Anyone have Hawke Vantage 3-9x40 and a 2-7x32 scopes?

[Bayman]

I ask because I'm looking at getting a 2-7x32 ao Hawke Vantage but some of the reviews stated that the reticle was too thick. I have several Vantage 3-9x40 ao and 4-12x40ao scopes and the reticle is fine enough for me. I'm trying to determine if the same reticle is used on the 2-7x32 as is the ones I already have. According to their website they are all listed as MilDot with accurate mildot spaceing @ 10x.?? Doesn't mean it's the same thickness.
Thanks

[Frank]

I have the 2-7x32 and don't see where the reticle could be called thick. It's pretty thin. The mil-dot which is in the center is thinner than the outer portion but even that is not what I would call thick. 

[Bayman]

I have the 2-7x32 and don't see where the reticle could be called thick. It's pretty thin. The mil-dot which is in the center is thinner than the outer portion but even that is not what I would call thick.

Thanks that's interesting because on the 3-9x40 there's no dot in the center.
Thanks for your help
Ron

[UCChris]

I have a 2-7x32 Sport HD AO and the reticle is a bit thick IMO. Certainly nowhere as thin as the SWFA and Vortex DB FFP scopes that I have.

[Josan]

There are shooters who believe "the thinner, the better!". To my opinion that is not true. It depends on the circumstances. If you shoot paper on a well lit range, a thin reticle is fine. If you hunt or shoot against darker and more crowded backgrounds, or your eyes are getting tired or old, a reticle that's a bit thicker is much more comfortable. Under less ideal conditions it's a pita to be searching for that hairlike wire and those miniscule dots. It detracts from the shooting and target acquisition takes more time. In general the Hawke Vantage reticles are intermediate thickness. I have the 2-7x32, the 3-9x40 and the 4-12x40.

[Bayman]

There are shooters who believe "the thinner, the better!". To my opinion that is not true. It depends on the circumstances. If you shoot paper on a well lit range, a thin reticle is fine. If you hunt or shoot against darker and more crowded backgrounds, or your eyes are getting tired or old, a reticle that's a bit thicker is much more comfortable. Under less ideal conditions it's a pita to be searching for that hairlike wire and those miniscule dots. It detracts from the shooting and target acquisition takes more time. In general the Hawke Vantage reticles are intermediate thickness. I have the 2-7x32, the 3-9x40 and the 4-12x40.

Thank you for the response. Would you say say they all look the same at the same magnification? I'm totally fine with my Vantage 3-9x40ao and my 4-12x40ao scopes. That's the point of this post.
Thanks much
Ron Stearns

[Josan]

Thank you for the response. Would you say say they all look the same at the same magnification? I'm totally fine with my Vantage 3-9x40ao and my 4-12x40ao scopes. That's the point of this post.
Thanks much
Ron Stearns

Hi Ron, the magnification has no influence on the apparent thickness of the reticle in a second-focal-plane scope like the Vantage series. I would say the thickness of the reticle in the three scopes i mentioned above are comparable at all magnifications.

[Bayman]

Thank you for the response. Would you say say they all look the same at the same magnification? I'm totally fine with my Vantage 3-9x40ao and my 4-12x40ao scopes. That's the point of this post.
Thanks much
Ron Stearns

Hi Ron, the magnification has no influence on the apparent thickness of the reticle in a second-focal-plane scope like the Vantage series. I would say the thickness of the reticle in the three scopes i mentioned above are comparable at all magnifications.

Thanks, I didn't know if they used the same wire reticle on the smaller scope is all. Thanks for the information. Very useful. Now I know what I'm getting since I have the other 2 models and am happy with them.
BTW, On second focal plane scopes the reticle does appear the same thickness throughout the different magnifications. But technically the subtensions change with magnification changes. So the same reticle covers more target area at lower magnification than higher. A reticle that is acceptably thin at 12x might appear "too thick" on 7x on the same target at the same distance. That's why I mentioned magnification. Yes the reticle never changes with magnification but it's subtensions do.
Thanks again for providing me with the information I was looking for.
Ron

[Ironman482]

 I have several hawke 2x7x32 scopes, one on a p15 pcp its held up fine, on a crossman springer I've had 2 different ones on it both had problems ,so I  would not use them on a speinger ,also have one on a spa varmint 22 its held up ok, I  bought 2 of the tasco tatget/varmint 2.5 x 10 x42 scopes that amazon had on sale for 30.00 a couple of weeks ago, going to try one on the crossman springer if it holds up. ,I  think it will be a better economy scope than the hawke vantage, don't know why I haven't mounted it yet, need to make it a priority this week.

[Rick67]

The one I have is the mildot with glass-etched reticle, so it is pretty thin but they are now discontinued..

They have since replaced that model with an AMX which is even better.