Leupold TMR vs Premeir Reticle Gen 2 XR

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by dr14, Sep 19, 2005.

  1. dr14

    dr14 Active Member

    Messages:
    26
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Looking at one of these reticles on a Mark 4 6.5-20x50 mainly for hunting and some target shooting out to 1000 yds max. I've emailed Leupold to see if the TMR could be put in the FFP by the custom shop with no response yet. Any opinions on any of this would be appreciated.
     
  2. hareng

    hareng Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    77
    Joined:
    May 29, 2005
    Speak to Dick Thomas he will put you right. www.premierreticles.com
    http://www.premierreticles.com/index.php?uid=5465&page=5674&main=1
    Reservations on XR line and dot thickness for hunting.
    The Gen2 as piccied on full mag is too thick, when on lowest mag it is about right, it is also less cluttered than XR. Xr look too fine for hunting applications at respectable ranges, add to this counting and concentrating which line to use- maybe a case of less is more.
    Not sure if these 1st focal plane mods degrade the optical quality, my VX3 is a little grainy and lacks definition above 38magish, something the genuine fixed mag Mark 4 are renowned for.
    If you can live with the TMR as is, go for that, if not it will only be the GEN2 or XR.
     

  3. dr14

    dr14 Active Member

    Messages:
    26
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Thanks Jonny. Dick at Premier Reticle wasn't in but Robby? said that The Gen 2 mildot would be more suited for hunting as the XR lines and dots might be too fine under some conditions.
    Leupold said it wasn't phsicaly possible for them to put the TMR in the FFP right now in the 6.5-20 power, only the 3.5-10 that is coming out soon.
     
  4. Jon A

    Jon A Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,092
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    [ QUOTE ]
    Leupold said it wasn't phsicaly possible for them to put the TMR in the FFP right now in the 6.5-20 power, only the 3.5-10 that is coming out soon.

    [/ QUOTE ]
    Unfortunately, they said the same thing for 4.5-14's but it gets even worse--they have no plans to do it unless they get a whole lot of demand.

    I like the looks of the TMR quite a bit better than the Gen 2 Mil-Dot as I think one could be much more precise with the lines (for holding over or windage) and they wouldn't cover as much of the target...but I just can't see putting one in without it being FFP when the Gen 2 is available in FFP.

    After using a VHR for a while now, I've found one of the biggest compromises is that it only works at one power setting. It's still very useful, I would just much prefer it or any other reticle used for holding off points to be FFP.

    Then again, if you're clicking both elevation & windage it may not make much difference if it's not FFP...but in that case you probably only need a standard duplex anyway.
     
  5. Jon A

    Jon A Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,092
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    A little more research has changed my mind a little bit. The posts on the Gen 2 are more than twice as thick (at 1 full Mil) as the TMR (at .4 mil). For a FFP installation I'm thinking the thinner posts of the TMR may make them more difficult to see under low light at low power--where they have visually "shrunk" in thickness.

    Of course that only applies to FFP installations--the TMR posts look more than thick enough for rear focal plane installs.

    Anyway, I thought that tidbit might be useful for some chosing between the two.