Help me select a reticle

[Duffy]

I'm purchasing a Sako TRG-S in .338 Lapua, the sporting variant and not the sniper's rifle. It must serve as a general-purpose rifle, and not a dedicated long-range rig. I do not expect to try hunting shots beyond 400-yards, but with such a caliber, a 500-yard shot is feasible.

It will be used in Ontario, and being a non-traditional college student, I will return to relative poverty for the duration. It must do many jobs as I shall but one rifle. I may employ it in the brush, where ranges are short but want versatility. I always employ lighted reticles as they make a difference for me.

1. The German # 4 looks good for running game, but what about longer range?

2. The duplex reticle looks good for genral use, but perhaps not running game. What do you think?

3. Mil-dots look good for long-range, but what about running game?

4. Is there anything I may have forgotten or failed to consider?

 

[älg]

Well how far are you going to shoot this running game? if it is in the brush it wont be too far so a ranging/distance estimating reticle may not be needed.

For LR, any reticle which is thin enough and using the scope turret adjustments will do. The mildot and similar reticles give you a hand when you need to adjust for elevation ( or even lead) if you cannot make adjustments.

The mil dot reticle also uses mils in the sides of the crosshair so it can also be useful for windage/lead estimations.

Take a look at the TDS reticle offered by Swaro and others.. it may fit well your needs for nt very long shots ( say under 700 yds).

Now I wonder why you want a 338 lapua for shooting in the brush??? it is not a cheap cartridge.

Take also a look at the flash dot reciles offered by some european makers (Schmidt Bender hunting scopes), Zeiss has soimething similar under a different name. They can be used for normal shots with no illum. with a classic reticle, and turn th elight on with a red dot for quick shots.

 

[Duffy]

As you suggested, I've examined the TDS reticle and find it may be quite useful. The Zeiss as well as the Schmidt & Bender look desirable as well, but their cost is somewhat more than I can afford as I save for college.

I selected the .338's due to their capacity to handle substantially larger game than a .30 caliber. Initially I'll be using it in Germany for wild boar. In Canada, it's likely to be used on moose and black bear. In the states, elk may be the target.

The faster .338's offered better ranging than the standard Winchester, but less recoil and jet-effect than the super .338's like the Excaliber, .338/378, and Lazzeroni. The .340 Weatherby has a belt, and I had poor performance with short-shanked midweight bullets in the .300 Wby. I hypothesized the .300 Wby may have specified a funnel-throat design rather than a paralell throat, but didn't investigate after I traded it away. After that, I declined to consider a belted cartridge as shoulder headspacing usually provides better accuracy. This left me with the .338 Remington UltraMag and .338 Lapua to choose from. They have similar performance, though the Remington is somewhat more efficient. As I do not know where I'll settle, the Lapua seemed a better choice for worldwide use due to it's growing popularity within multiple militaries.

I enjoy reloading rather passionately, and while the Lapua cases are more expensive than others, their quality is quite high. Granted, the lapua case digests substantial quantities of powder, but I'm used to loading for the .300 Remington UltraMag, (traded away), and the .338 Lapua isn't all that dreadful really.

Regarding short range shots, the Canadian bush can be quite claustraphobic with shots as close as 30-yards. I can't take my revolvers to Canada, so "old reliable" won't accompany me to college. I have a shotgun, but what about shots beyond 100-yards? My Dan Wesson was more accurate at 150-yards than a rifled shotgun at 100, and there's something plebian about hunting big game with slugs that cools my hunting ardor. It's sort of like riding a mule in the Preakness, isn't it?