Opinions on Weaver T-36 crosshairs

[TxCigarMadCap]

First I am new to BR shooting. I am heavily considering T-36. I am having a difficult time choosing reticles. I wear glasses and I am concerned that the fine cross hairs will be a problem. However, I either do not see the importance of the 1/8 MOA Dot with the fine cross hairs or my ignorance is showing. Any thought, suggestions, advice?

Thanks in advance.

 

[260Ravage]

I use two BR rifles, both with T-36's, one with fine crosshair, the other with the dot. I have no preference. Should I purchase another, I do not know which one I'd go with. I, too, wear glasses with bifocals. They don't seem to bother.

 

[TxCigarMadCap]

Thank you for your input especially about wearing glasses!

 

[GSPV]

For 100/200 score, I prefer a FCH or something with a dot finer than 1/8. It's too dangled big.

 

[articmp]

How well does the dot work for 1K IBS? What is the quality of the glass at that distance?

 

[SS427]

I used a Weaver 36 with fine cross hairs for a while, shooting 100 and 200 yard groups. Never did get used to it...the cross hairs were just too fine for me and I never found a comfortable, repeatable aiming point for myself. Switched to a 1/8 inch target dot reticle and liked it a LOT more. I found centering the dot in the mothball worked the best for me.

 

[82boy]

To start the T-36 Weaver scope are a Great value, and a top notch scope, with that said they are hard to beat. The problem with Weaver is that they have changed hands a few times through the years, and not all t36 scopes are created equal. The New T 36 scope are great, and Weaver is doing well with the warranty on all of the scope produced.

I have several T 36 scopes, and I have both the 1/8 dot, and without. I personally prefer the one without the dot, for 100-300 yard competition benchrest shooting. I place the cross hair at the top of the moth ball (12 o'clock hold.) and like for my group to print just below. I find that with the 1/8 dot there is some "wiggle room" where I might not be exactly on my point of aim, basically the dot gets in the way. Nothing wrong with a Weaver T36 many competitive benchrest shooters are using them.

I do like the dot when I am shooting 600, and 1000 yard benchrest, as it makes a great reference point on a steel plate when hitting, but when hitting clay birds it can cover them up. Also with the higher magnification it also magnifies everything in between the target, a lot of long range shooters prefer variable power scope where they can turn down the magnification. Another thing to consider with long range shooting and higher magnification scope you have a smaller field of view, and if you tyring to locate a shot spray, it can be difficult, where with a variable power scope, you can back the power off, increasing the field of view, and see shot sprays easier. Even with all of that said Richard Schatz (Top shooter in the 600 yard Benchrest ranks.) uses a old tried and true Weaver T 36.

As far as seeing the fine cross hairs I have no problems, but I also have 20/10 vision, and don't need glasses. There may be a remedy for the fine cross hairs. There is a product called "bulzeye pro" that is an optical booster, that screw into the back of most popular scopes. http://www.bulzeyepro.com/optical-boosters.php It takes a Weaver t 36 and boost the power to around 45 power, With that it ever so sightly increases the thickness of the cross hairs, because it is basically boosting what you see in the scope. The only downside to this product is it will shorten the eye relief portion of the scope, making you have to get closer to the scope to get a clear picture, and if you shoot free recoil you have to pay close attention to how you set up, or the rifle will come back and "scope you." (Hit you in recoil.)

Hopefully this helps you make a decision.

 

[ronsroom1]

I have both Weavers, and wear bifocals. No problems other than having to wear glasses.

 

[TxCigarMadCap]

To start the T-36 Weaver scope are a Great value, and a top notch scope, with that said they are hard to beat. The problem with Weaver is that they have changed hands a few times through the years, and not all t36 scopes are created equal. The New T 36 scope are great, and Weaver is doing well with the warranty on all of the scope produced.

I have several T 36 scopes, and I have both the 1/8 dot, and without. I personally prefer the one without the dot, for 100-300 yard competition benchrest shooting. I place the cross hair at the top of the moth ball (12 o'clock hold.) and like for my group to print just below. I find that with the 1/8 dot there is some "wiggle room" where I might not be exactly on my point of aim, basically the dot gets in the way. Nothing wrong with a Weaver T36 many competitive benchrest shooters are using them.

I do like the dot when I am shooting 600, and 1000 yard benchrest, as it makes a great reference point on a steel plate when hitting, but when hitting clay birds it can cover them up. Also with the higher magnification it also magnifies everything in between the target, a lot of long range shooters prefer variable power scope where they can turn down the magnification. Another thing to consider with long range shooting and higher magnification scope you have a smaller field of view, and if you tyring to locate a shot spray, it can be difficult, where with a variable power scope, you can back the power off, increasing the field of view, and see shot sprays easier. Even with all of that said Richard Schatz (Top shooter in the 600 yard Benchrest ranks.) uses a old tried and true Weaver T 36.

As far as seeing the fine cross hairs I have no problems, but I also have 20/10 vision, and don't need glasses. There may be a remedy for the fine cross hairs. There is a product called "bulzeye pro" that is an optical booster, that screw into the back of most popular scopes. http://www.bulzeyepro.com/optical-boosters.php It takes a Weaver t 36 and boost the power to around 45 power, With that it ever so sightly increases the thickness of the cross hairs, because it is basically boosting what you see in the scope. The only downside to this product is it will shorten the eye relief portion of the scope, making you have to get closer to the scope to get a clear picture, and if you shoot free recoil you have to pay close attention to how you set up, or the rifle will come back and "scope you." (Hit you in recoil.)

Hopefully this helps you make a decision.

Thank you for your input.....seeing that I am so new too this, I will probably start in the 100/200 yd range. I am just trying to get a feel for what I want to do without spending a ton of money on a set up I will likely change in the future. Your comments regarding the dot at the closer ranges makes a lot of sense. I know from my hunting rifles I get frustrated with all the clutter on some reticles. I am leaning towards the FCH. Thanks again for the advice.

 

[Joe Maisto]

I too have a pair of them and wear bifocals as well. No problems and the scopes work good for me. They may not be as clear as a Leu.45, but then they are under $400. as well.

A trick not many know of .....
you can zero these scopes for any given range by loosening the screws on the turrets a good bit, which then allows you to freely turn just the turret and put it on zero. Then tighten the screws again. It's a great way to know exactly where you're at.
Example:
mine are at"0" at 100, then I simply go up 7 clicks to 200.

 

[BoydAllen]

I have observed that the Weaver cross hairs are the same size as my B&Ls, and that both are not as fine as what I have seen on some other scopes. They should be fine. I do not shoot a dot. Pretty much all of my shooting is for group, and for that I have settled onto a six o'clock hold on the mothball. For this, the thickness of the cross hairs is not an issue. I aim so that the top edge of the horizontal cross hair just touches the outside of the mothball, and and the vertical cross hair splits it. I changed to this to make it easier to establish a point of aim at 200 yd. when the mirage is causing the mothball to jump around. I aim at the lowest image. One more thing that I have observed is that even experienced shooters may need help setting up a scope properly. Errors in adjustment that do not show up much at lower magnifications become much more obvious and problematic as magnification increases to 36X and above. Many times I think that the reason that shooters complain that they cannot see fine cross hairs well enough is that the eyepiece of the scope was out of adjustment for their vision. I have seen cross hairs so fine, in modified scopes with small dots, that even with excellent vision, I could not see the cross hairs until I had focused the eyepiece to my requirements. If this is your first scope with this high of a magnification, you may find that it will take some getting used to, but once you get used to the difference, it will be like using any other scope, only you can see the target a lot better.

 

[TxCigarMadCap]

a six o'clock hold on the mothball.

Can you explain this? I understand 6 o'clock hold. Now for the very stupid question what is the mothball?

 

[BoydAllen]

The "mothball" is the smallest ring on a benchrest group target. http://targets.s3.amazonaws.com/PDF/BenchRest1.pdf You are wrong about one thing. It's not a stupid question. The only way that I know of to learn is to ask. Particularly when it is slang or jargon.

 

[GSPV]

I really liked my T-36. Sold it in a series of trades. Need to pick up another for a backup scope.

I didn't like the 1/8th dot for 100/200 score shooting. I like FCH or some kind of really small dot reticle. The CH-3 in my NF is my absolute favorite. The NP2-DD isn't bad. Just prefer the CH-3.

If I had my druthers, I'd like a 30mm tube, 45x fixed, CH-3-ish reticle, non-illuminated, LCS weight, with objective paralax adjustment vice side, and 1/16th MOA clicks that holds POI like the March is designed to and a lifetime warranty.

I'd like them to have available rings like the Burris Signature Z rings for Davidson style bases.

That would just be the cat's meow.

 

[TxCigarMadCap]

The "mothball" is the smallest ring on a benchrest group target. http://targets.s3.amazonaws.com/PDF/BenchRest1.pdf You are wrong about one thing. It's not a stupid question. The only way that I know of to learn is to ask. Particularly when it is slang or jargon.

What is the function of the square box at the top?

 

[82boy]

What is the function of the square box at the top?

Well this is a common question, and so far I have never heard a good answer to it. I believe it was a carry over from years past. I seen a clue in Waren Pages book, when I saw a picture of a benchrest target, (I believe from the 1950's) and all it had was the black square, no "scoring rings." and the group shot was under the square. (There was also no sighter target under this target, something I also believe was added latter.) Some shooters will still use the box, as a reference point, they may bracket it off, but with even using the square most shoot (Print.) under the square. I believe that the NBRSA added the scoring rings latter on, and the just kept the black box as well. Most competitive shooters will use the rings and pay no attention to the black box. Once the scope is zeroed, they utilize the rings as holding points.

 

[GSPV]

I've been told that it's a left over from when one couldn't see the bull below.

I've also been told that it's still useful when the mirage is so bad that the bull becomes invisible.

Mostly, it's irrelevant. There are two schools of thought.

In one school, one's POA and POI are the same. It facilitates holdoff without making mental mistakes.

In the other school, the POI is above or below the POA so that one doesn't shoot out the POA and introduce aiming errors.

That's just from my limited exposure to group, so take it for what it's worth.

 

[82boy]

There is one other point to bring up about the T36 scope, and that is it is one of the lightest scopes out there. What this means if you are building a gun, and it is running on the heavier side of thing, you need to save weight, to make weight. (NBRSA/IBS light gun rules is under 10.5 lbs.) The problem with variable power scopes is the weight. The biggest downflaw of the Leupold 45 competition scopes is the weight, and some believe that at least one of the rings has to be double screw do to the larger 30mm tube, this double screw ring also adds weight to your rig. With that said many choose the t-36 to save on weight, pair that with a set of Kellby rings, and you have a light set up.

 

[BoydAllen]

Some time back, there was a match at Visalia where the the mirage was extreme. Gary Ocock said that it was the worst that he had seen in 25 years (I think) of competition. All of the current scopes were in use. Don't be so quick to decide that the aiming square is a useless artifact, left over from the distant past when scopes were of lower power. They came in quite handy that day. The scoring rings would disappear completely, and bullet holes were about as bad.

 

[TxCigarMadCap]

I want to thank everyone who has commented thus far. I was hesitant to even post as I have had bad experiences in the past on forums (non-gun related) as well have seen newbs getting flamed for asking questions they didn't know had already been covered ad nauseum on other gun-related forums. Everyone here has been very helpful. I am glad I took that leap of faith and posted.

I ordered the the T-36 FCH which I am putting on a 6.5x284 benchmark barrel. Currently I have it on a Winchester action that i am going to make work until I can save for a better suited BR action.

What is a good source to learn the different classes and the subsequent rules associated with those different classes?