Wouldn’t hurt a fly
I read part 2 of your ‘Endurance Test’ of the Hawke scope, when you mentioned how you weren’t that keen on fine reticles, and it brought to mind my first experience of using one.
I’d recently invested in a Hawke Airmax and the etched glass reticle was a good deal finer than I’d been used to. Not sure whether or not I’d made the right decision in choosing it, I nevertheless set about zeroing it at 22 yards on my Ultramax. However, I soon became accustomed to the reticle and after achieving my zero in what was a surprisingly (for me!) short space of time, through the scope, I noticed a lazy fly settle on my target.
I watched as it slowly descended to the ‘5 o’clock’ position on the target, not at all obscured due to that fine reticle and couldn’t resist sending a .22 Air Arms Diablo Field toward the spot. Having kept my eye glued to the scope’s eyepiece, I experienced a Victor Meldrew moment. That famous phrase, ‘I don’t believe it!’, hardly covered my feelings when I saw that my pellet had actually splatted that fly! If I’d been using my old scope, its thick reticle lines would have given the fly some protective cover and I wouldn’t have been able to track its progress across the target so well. So for all of us fly hunters out there, a fine reticle is the way to go! I returned home and proudly showed my wife the target, indicating the remains of the fly that attested to my deadly accuracy. “Very clever, Stephen,” she said. “Shame it isn’t something like a pigeon that we could eat!” Women! Stephen Davies
Hello Stephen I have to confess to having shot a few flies in my time under similar circumstances. I’m not sure it counted as pest control, despite my dislike of flies buzzing around our house, but I did find it satisfying to shoot so accurately at a pest. Ed
I like this reticle, but not everybody feels the same