I’ve got a classy old rifle with a Griffin and Howe mount. I have both a Lyman Alaskan and a Leupold plainsman 2.5x that could go on it. Any significant differences to weigh on those two scopes ? Also the Lyman has a pointed post with a horizontal cross hair. Is the convention to use the point of the post or the cross of the hairs as they are not one and the same.

I would use the point of the post for aiming and the crosshairs to make sure the rifle is level.

I would change the reticule on the Lyman. I like a simple, fine crosswire. I suspect that it would be a very simple DIY job. But I don't know the internals of the Alaskan, and would have to do some homework.

Brent - you would go to the trouble of changing the reticle on the Lyman vs. just using the Leupold?

yes, if the reticules are similar to what is in an STS, Unertl, or some of those others, it is a pretty easy job to change, so why not get what I want> And, I definitely want all 4 wire segments. Why the Lyman over the Leopold? Because it is a Lyman Alaskan.

I may be incorrect on this, and I am sure that others can correct me and will gladly do so, but I think the differences between using the point and the cross of the hairs are intentional. Zero the point for one range, and find out the approximate range at which the cross of the hairs is good for. Then while hunting estimate the range and decide which to use, the point or the cross.

Copy that Doc. I agree that makes sense and kinda thought I’d go that way. I can’t tell that there is a strong difference between the two scopes and may tinker.

Another thing is lighting, the fine cross-hairs can disappear in low light scenario's while the post and cross-hairs will still stand out. What is good for target shooting might not be so good for hunting.

I’d also try to see if the different aim points correspond to bullet drop, but it may not matter a whole lot if the rifle is relatively flat shooting. I haven’t use an Alaskan for a while, but I remember the post being relatively easy to snap shoot with, after some practice. Best of luck with it.

Depends on how you use them, but a fourth line, especially the overhead wire makes it a lot more likely you can see enough to make the shot. The bottom post, wire, bead, whatever, is the most likely to be invisible in poor light. That's why I like four. One truly only needs to see one segment of horizontal and one of vertical. The rest are a luxury.

If you have a Lyman Alaskan with post and crosshair reticle which you would like to exchange for a crosshair or dot reticle, I will be glad to accommodate you. I have several of both and prefer the post and crosshair.

Xausa appreciate the offer and I will keep you in mind. I am holding things up and speculating. It is a supergrade Win 54 with a G&h side mount. It appears I May be able to mount the Leupold far enough forward to use the safety which would seal the deal for me.

No concern about eye relief with an Alaskan. You could mount it far enough forward to clear the bolt handle as well.

Really????... you're really saying that a fine top vertical reticle wire is more visible under low light conditions than a post??? That is absurd, and PhysDoc is 100% correct about what is better for fast target acquisition under low light hunting conditions.

I use the 4 post w/x hair, 3 post German "standard", and post w/horizontal hair. They are all good in low light, but the 4 post is best, if you "loose" it you can raise it up to the horizon and "find" it again. My favorite is still the 3 post, because of the pointed vertical post when light is better.
Mike

.

My long time fave is a PCH (post & crosshair), but I've come to prefer my Trijicon Accupoint's illuminated post for hunting.

Actually, a POA anywhere in between the tip of the post's delta and the horizontal crosshair will be a telling POI (game shot), if you think about the group size your rifle is capable of shooting.