first off, WELCOME TO GRAYBEARD OUTDOORS!

As for your question, the answer depends mostly on your personal preference. When you say trueplex, I guess that means duplex which is the standard type of reticle termed by leupold.

Most scopes have duplex-type reticles, but there are advantages to mil-dot scopes. When hunting, I think they are helpful if your shooting varies from 100 yards to 400 yards. I think most people shoot deer within 100 yards or so, which means that a mil-dot is really not all that necessary. However, if you shoot varmints, or large game for that matter, at long distances, then the mil-dot will be helpful IF you know the trajectory of each dot at each respective distance.

This should also benefit you if you a benchrest shooter that shoots at varied distances. However, if you are just shooting at just one set distance, then, you are probably right, the duplex should be easier to see.

Again, although there are benefits to both, it really boils down to personal preference.

Zachary

rbseagle · « **Reply #2 on:** February 16, 2005, 02:11:56 AM »

zachary thanks for the info. i am going to go with the milldot, and also do you know much about the simmons scopes as far staying zeroed and such. i have read on this forum different opinuns it is hard to decied. i only have about $150 to spend on one right now, and since i am mounting it on 22-250 i thought that recoil would not be a factor what do you think?

Zachary · « **Reply #3 on:** February 16, 2005, 11:04:12 AM »

I was once at the range and heard a guy cussing left and right. When I walked next to him to find out what was going on, he told me to take a look through his scope - which was a Simmons Aetec if I remember correctly. Anyway, I saw the cross hairs and they were broken.

Was it just that one particular Simmons scope? I don't know. Yea, maybe it was a defect, but that made me a little skeptical nonetheless.

Zachary

rbseagle · « **Reply #4 on:** February 17, 2005, 02:05:39 AM »

yep something like that will make you stop and wonder. i had a buddy that had 3x9 on a 270 for 5yr's without any trouble, but what impressed me is that he called simmons up & told them that the rubber eye guard had broken and they sent him a new one no questions. the thing that gets me is according to my uncle in the 60's-70's scopes like redfield's 3200 etc. where the stuff. now they are not so good or hit and mise on what you get. why can't manufactures keep the same quality, or do we have better stuff to compare them to now? makes you stop and wonder.

Robert

Zachary · « **Reply #5 on:** February 17, 2005, 04:05:29 AM »

With technology as advanced as it is, I would certainly say that quality, whether good or bad, is at least more uniform than it used to be. This of course is not based on any emprical study, just my personal experience over the years.

Still, this is not to say that every once in a while a defective scope won't hit the market. The Elite 3200s, for example, are very good scopes and the quality is uniform. However, there was one member that mentioned some problems with it. At the moment, I do not quite recall what the exact problem was, but I do remember that it sounded like a defect that had, or at least should have, been returned back to Bushnell for their inspection.

Still, overall, I would say that quality is much more uniform than it used to be.

Zachary