Did Steiner just quietly build the MPO we have all been asking for? H6xi

#352
jbuck88 said:
That and who needs 10mils of wind hold? The mil-r has 5mil and even that's on the generous side.

The illuminated tmr is pretty useful, but I agree trying to satisfy too many people means it sucks ass for everyone.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, especially when you have the option of dialing for wind.

There's more than enough time to dial for wind on the longer ranges for most any application.
 
#353
kthomas said:
I tend to agree, especially when you have the option of dialing for wind.

There's more than enough time to dial for wind on the longer ranges for most any application.
Click to expand...

jbuck88 said:
That and who needs 10mils of wind hold? The mil-r has 5mil and even that's on the generous side.

The illuminated tmr is pretty useful, but I agree trying to satisfy too many people means it sucks ass for everyone.
Click to expand...
The horizontal stadia are not there entirely for wind. The TMR is a tactical reticle, therefore it has means of communicating target location and engaging moving targets - both essentials for an SPR'ish optic. I'll take them for hunting/varminting too. Spotters/binos with full field milling reticles are powerful tools for talking somebody onto critters hiding on brushy hillsides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wade and kthomas
#355
Guns&WhiteWater said:
I had a Mil-R reticle once and thought it was a great option for hunting. Also thought the P4 was a good one. Definitely never needed 10 mils of wind holds.
Click to expand...
Overall I like the Mil-R reticle, but playing around with it at low mag trying for quick target acquisition/sight picture, I found it a little distracting with the long stadia lines at 1 mrad on both axes. Anytime I gave myself a moment, there were zero issues. It just took slightly longer for a confident sight picture on a target than the HX6i MOA reticle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guns&WhiteWater
#356
I couldn’t hold off any longer, there some pretty nice deals on the H6Xi STR-Mil. I took the plunge today.

Bruiser seems to like it a lot and that’s enough of a vote of confidence for me since I like his overall philosophy.

Edit: One quirk I can see is, does the 42mm objective interfere with the ability to add a piggyback dot (in front of the turret)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kthomas
#357
white_rushin said:
I couldn’t hold off any longer, there some pretty nice deals on the H6Xi STR-Mil. I took the plunge today.

Bruiser seems to like it a lot and that’s enough of a vote of confidence for me since I like his overall philosophy.

Edit: One quirk I can see is, does the 42mm objective interfere with the ability to add a piggyback dot (in front of the turret)
Click to expand...
Look at Bruiser Industries IG reel. Ridiculous Steiner pricing via his Dealer rep.

Did you get in on this deal?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tam4511
#359
I took mu newly mounted 2-12 out to zero yesterday. The below photo isn't great, but it does show that the fine reticle might get lost a bit on the shoot and sees. But it was still usable. The illumination sorta helped, ish.

I know the scope isn't necessarily designed for shooting groups of small bulls-eyes.

Also, to a question above, yes you can mount a 12:00 RDS; I have a ACRO2 on a Reptilia mount and it *just* clears the bell. Like, theres a sliver of daylight but a piece of paper doesn't slide through.
tempImagec6XmRS.jpg
 
#363
Thorbeast said:
In your opinion, is the reticle useable as a duplex at 2x?
Click to expand...
There's no world in which a thin FFP tree reticle of this design is going to be genuinely useful as a duplex reticle at 2x, unless it is extremely thick like a S&B P3, SWFA Mil quad, LRHS, or the THLR reticle.

Even the Athlon AHMR2 (which is considerably thicker than this) isn't that great on 2x. 3x magnification is about as low as you can practically go before you need to start including high visibility features in the reticle.

There is no free lunch here, the reticle just isn't thick enough to be easily visible at 2x. Guys can convince themselves that it's good enough, but there only so much you can ignore reality through wishful thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VandelayIndustries, steve123 and kthomas
#364
I think the pendulum is swinging and now some of these comments overstate how useless the reticle is at 2x. Nobody expects it to be the best thing ever, but those T-posts are clearly visible and extend pretty far inward. I think it’ll do a lot for quick engagements along with the illuminated reticle. NF’s Mil-XT is pretty thin and small for its complexity at 4x as well
 
#365
white_rushin said:
I think the pendulum is swinging and now some of these comments overstate how useless the reticle is at 2x. Nobody expects it to be the best thing ever, but those T-posts are clearly visible and extend pretty far inward. I think it’ll do a lot for quick engagements along with the illuminated reticle. NF’s Mil-XT is pretty thin and small at 4x as well
Click to expand...
For shooting 2 legged and large 4 legged animals at 25yards or closer anything will work, but that's not the point.
If I wanted a reticle that was perfect for 10-12x and barely useful at 2-5x then I'd buy the 3-18 version.

If the reticle isn't easily visible and usable in all lighting conditions, on all target sizes at 2-4x then what's the point in the magnification going that low?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VandelayIndustries, FRESHPRINCE556, NHR and 3 others
#366
Here is the reticle at 2x and 12x

Do I think it's usable at 2x? Yes. "Enough" so...? That's too subjective to answer. The inner reticle lines are thin, but the thicker 3-6-9 lines do draw the eye inward. Should they be thicker or more "arrow-head like?" I think that would be helpful.

While I can't quantify how much so, the lines are more crisp, visible, and noticeable IRL vs the photos. This is true for the primary"T" as well as the wind holds. The latter are completely lost in the photo, but were not IRL.

The scope was balanced on a fence and this was the view I could easily get. But when I swung the scope to a darker spot (eg the shaded area at the 3:00 edge of the first photo), the scope did a good job of transmitting the details.
tempImageGsC1Pj.jpg


tempImagewunqV4.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: PBWalsh, Earnhardt and white_rushin
#367
Deepwoods said:
Here is the reticle at 2x and 12x

Do I think it's usable at 2x? Yes. "Enough" so...? That's too subjective to answer. The inner reticle lines are thin, but the thicker 3-6-9 lines do draw the eye inward. Should they be thicker or more "arrow-head like?" I think that would be helpful.

While I can't quantify how much so, the lines are more crisp, visible, and noticeable IRL vs the photos. This is true for the primary"T" as well as the wind holds. The latter are completely lost in the photo, but were not IRL.

The scope was balanced on a fence and this was the view I could easily get. But when I swung the scope to a darker spot (eg the shaded area at the 3:00 edge of the first photo), the scope did a good job of transmitting the details.
View attachment 8523266

View attachment 8523267
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing. This does not look very different than say Vortex EBR-7 reticle at 3x IMO
 
#370
Thanks for the pics Deepwoods!
Showing the reticle in a real world hunting scenario with the wooded/grassy background is what really helps us see how it will work in the field.
 
#371
I think I'll be snagging both the 2-12 and 3-18, waiting for Otto to get back to me. I have the Athlon 2-12 and Meopta 3-18 with the MRAD1 reticle which is awesome but it's a BIG scope and I need smaller. About the time I purchase both, Athlon will release their new 2-12 Cronus w/Japanese glass and Meopta will come out with a smaller 3-18. It's like washing my car. It always rains the next day, LOL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Earnhardt, steve123, gopherslayer and 1 other person
#372
hlee said:
Maybe the picture is deceiving, but the irony is that the reticle is as difficult to see at 12 as it is at 2…
Click to expand...
Id say deceiving (the reticle is more crisp irl and also more noticeable), but I won't argue that Steiner erred on the side of fine line over thick line.

I like it enough to play with it for a while. If the NF's FC-DMx made it into a similar package... that would be enticing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glassaholic, kthomas and tam4511
#376
bf2junky said:
Y'all must have better eyes than me. I don’t know how y'all judge these reticles without looking through them yourselves outdoors.
Click to expand...
I've seen and used enough reticles to know what works and what doesn't.
I've done enough low light/low visibility testing, and enough shooting with lower powered FFP scopes I've got a fair idea of what works amd doesn't.

Based on the reticle design and subtensions, very seldom does a reticle look any different in person than online.
Some parts of the design might work better or worse in person than what you see in a picture, but something as simple as general thickness/visibility doesn't really change between reticle designs.

I thought the Athlon AHMR2 reticle was barely visible enough on 2x, so the probability of this reticle being the same visibility or better is basically 0%.
I don't see the point in spending $1500 to try something I'm 99% sure I'm not going to be happy with.

Sure the only way to know 100% is to use it yourself for 12 months in a variety of conditions, but you can get most of the way extrapolating experiences with similar scopes/reticles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BJames, FRESHPRINCE556, lash and 2 others
#377
beetroot said:
I've seen and used enough reticles to know what works and what doesn't.
I've done enough low light/low visibility testing, and enough shooting with lower powered FFP scopes I've got a fair idea of what works amd doesn't.

Based on the reticle design and subtensions, very seldom does a reticle look any different in person than online.
Some parts of the design might work better or worse in person than what you see in a picture, but something as simple as general thickness/visibility doesn't really change between reticle designs.

I thought the Athlon AHMR2 reticle was barely visible enough on 2x, so the probability of this reticle being the same visibility or better is basically 0%.
I don't see the point in spending $1500 to try something I'm 99% sure I'm not going to be happy with.

Sure the only way to know 100% is to use it yourself for 12 months in a variety of conditions, but you can get most of the way extrapolating experiences with similar scopes/reticles.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about $1500, we gettin' these bad boys for $800!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash
#382
bf2junky said:
Y'all must have better eyes than me. I don’t know how y'all judge these reticles without looking through them yourselves outdoors.
Click to expand...
Having used/owned the 2.5-15 t6xi, 3-18 t6xi, 3-15 RT15, 5-25 Xtr2, 3.3-18 xtr3, and 5.5-30 xtr3 with the scr and scr2 reticles, i can tell by looking at pics that the reticle is way too thin at max mag. Making it useless at lower mags. As much as I love Burris/Steiner, they've been bad about adjusting reticles for lower power variants for a while.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Earnhardt
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gr8fuldoug
Optics Steiner 2.5-10x42 Riflescope
Replies
0
Views
261
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
2112Rush
Steiner T6Xi 5-30x56 arrives...
Replies
2
Views
1K
2112Rush
2112Rush
Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 Review and comparison with NF ATACR 4-16x42, S&B US 3-20x50 and March 4.5-28x52
Replies
129
Views
12K
Kickin45
Kickin45
gr8fuldoug
New Products Intel from Camera Land
Replies
3
Views
1K
Brettdec
B
gr8fuldoug
Just Arrived - Get'm While We Have Them
Replies
0
Views
461
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts