Sniper gray would be an amazing option to have in scope colour
No I completely get that it’s a compromise and I understand to offset aim with it. That I completely get. I do think a thicker circle and smaller dot might be better, and I don’t thinkI’m a 1/2 moa shooter all day long, but often enough I’m shooting targets that are small enough to get obscured by a 1 moa dot and that’s the issue I’ve been having with my Leupold mk3hd sfp 3-9x with the TMR reticle. That reticle covers about 3/4” at 100 yards. If I’m shooting smaller targets out to let’s say 200 to 300 yards, which I often do I don’t like that the majority of the target is obscured and I don’t want to have an offset aim. I want the benefit of that floating dot for what I like it for. Not because I think I’m a 1/2 moa shooter all day long but because I want a more refined aiming point. Not only that but I don’t like that the space between the crosshairs and the dot are a whole mil and I would rather have less of a gap, even if only by 1/2 a mil for the benefit of wind holds when I do dial.
Edit: I think this might be a good place to have the circle and dot a dual focal plane but there might be issues that I’m not seeing with that.
Last edited:
I was always a fan of the 1/2 mil hold dots that the H59 had, but hated the full grid.
The MilXT kept those 1/2 mil dots, and ditched the grid...but I wasn't ever really a fan of the full string of dots on the horizontals that the EBR-7D and MilXT used.
I think 10-12 mil of hold over is plenty, but I extended it down to 23 for giggles...it's easy to back it down.
I designed a .03 center dot...I believe it's perfect for a 35x optic and I kept a .03 grid with the cross hair getting thicker to .05 the further out from the center point you go, so you get a little more weight when you're zoomed out. Could easily bump that to .06
I left the mil intersections open, similar to the Leupold CCH
Everything is done in a base 2 format. All the hashes are .1, .2, .4 and .5 instead of the (.115 etc)
I showed it fully illuminated for simplicity, but you could do just the main stadia, or a combination of hold dots and part of the grid)
FOR ME, on a 35x optic...this is what I'd be looking for.
Obviously all this needs adjusted if you're doing a 25x or an 18x
The MilXT kept those 1/2 mil dots, and ditched the grid...but I wasn't ever really a fan of the full string of dots on the horizontals that the EBR-7D and MilXT used.
I think 10-12 mil of hold over is plenty, but I extended it down to 23 for giggles...it's easy to back it down.
I designed a .03 center dot...I believe it's perfect for a 35x optic and I kept a .03 grid with the cross hair getting thicker to .05 the further out from the center point you go, so you get a little more weight when you're zoomed out. Could easily bump that to .06
I left the mil intersections open, similar to the Leupold CCH
Everything is done in a base 2 format. All the hashes are .1, .2, .4 and .5 instead of the (.115 etc)
I showed it fully illuminated for simplicity, but you could do just the main stadia, or a combination of hold dots and part of the grid)
FOR ME, on a 35x optic...this is what I'd be looking for.
Obviously all this needs adjusted if you're doing a 25x or an 18x
Attachments
Something similar to Mavens MOA2 in the 3-18 illuminated would be an awesome hunting scope.
Not enough hold under in that Apex reticle. Other than that it doesn’t look bad.
Funny you showed this one. One of my favorite reticle ever is moar cf2 NF.
Attachments
Hey, at least all of these are decent reticles. They could be much different.
The tmi from eurooptic (I know it was a joke).
There was also the Horta reticle.
There have been a few others that were not good.
Did they get sued by Horus for copyright infringement?
For a good crossover, something like the stripped down Mil XT from @mj23polaris above would be good, with an illuminated Donut of Death. It's hard for me to envision how small it would be on 3x, but something around 4mil in total diameter and around .5 - .75 mil thick is probably in the right ballpark. That should be visible even at lowest magnification and possibly even disappear (like the Vudu scopes) if fully zoomed in.
Attachments
I could get behind this. But make the center dot (and all the in between tree dots) a + sign, for really fine groupings, so you can still see your other shots and the bull behind the dot. Plus, at high mag, the + signs give you a better FOV around the POA.
Why do you like the +?
IMO (and everyone I've talked to) it's worse in basically every way. Blocks more view and doesn't allow as precise aiming.
I explained that in an earlier post. To me, it’s better with my astigmatism. The + still looks like a plus, where the dot starts looking fuzzy, like 2 dots.
Here's what you said earlier (I had to back track and look also.)
Either way a larger obstruction of the aiming point does not seem conducive to the goal. You're allowed to have that preference but it seems to go against what everyone else likes.
I have astigmatism also and like the dot much better, however everyone's different and mine is fairly mild.
Astigmatism affects people differently I think. I know with mine using a red dot like most it causes issues. A lot of people use eotechs instead because they say it’s much better but for me the eotech looks like a huge red smudge and is much worse.
I have an issue with red dot's also. It's not terrible but for sure not the best. I've yet to fork over the cash for an EOTECH, I'd like to try one before I buy.
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to single you out on the 1/2 moa part, because I meant most of us, including me.
I'm mostly a .2 mil guy but I look at the DMR's reticle as a simpler tree reticle which suites this scope well.
As far as holdoff within the COD use your God given intuition, it just takes a little practice. If I can do it so can everyone else. The wind changes and we do the best we can.
If a SH DNT comes out in a 3-18, that is somewhat compact, somewhat lightweight, has daylight bright illume, low profile turrets, tool less zero set(bonus), and a little thicker .2 mil reticle, then I want one. Otherwise there are plenty of other decent 3-18's out there.
Lots of this thread is lost in the weeds about designing a scope. This is (supposed to be) purely about a reticle.
True but it'd be better if they "killed all the birds with one stone"
Is there really a bunch of good budget 3-18s out there with a reticle usable through the entire range?
No but if DNT does the normal thin-ish reticles already in use they aren't bringing anything notable to the table which was what I was getting at.
Or better put, do a reticle appropriate for the mag range and sell more scopes or get lost in the fray of 3-18's already currently available to compete with them.
Last edited:
This one, although there needs to be one more set of dashes inside the horseshoe to make it wind-friendly.
Meopta Optika6 3-18x50 Illuminated MRAD 30mm FFP Riflescope 653574
FREE SHIPPING on Meopta Optika6 3-18x50 Illuminated MRAD 30mm FFP Riflescope 653574
-Stan
Ya but reticle swap basically only entails drawing it to scale.
Adding all the features in that everyone is talking about would require designing an entirely new scope.
it's the equivalent of asking a kid what color we should paint their room and the response being
"build me a new house, with slides where the stairs go and an elevator to get to the top"
I prefer + having used them in a few different scopes.
They are usually thinner lines than the equivalent dot so car provide a precise aiming point despite being larger but at lower magnification are more visible.
For a crossover scope in particular I'd want the tree to be actually usable at lower magnification.
There’s several reticles I really like.
The reticle in the Zeiss s3 is Amazing. However, I feel like it could be a little less cluttered past the 2mil marks on the horizontal stadia lines. I also wish they continued the .5 dots further all directions.
A non tree version of this reticle would be awesome.
I really enjoy the vpr reticle in the Arkens on gas gun stuff. I think it’s one of my favorites. It’s fast, and easy to read at all mag ranges.
I’m honestly surprised I haven’t seen much talk of the pr2/3 in here. That radicle is almost perfect. I wish leupold would sell Rights and let other manufactures use that reticle. It could be a hair darker.
I think something along these lines would be great.
I’m also an advocate for shorter, locking turrets.
The reticle in the Zeiss s3 is Amazing. However, I feel like it could be a little less cluttered past the 2mil marks on the horizontal stadia lines. I also wish they continued the .5 dots further all directions.
A non tree version of this reticle would be awesome.
I really enjoy the vpr reticle in the Arkens on gas gun stuff. I think it’s one of my favorites. It’s fast, and easy to read at all mag ranges.
I’m honestly surprised I haven’t seen much talk of the pr2/3 in here. That radicle is almost perfect. I wish leupold would sell Rights and let other manufactures use that reticle. It could be a hair darker.
I think something along these lines would be great.
I’m also an advocate for shorter, locking turrets.
Reticles are so personal as many know, it seems hard to satisfy everyone.
I wonder if we have polling for tree vs non tree, center dot diameters for each model with different mag, reticle thickness, and reticle spacing is locked down before even really getting into the design.
I wonder if we have polling for tree vs non tree, center dot diameters for each model with different mag, reticle thickness, and reticle spacing is locked down before even really getting into the design.
I second the option for a floating +. It is easier for me to see and I actually feel that I am more precise with it. I enjoy shooting 100 yard smallbore matches. The NRA A-25 10-ring is 2" in diameter. A floating +, 2-moa wide and tall, is easier for me to center within the rings.
Floating + lovers are a minority here. But we still deserve love too.
Floating + lovers are a minority here. But we still deserve love too.
Never noticed thickness difference between dot and crosshairs, not saying it doesn't exist just I've never noticed.
I could see this if the + is the exact size of a ring or something making it easier to get exact center, outside of paper punching disciplines that doesn't have much merit.
At least locking windage. Locking elevation isn't as big of deal.
The floating dot needs to be large enough to actually see at all magnifications. That's the biggest issue for me with all tree reticles for the most part and what I least like about my Razor GIII 6-36 is the dot is too small to see well at any magnification.
Lets say FFP at 3x, if stalking through the woods with visibility between 25Y to 75Y, and one needed to make a snap shot on a deer, how large of a COD could we get away with? If large enough it would be less likely to obscure when zoomed in if left at say .1 mil wide but was lit daylight bright.
What's a deer's KZ, like 15" or so, that's approx 8 mils at 50Y, so a 8 mil wide circle could work. It doesn't need to be a full circle, it can be quartered so it doesn't intrude on the rest of the reticle. Just something plain to see on 3x because who's shooting precision on low mag anyway.
Also at say 5 mils of holdover make the reticle a little thicker since many will be dialing down magnification to 14x-ish to get a wider FOV making the reticle here easier to see and also a reference in the reticle. Or in other words, okay there's obviously where 5 mils is, so I know right away where 4 mils is, and where 6 mils is.
In your analogy, possibly a new window, and a few upgrades to the room. We can't assume DNT isn't implementing some of the things discussed in other threads already.
For example the turrets that might be in production which could have been intended for all three DNT's, could be saved exclusively for the two higher power scopes, while low profile turrets for the 3-18 could be designed and made separately.
Who knows, I'm just spitballing ideas in case something sticks. Doesn't hurt to try.
What's a deer's KZ, like 15" or so, that's approx 8 mils at 50Y, so a 8 mil wide circle could work. It doesn't need to be a full circle, it can be quartered so it doesn't intrude on the rest of the reticle. Just something plain to see on 3x because who's shooting precision on low mag anyway.
Also at say 5 mils of holdover make the reticle a little thicker since many will be dialing down magnification to 14x-ish to get a wider FOV making the reticle here easier to see and also a reference in the reticle. Or in other words, okay there's obviously where 5 mils is, so I know right away where 4 mils is, and where 6 mils is.
We, or least not me, aren't in the know pertaining to how far along DNT is in the design, prototype, and production phase. It might be too late or it might not be?!
In your analogy, possibly a new window, and a few upgrades to the room. We can't assume DNT isn't implementing some of the things discussed in other threads already.
For example the turrets that might be in production which could have been intended for all three DNT's, could be saved exclusively for the two higher power scopes, while low profile turrets for the 3-18 could be designed and made separately.
Who knows, I'm just spitballing ideas in case something sticks. Doesn't hurt to try.
Last edited:
I cannot see those floating dots without a struggle. But that's me. I'd like the dots you show at .2, , .4, .6 for wind on the tree as the center dot. Those I can see.
Yes, that’s the plan, but if everyone just kept their mouth shut and didn’t voice their opinions then nothing would ever change. This is after all basically a thread stating what we want to see in a reticle.
I like having the 0.2 mils within the first mil. But you could have 0.2's on the top (or bottom) and 0.5 on the other side?
Removing the hashes (or anything) in the immediate vicinity of the dot is probably the move. I do like 'cleaner' center in my MPCT compared t my mil-C.
Most reticles are generally the same — .03 to .04 thick lines, .2 or .25 hold marks, yawn…
If the goal is to do something unique, then do something unique.
Also, there is more gain to be had discussing reticle line thickness and center dot diameter than reticle design.
-Stan
If the goal is to do something unique, then do something unique.
Also, there is more gain to be had discussing reticle line thickness and center dot diameter than reticle design.
-Stan
Maybe instead of hash marks we could use little skull outlines instead?
3-18 should be .05 mil for thickness at a minimum. A usable reticle on the low end to me is it acts as a duplex and can be 5 mil from center, 6 at the most. I just need it to be “usable” at 5 or 6 mag for holdovers. Most of my scopes have reticles .05 mil thick and they act as a duplex where I can bracket an animal easily, Burris XTRII G2B is perfect for this. I even use a super chicken 6x in the woods for the close stuff. Even have one on my muzzleloader.
Maybe I’m just a weirdo because I’m not a mag whore. I will be buying a thinner reticle scope for shooting groups on paper but that will be for a specific purpose and rifle.
Athlon actually has a tree reticle in the Ares line that’s .06 mil thick and it’s on a 2.5-15 scope. Somebody gets it. I’m leaning hard to pick up a gen 3. If @Lowlight comes up with a crossover scope with DNT I’ll get one of these instead of Athlon.
Maybe I’m just a weirdo because I’m not a mag whore. I will be buying a thinner reticle scope for shooting groups on paper but that will be for a specific purpose and rifle.
Athlon actually has a tree reticle in the Ares line that’s .06 mil thick and it’s on a 2.5-15 scope. Somebody gets it. I’m leaning hard to pick up a gen 3. If @Lowlight comes up with a crossover scope with DNT I’ll get one of these instead of Athlon.
Since nobody can decide between dot or + sign, Instead, just put a floating dick and balls, with the center POA being the tip. You can call it the DNT DNB (Dich-n-Baus) reticle. 
Floating dot, I decided, I just like watching the thought process 
Similar threads
