Valid point, though humorous in a way. Welcome to the reality of a maturing market with lots of competition and choices. It’s tougher on companies to navigate the next turn, but consumers end up with excellent choices at fair prices.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Did Steiner just quietly build the MPO we have all been asking for? H6xi
- Thread starter Burdy
- Start date
That's par for the course. Having seen the scope in question, I thought that the reticle, while a little thin on low power, should work fine with illumination. In terms of size, the reticle is probably a little better suited to their 3-18x50 model (and will be available in that scope as well), but I suspect it will work nicely in the 2-12x42 for my purposes.
ILya
Unless you’re Tract and ask what they should have for a reticle and then produce the opposite.
I almost agree.
Manufactures often don't produce exactly what people are asking but can be 95% of the way there, and people will not buy the scope due to that 5%, which really means they were never interested.
It's obviously too early to tell, but if the reticle is as "bad" as it looks it's not 5%, it's more like 30%.
The dream MVPO as has been discussed for a few years needs these specs:
-2-12ish mag range
-not too heavy (less than 25oz)
-a reticle that is actually usable at low magnification (FFP of course)
lesser important:
-side focus
-not made in China
The usable reticle at low magnification is a hugely important aspect to the MVPO "dream" and frustratingly Athlon with their $500 Helos has been the best example on the market. The reticle isn't perfect in that scope, but it's best we've been given outside of LVPOs.
If Leupold had a decent reticle option it there Mark 4/5hd 2/2.5-10 then that would be a serious competitor here.
But alas it seem's like intelligent reticle design is beyond these large companies.
Agreed, I didn't realize till after I bought mine just how rare a usable reticle on the low end is in this optic category.
My hypothesis is that Steiner doesn't actually want to makes this scope/think it'll fetch much of a market so just re-used an existing reticle rather than spend time designing a new one, probably also simplifies the logistics too.
I certainly hope that no one specifically designed this reticle for a 2-12.
Especially when the one you designed is considerably more fit for purpose.
I've never designed a reticle for Steiner/Burris. They do their own designs. I will be involved with other MPVO reticles that are coming up, so I'll be able to offer some feedback for those (different brands).
ILya
I meant the generic one you designed, it would've been a good fit for this scope.
Got it. Thank You. I've done a couple over the years for scopes of these types and I like to add some sort of a high visibility feature for low power. I think the first one I did with a similar scope in mind was the design that ended up in the 3-18x50 Optika6. It has a few good things going for it, but also a few mistakes. It was a good foundation to make incremental improvements.
ILya
Marry elements from March & Minox and it’d be ideal.
Tapered stadia (draws eye to center), only go 2-3 mil up on vertical stadia, carry thin part of stadia down 10mil on vertical and 5mil L/R, donut (but thinner and at 2mil radius), stadia thickness 1.0mil at fastest part so easy to see when zoomed out, could live with either 0.2 or 0.5mil markings.
Ahh…apologies for dreaming out loud
I like this idea, but really want stadia inside the donut for holdovers/offs. There’s little to accurately go by for wind at max mag/longer ranges unless it’s blowing hard enough to need 2mil+. Give us a .5mil mark somewhere or something.
This is a great thread, and, as usual, @koshkin and others bring up great points. One big thing that I've personally found is that, no matter how nice the optic is in terms of features and performance, if the reticle isn't great, people won't buy it. Case in point, the original Nightforce NX8 1-8 was a capable optic at a good price point for what it was... with a reticle that was NOT what many shooters wanted. Fast forward to more recently, and NF realized that they already had a winner of a reticle in the ATACR 1-8, and that they might sell more of their NX8 if they put a well-designed tree reticle in it that people already liked and were using. What a wild idea!
The other issue with LPVO/MPVO has been totally discussed ad nauseum: dependent on use case, different people want different things, especially related to reticles. I see this being especially prevalent as it relates to different philosophies of use. For some, reticles are used as rulers, and there is an interest in being able to process as much data as possible through them. The real magic here comes from that last phrase "an interest in being able to process as much data as possible through them", as we all process things differently, and, dependent on context, we all want to process faster, slower, more/less precisely, or observe different metrics or phenomena through them relative to what type of data we want to process... because it is more or less relevant to us dependent on context.
What this means in the big picture is that some people will like certain reticles more than others, or find more relevance in a Mildot or TMR than a tree-style reticle. Some people might like chevrons, while others may prefer horseshoes. Some may want angular units of measurement, whereas others may like rough calculations built into their reticles. Unless you are required to use and become proficient with a certain optic and setup, find what works for you and learn it cold.
For companies, it all comes down to sales: how many people will buy my product so that I can make a profit. For consumers, this typically means that someone is coming up with these features and reticles, and that someone might be a very niche end-user, or it might be an engineer or technical SME who thinks that this thing should work well and customers will like it (and like it enough that a company will bet on the market liking it).
Very rarely do you see companies truly design and release a product that has had significant focus placed on the development, testing, and evaluation cycle as a multistep process include wider focus on training, design rationale, and significant input from experts and laypersons alike who are exterior to the company. Because this is such a rarity, many companies aren't able to articulate to their commercial customers just why they did what they did, and the rationale behind it, which is a real pity, as historically, companies that can do this well tend to build better products, and attract the right customers for what they've built.
The other issue with LPVO/MPVO has been totally discussed ad nauseum: dependent on use case, different people want different things, especially related to reticles. I see this being especially prevalent as it relates to different philosophies of use. For some, reticles are used as rulers, and there is an interest in being able to process as much data as possible through them. The real magic here comes from that last phrase "an interest in being able to process as much data as possible through them", as we all process things differently, and, dependent on context, we all want to process faster, slower, more/less precisely, or observe different metrics or phenomena through them relative to what type of data we want to process... because it is more or less relevant to us dependent on context.
What this means in the big picture is that some people will like certain reticles more than others, or find more relevance in a Mildot or TMR than a tree-style reticle. Some people might like chevrons, while others may prefer horseshoes. Some may want angular units of measurement, whereas others may like rough calculations built into their reticles. Unless you are required to use and become proficient with a certain optic and setup, find what works for you and learn it cold.
For companies, it all comes down to sales: how many people will buy my product so that I can make a profit. For consumers, this typically means that someone is coming up with these features and reticles, and that someone might be a very niche end-user, or it might be an engineer or technical SME who thinks that this thing should work well and customers will like it (and like it enough that a company will bet on the market liking it).
Very rarely do you see companies truly design and release a product that has had significant focus placed on the development, testing, and evaluation cycle as a multistep process include wider focus on training, design rationale, and significant input from experts and laypersons alike who are exterior to the company. Because this is such a rarity, many companies aren't able to articulate to their commercial customers just why they did what they did, and the rationale behind it, which is a real pity, as historically, companies that can do this well tend to build better products, and attract the right customers for what they've built.
Having designed a few reticles here and there, the litmus test is pretty straightforward: if 50% of the people who see it are reasonably OK with it, it is likely to a successful design.
We all have different preferences and we all project our own preferences onto others when we discuss reticles. That's natural and happens all the time.
ILya
^^^This is true.
While I’m vocal about what I consider ideal in a reticle for a certain power range and form of scope, that rarely will stop me from purchasing said scope as long as the reticle isn’t useless for my purposes.
Reticle preferences are probably the top or at least in the top three reasons why the optics forum can be so entertaining sometimes.
While I’m vocal about what I consider ideal in a reticle for a certain power range and form of scope, that rarely will stop me from purchasing said scope as long as the reticle isn’t useless for my purposes.
Reticle preferences are probably the top or at least in the top three reasons why the optics forum can be so entertaining sometimes.
As long as it doesn’t look like I’m looking through binos at 2x, I think I’ll like the reticle given. I’m the “reticle as an angular measurement ruler” guy so I like the detail, for the most part.
I fully plan on putting a dot on the mount anyways. I need to see my 2x reticle though.
I fully plan on putting a dot on the mount anyways. I need to see my 2x reticle though.
Maybe it's a me problem, but why would someone even want 10 mils of windage on the horizontal stadia in a 2-12? Do people normally shoot in 50 MPH crosswinds?
I'd much rather see the thick stadia come down to 5 mil.
I'd much rather see the thick stadia come down to 5 mil.
About the reticle…
I was dry firing yesterday on my VCOG with the SCO reticle. I love that reticle, but that reticle as well has mil lines on the main horizontal stadia out to 20mil, then the bars start to pick up. At 8x, I can still see 15-20 mil on the axis and its a very usable reticle at 1x (besides having a circle in the center). At 2x, the reticle’s main stadia lines are visible enough to work well. At 4x and above, I get a nicely done reticle that is extremely visible and precise.
I write this to get across that having 10mil before the thicker tapered lines become apparent is not the end of the world. The image above is very cropped compared to what you’d probably be seeing through the optic.
Based on my observations yesterday, I’m hopeful for the reticle. Moreso hoping these make it to Steiner’s Expertvoice page.
I was dry firing yesterday on my VCOG with the SCO reticle. I love that reticle, but that reticle as well has mil lines on the main horizontal stadia out to 20mil, then the bars start to pick up. At 8x, I can still see 15-20 mil on the axis and its a very usable reticle at 1x (besides having a circle in the center). At 2x, the reticle’s main stadia lines are visible enough to work well. At 4x and above, I get a nicely done reticle that is extremely visible and precise.
I write this to get across that having 10mil before the thicker tapered lines become apparent is not the end of the world. The image above is very cropped compared to what you’d probably be seeing through the optic.
Based on my observations yesterday, I’m hopeful for the reticle. Moreso hoping these make it to Steiner’s Expertvoice page.
Because the MPVO is bridging the gap between LPVO and HPVO I think a reticle that also takes elements from both would be the most useful. A reticle that offers some quick acquisition, isn’t too busy, but also provides some wind and elevation holds when at or near max magnification.
One idea is to have a red horseshoe like Athlon Helos, PA and Trijicon Vcog, but unlike those 3 scopes, make it large enough that it disappears outside the perimeter once you crank it up past 8-10x. This horseshoe or circle would be great when illuminated at 2-4X but out of the way at 10-12X. Once you zoom into 12x you would have a clean and simple mil hash reticle with hashes only every 1 mil. Could offer a few dots in a tree possibly, but not too busy. maybe only every 1 or even every 2 mils just to have some holdoff reference to use. Weird that no one has done this reticle yet.
A reticle like that would serve all the groups well. SPR/DMR would get quick acquisition at 2x with an illuminated circle and at at range would have useful holdoffs. Tactical and 3 gunners would get useful illuminated reticle that would,pair nicely with RDS. Hunters and everyone else would get A scope that works well for the full range of 2-12x, in low light conditions and for longer shots. Again, why has no one made this yet?
This SWFA 1-6 does the circle well, but the mil hash reticle inside is a little too thick and basic. But you get the general idea.
Last edited:
I’m not sure, some of the reticles with “disappearing” circles/etc. at max magnification usually result in a circle too wide at 1x. Like EoTech big or larger, which I am personally not a fan of. A circle 20-30 mils total doesn’t disappear but then gives you a better flash sight picture at 1-2x.
One may could simply have thicker stadia lines that run to the 6 mil mark that centers it better. Or translucent etching seen on the G3 Razor.
Reticles are never going to be 100% for 100% of people.
Maybe you’re right. I don’t know. The objective is quick acquisition at 2X but not to have a thick circle obscuring the target at 12X. I’m sure there’s a middle ground here. The SWFA looks good to me. Just change the mil hash reticle to be a little thinner and precise at 12x, maybe add a few tree dots and you’ll have a better reticle than anything else in existence for the MPVO class.
I think the Eotech LE-5 reticle would be tits in a 2-12 with AO, especially if they could get the illumination dialed.
Having that nice fine crosshair at 12x would be awesome, with a death donut at 2x.
Nah, it’s just an early report with a single reticle that doesn’t make sense for this scope. There’s no way Steiner doesnt offer the same reticle from the MOA version in the MIL version. Most people here will buy that, even if it isn’t “perfect”.
Crazy as it may sound, I'm a huge fan of the mil SCR reticle for hunting. I don't need a tree.
It's crazy visible even at low magnification, and very practical/useable. That's the one on my wish list.
Though I understand their reason for the reticle they have chosen as a do it all tactical/hunting hybrid.
It's crazy visible even at low magnification, and very practical/useable. That's the one on my wish list.
Though I understand their reason for the reticle they have chosen as a do it all tactical/hunting hybrid.
For a stand-alone optic, this makes a fair bit of sense. The devil lies in how people are choosing to set up their platforms, and what they are doing with them, and here is where the LPVO and MPVO optics all suffer from a failure to define just what they (and their spec sheets/reticles) are developed for in terms of use cases.
For example, if I'm already committed to mounting a 1x red dot at 12 O'Clock or offset, then do I really need a "quick acquisition" reticle on the low end? Let's even go as far as to make some people feel even more uncomfortable: do I really even need a low end to begin with?
Personally, I'd even say that, with a 1x dot already present, the low end (especially on an FFP optic) doesn't matter all that much outside of having enough FOV and information in the reticle to be useful at the desired magnification.
Extending this thought experiment even further, I'd rather have a less internally-complex, more rugged optic that performed really well (with the right reticle) between 4-12 power that I could use with a mounted red dot than I would a "do it all" LPVO/MPVO with fixed parallax, mediocre eyebox, and a reticle that's trying to be everything to everyone.
Scope mfg’s should design a scope that works well on its own. If you want to augment it with RDS, go for it. And there’s a million scopes to choose from that are good for medium to higher magnification that could,pair with RDS for CQB/quick acquisition.
The appeal and desire of a legit 2-12 is for a scope that performs reasonably well at both close quick shooting and longer ranging reticle shots. A gen purpose scope that is equally at home on the Winchester 70 30-06, the M1A scout, the AR-10/15 and the police sniper carbine.
I had a T5xi 3-15 with the SCR, it is a solid reticle even if I prefer a tree. Very good reticle though. SCR/Mil-R/Mil-C are great examples of non-tree reticles getting a lot done with less lines.
Please stay away from making the reticle only visible with illumination. For a crossover hunting scope that would be a non starter. On the west coast we are just as likely to shoot less then 50yds in timber as we are 400yds in a clearing. A thin reticle sucks, my biggest complaint with my nx8. With illumination its ok, but then my hunt is over if the electronics fail or my battery dies. Either is a tough pill to swallow.
There are tons of options if you want to mount a rds on it. I couldn't imagine wanting to do that for hunting.
There are tons of options if you want to mount a rds on it. I couldn't imagine wanting to do that for hunting.
C_Does just did a video of the T6xi 3-18 (MSR reticle) and had a comparison with the T5xi 3-15 (SCR reticle) The SCR in the T5 has similar tapered posts as seen above. Got a screenshot of both at 3x. Maybe this will give some ideas as to how it may look. I never recall any issue picking up the SCR reticle in my former T5xi 3-15.
Obviously we should all wait an actual review for the H6 and its reticle before jumping to any conclusions.
Obviously we should all wait an actual review for the H6 and its reticle before jumping to any conclusions.
This image does a great job of showing how manufactures aren't making reticles that are actually fit for purpose.
Both reticles here are too fine, I can see why they would be this thickness for a 5-30,6-36 type scope, but a 3-18 will never have the issue of these reticles being too thick on 18x.
The comes the real kicker, even if you wanted those centre crosses being that fine, what are the thick outer stadia so far from the centre?
Again for a 6-36 or even a 3-18, you might want 10mil of wind holds, but for a reticle going in a 2-12 that you expect to be able to use the 2x without needing illumination, then bring the outer stadia into 4-6mil.
I know you can use thin reticles on lower magnification, but a thicker, easier to see reticle is faster to pick up under all circumstances, and will always be easier to use in low light. A reticle that has been designed, or even just sized for use in a 5-30 isn't going to optimized for a 3-18 or even worse a 2-12.
I think the 10mil thing is for the aesthetics. Personally, heavier lines ending at 5mil from center, and 10mil low would work better in a 2-12ish.
But I’m not the one being paid to design a reticle. I’d do it for free if asked, just give me one of the production models.
Still hopeful for the H6xi. If it doesn’t pan out I still have an excellent SCO’d VCOG.
But I’m not the one being paid to design a reticle. I’d do it for free if asked, just give me one of the production models.
Still hopeful for the H6xi. If it doesn’t pan out I still have an excellent SCO’d VCOG.
The OP was Sept 2, 2023. “Did Steiner just quietly build the MPO we have all been asking for? H6xi”
9 months later the answer is still - NOPE.
9 months later the answer is still - NOPE.
Considering July is the anticipated release time, thats about average for a large manufacturer. Stuff moves slow. How many times do we see XYZ trinket announced at SHOT that is slated for a “Q3/Q3 release”?
Building a prototype and actually releasing to market is two separate things.
Building a prototype and actually releasing to market is two separate things.
After watching the C_Does review of the 3-18, I’m having my doubts. I bet they do the same thing with the 2-12. Just slap a previous reticle in there and maybe not even at the correct thickness for the magnification.
I avoid Chinese made scopes more than the average guy, but in this particular MPVO category, seems Athlon and Swampfox are the only clear choices for what I want. I would pay double-triple for a comparable Vortex, Burris, Leupold, NF, Steiner, but I’m not holding my breathe anything viable is on the horizon.
I avoid Chinese made scopes more than the average guy, but in this particular MPVO category, seems Athlon and Swampfox are the only clear choices for what I want. I would pay double-triple for a comparable Vortex, Burris, Leupold, NF, Steiner, but I’m not holding my breathe anything viable is on the horizon.
Sure, so long as I get a full refund when “said thing” is not delivered as promised. Maybe should ask for interest on the money they tied up for 12 months also. Sure, I would do that. Free enterprise is beautiful because the buyer and seller have equal rights to spend their time and money however they see fit.
Telling you right now, I’d pay $1500 for an updated NF 2.5-10x32 with a parallax adjustment and an FFP Mil-C/R or F -DMX reticle. Same body. I’d pay 2k for a modified VCOG built to my specs. I’d pay 1k for a modified TA02 ACOG.
But they’ll never build these so
Yup. There are some good examples out there of such reticles. Unfortunately they are few and far between. Athlon of all companies I think has the best reticle for the 2-1x mag range. And many people criticize it for having too large of a center dot, 1moa. Those people dont understand the whole concept, design and use point for such a magnification range.
You may be in luck with the Mk4HD 2.5-10x42. I just ran it on my Tikka CTR at Woodland Brutality and am extremely satisfied with its performance.
Thanks I’ve been considering the MK4HD, so glad to hear you liked it. The fixed parallax at 150 yds did not present problems?
The MK4 8-32 is on my shortlist for my PRS rifle. Thinking the 4x erector and Leupold glass might be ideal.
I have one of these and fall into the category of wanting a smaller dot but the more you use it the less you worry about it. It’s not a scope for shooting fleas off of a gnats ass. We’re programmed for the smallest aim point and need to adapt. It’s a killing scope and does well for that. Throw that reticle in a Cronus and they’d have a hard time supplying enough of them.
Mine will be getting a workout this weekend on my beater Savage 223. I really should get one for one of my 20” ARs also.
I haven't seen a issue at all.we shot out to 400y,but I kept the magnification around 6x max for those shots.
Put the dot on where you want a hole to appear is how I like to classify it as. I'd your gun is a 1/2 minute gun then go for something smaller. For a practical rifle, I think it's more then fine.
I don't disagree that the centre dot wasn't so big to to be useless, I thought it was unnecessarily large.
While I think that reticle is one of the better ones for a 2-12, there were lots of things I didn't like and I wouldn't want to see it unchnaged in a cronus.
Do you know how it compares with the PST G1 2.5-10x32?
I've still got one of these and think it's the best scope in this mag range.
I liked many things about the Helos 2-12 but the glass was notably worse that I sold mine and just kept using the PST.
I'm trying to have this make sense I'm my brain.but it feels scrambled lol
I had a pst I 2.5-10x32 for a long time.i reviewed it and used it on my Steyer Scout for a year or so. The optics in that scope were excellent despite the age. Sharp, clear and crisp.the view through it was small,the fov was ok, the mrad reticle was good too. Non locking turrets are a turn off for me and there were a bunch of people that had them fail under odd circumstances. I would give the pst the glass edge. But the Helos is the better, more rounded package.
But again, different strokes for different folks. If the pst works better for you then that's awesome.
