JTAC Reticle Details - why this design?

Ask 10 people about reticles and you’ll get 12 opinions.

i_s said:

Yea I get that it can be subjective, just trying to understand. Maybe there is some logic to it I'm not getting.

Click to expand...

If you want logic, go to the pit and find the “finding a wife” thread. Picking an optic is substantially more subjective.

i_s said:

Here is what I mean with a clean MPCT3X btw: (paint sketch)

View attachment 8524420

Click to expand...

That’s basically the MPCT1X.

I’m a fan of the non-X-mas tree reticles and test drove Leupold’s PR3 MIL and loved it (just wasn’t in love with the Mark4HD). I feel like the simpler reticles are less busy and make it easier on my brain to see what I want to see.

I still haven’t seen either the JTAC or MPCT1X with my own eyes and don’t want to spend $4-5k before I get to see one in the flesh.

I like it because I think it helps me see better with less clutter, however, I wish it had at least 2 mils of hold under or preferably even 3. One of my personal favorite reticles is the NF Mil-C and I guess that is why I migrated to the JTAC because you get a similar reticle with TT glass. Like someone said, reticles are a personal thing and everyone has what fits their eye best. The reticle you posted is nice too.

hlee said:

If you want logic, go to the pit and find the “finding a wife” thread. Picking an optic is substantially more subjective.

Click to expand...

More like women with dildo sizes

I have a Vortex G3 on my .22lr and just purchased a used TT 5-25 w/ JTAC because I'm in pursuit of a minimalist non-tree reticle. At least from looking at it online it makes sense to me but maybe I completely whiffed and will have trouble with it (I don't think so but I'm also an impulsive moron). In theory I find it more appealing than the MIL-C of the ATACR I was considering because it's a bit more minimalist.

If it's simpler, perhaps someone could explain what the JTAC is designed to do and how it does it.

Maybe a member of JTAC will chime in. However, at my recent JTAC class, they emphasize dialing for wind versus holding for wind; therefore, I would assume a JTAC reticle would not need the "Christmas tree" for wind holds. Maybe I am wrong though.

I run the MPCT1X on my 527 and 420. I chose this after using various tree style reticles and realizing I dial all my elevation and don’t need it, I do like a more “clean” reticle. Some people believe the tree helps spot misses on the low and allows a quick correction, this is true but that can also be achieved with a treeless reticle if you’re paying attention and managing your recoil.

I believe that’s part of the JTACs design. PRS oriented style shooting where you dial all of your elevation and don’t need a tree.

The MPCT1X is the perfect reticle for me and my style of shooting, the open circles on the MPCT3X bother me, I prefer a hash or a dot on my holds. I do admit I have always been interested in the JTAC though.

hlee said:

Ask 10 people about reticles and you’ll get 12 opinions.

Click to expand...

That’s the beauty of a forum

Oldrifle said:

If it's simpler, perhaps someone could explain what the JTAC is designed to do and how it does it.

Click to expand...

It looks like it's designed to hold (mostly) wind with dialed elevation. And to otherwise obscure as little of the sight picture as possible. Kind of like the NF MIL-C with shorter subtension lines for the wild holds and no MIL measuring thing in it which opens up the sight picture the tiniest bit more. The concept behind it seemingly being to open up as much sight picture as possible to take full advantage of the TT image quality.

As for an actual explanation, there's a kind-of one in the PRB article on scopes/reticles from this year.

"The JTAC reticle was designed by veteran pro shooters and optimized for PRS competitions. JTAC is an abbreviation for the first initial of 4 PRS shooters: JTAC = Justin, Tate, Austin, and Clay. They are each very accomplished shooters, and if anyone knows what it takes to win a national championship, it has to be these guys! They collectively represent the PRS Champions from 2019, 2020, and 2021. To be fair, Austin said that Clay Blackketter primarily worked with Tangent on the reticle design.

I noticed the JTAC reticle doesn’t have a “Christmas tree” or holdovers like many popular reticles in the PRS. So, in a recent interview with Austin Orgain, I asked, “Do you not find that you need holdovers in your reticle at rifle matches?” Austin told me, “I’ve been running the JTAC reticle for about 2 years, and so far, I’ve always been able to find a way to run any stage without a problem at all. Sometimes, it gets a little advanced, but so far, I’ve always found a way to run a stage without having to hold off into space. There really aren’t a lot of holdover stages at matches, and most of the time, you’re not even that far from the center of the reticle. So we don’t really find that we need holdovers, and not having those holdover marks really opens up the reticle a lot and makes it easier to see trace and spot things through that reticle.”"

NateVA said:

I have a Vortex G3 on my .22lr and just purchased a used TT 5-25 w/ JTAC because I'm in pursuit of a minimalist non-tree reticle. At least from looking at it online it makes sense to me but maybe I completely whiffed and will have trouble with it (I don't think so but I'm also an impulsive moron). In theory I find it more appealing than the MIL-C of the ATACR I was considering because it's a bit more minimalist.

Click to expand...

I'm curious about the thickness of the JTAC reticle (and MPCT1X too) as compared to the Razor G3's reticle..?

The Razor G3's reticle is almost too thin for me sometimes, so any insight on how they compare would be appreciated.

CK1.0 said:

I'm curious about the thickness of the JTAC reticle (and MPCT1X too) as compared to the Razor G3's reticle..?

The Razor G3's reticle is almost too thin for me sometimes, so any insight on how they compare would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

Until it arrives I can only look at measurements provided by the manufacturers.

The center dots are TT = 0.0425 vs Vortex 0.03 so the TT center dot is 40% bigger
The main reticle line that the windage subtensions come off of is TT = 0.025 vs Vortex 0.03 so the Vortex main lines are 20% thicker

The rest is a bit hard to compare. The TT dots every 1 MRAD are 0.075 so they're thicker than the center dot. But harder for me to find measurements on the Vortex one for the equivalent (kind of) measurements in that reticle. My guess is they'll be roughly comparable in overall visibility.