The TMR firedot in the mk3hd doesn’t and it drives me crazy.
The reticle they already offer is very close in design and structure. It reminds me a lot of the MIL-XT. The familiarity and instant ability to intuitively pick it up and go to work with it, was impressive, too. There was no “new reticle learning curve” with it, for me. You should check it out and compare.
The is pure fact. The TOR reticle is as close to a MilXT as I've ever seen
Sometimes I wonder if I’m in the minority that shoots reticles for UKD purposes vs PRS specialist around here.
From the jump on this thread I knew we were staring at known targets for an hour and discussing winds with my buds before I shot. Which drives a certain type of reticle.
I do think you eventually decide to use the optimal reticle for the task. But the Christmas tree is more versatile for a one size fits all, imo.
Ukd in what way? You can have a ukd and laser range find it. I mean, I still laser known targets for PRS as they haven’t always been whatever the yardage they say they are. At least to my rangefinder.
Only a mixture of line thicknesses will make this reticle different from those currently offered.
Or, if it is a singular line thickness, something between .05 and .09 MRAD as everything below and above has already been done.
-Stan
Or, if it is a singular line thickness, something between .05 and .09 MRAD as everything below and above has already been done.
-Stan
Personally...I really want to see the multi line thickness.
.3
.5
.7 etc
I like the .3 for a 35-36 and especially the 40+ optics. I had a 5-42x March HighMaster and the main criticism I had was the reticle at the top
Christmas tree reticles, in my opinion, lend themselves to be best suited in situations where you’re engaging multiple targets of unknown distances without time to analyze the conditions. Or to engage movers, for instance, I love the MPCT3x but I did find that shooting movers within 200yds, it was helpful to have more data. Understand I could use the center stadia, I guess I just like 2mils of windage at 1 mil holdover for that situation.
Whereas with PRS, personally, im dialing as much as possible and have the time to potentially dial winds before I even start. That scenario is just less common in the team field match formula.
If I designed the ideal reticle I’d want a duplex for PRS, or ELR engagements and a Christmas tree for other formats.
I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying, but that’s why I’m clarifying by what you mean by UKD shooting.
To expand, you’re not actually talking about UKD, but rather practical combat shooting. This is why some reticles have a range brackets, wind dots, etc which is something I think is good but not for this group.
For instance this is designed for exactly what you’re talking about, but for humans, not steel.
But, on a personnel level, yes, I prefer Christmas trees too.
I am looking specifically at matches like Mammoth, Vortex, Coleman’s Creek, Snipers Unknown. Stuff like that, blind stages where most guys are running WMLRFs now, so I’m rolling up finding ranging and engaging, maybe completing other tasks like pistol arrays etc.
I think you’ve hinted to a 3rd reticle option, combat shooting, where I personally would want something to get a rough distance on humanoid targets. That option for just in case I have nothing and I want to get a rough range to get started.
For comps, I’ll just mil inside my reticle and do the math, or reference my card. Points for these comps often reward a a premium for first round impacts so take the time and get it as precise as possible. Obviously in combat, bullets in the air timely may be what the situation calls for even if they’re not impacting the target.
Hopefully I’m making sense!
I will take a tree reticle all day long over a non tree for its functionality and versatility. You can do any shooting with a tree reticle. I shot what are now known as “PRS” matches with standard mil reticles and even old style mil dots for years and I would never go back to a reticle with less reference points. No advantage in my opinion but everyone is free to use what they like. I think DNT would be stupid to only offer a non tree in a scope though.
To be completely fair...as much as I prefer the tree...the TOR they have already is already really good. If they did a non-tree as a second option, I wouldn't be crushed.
But my personal preference would be a fresh tree style with varying line thickness as you zoom out.
MSR2ish for a non-tree reticle, size each reticle according to the mag range.
MR4ish for a tree reticle with half mil holds.
MR4ish for a tree reticle with half mil holds.
Personally, the 3-18 range does have the broadest use for me. Decent quality glass and good tracking would do almost everything I need, even though being a mag whore scratches an autistic itch. That being said, whether by daylight illumination, or an arc that doesn’t interfere with holding windage and elevation, an immediate and obvious center aiming point at minimum magnification would be an absolute necessity. Sometimes a more general tool does triumph with familiarity and practice.
Still voting for 2 mils only above the center. The rest is just clutter for me.
Looks interesting for sure!
Looks interesting for sure!
Random idea that is probably stupid...
Would it be of value to put some kind of mark above the center, calibrated for popular calibers, that could be a "Trace Indicator"?
Think of it like a BDC, but it shows people where to look immediately following firing so they can see their trace.
-Stan
Would it be of value to put some kind of mark above the center, calibrated for popular calibers, that could be a "Trace Indicator"?
Think of it like a BDC, but it shows people where to look immediately following firing so they can see their trace.
-Stan
What part of it?
MSR2 reticle user manual
After longest wait, first official MSR reticle manual is ready for publishing. Note: manual is intended for all: beginners, advanced shooters and professionals - as MSR2 is designed to fit for various uses and skill levels. Some of explained features are obvious to most precision shooters, some...
finnaccuracy.com
-Stan
The 5, 10, 15, 20, etc mil marks on the top vertical stadia line. They came in handy for me when used on a 22 LR.What part of it?
MSR2 reticle user manual
After longest wait, first official MSR reticle manual is ready for publishing. Note: manual is intended for all: beginners, advanced shooters and professionals - as MSR2 is designed to fit for various uses and skill levels. Some of explained features are obvious to most precision shooters, some...
-Stan
Autism flaring up again. A couple minor tweaks and did some math.
If you see 31 Mil at 7x, you're gonna see roughly as follows.
24.8 mil at 14x
18.6 mil at 21x
12.4 mil at 28x
6.2 mil at 35x
Might be a little off of what other major mfgs are. Looks like most are between 5.8 and 5.9 at 35x or 36x
These are better seen full screen, but I added them as thumbnails.
If you assume a 20 moa rail. (I have roughly 26 mil I can dial from zero)
That takes a 6 Creed out to roughly 2000 yds (29 mil) by dialing 19 and holding 10 and still be on 28x
Click each one to see them full size
If you see 31 Mil at 7x, you're gonna see roughly as follows.
24.8 mil at 14x
18.6 mil at 21x
12.4 mil at 28x
6.2 mil at 35x
Might be a little off of what other major mfgs are. Looks like most are between 5.8 and 5.9 at 35x or 36x
These are better seen full screen, but I added them as thumbnails.
If you assume a 20 moa rail. (I have roughly 26 mil I can dial from zero)
That takes a 6 Creed out to roughly 2000 yds (29 mil) by dialing 19 and holding 10 and still be on 28x
Click each one to see them full size
Last edited:
curious as well? And new to this thread sorry ahead of time for the questions but wondering what a time frame is looking like to production or is this just a floating idea ?
My thoughts on a reticle:
First off, my take is certainly going to be a little biased by how often I am switching between designs due to doing a bunch of optical reviews each year. If something gets real complicated, I generally end up hating it because I switch back and forth too often to be in practice on any unusual set of features. That being said, I do get to experience a lot of designs first hand. My thoughts:
I’ll start with comparisons. Probably my two favorite designs the last couple of years have been the Zero Compromise MPCT 1 and the sole Minox 5-25x56 LR reticle. Immediately you will see what they have in common. They are pretty simple and have .2 mil graduations pretty much everywhere. I really hate scopes that constantly switch up graduation widths. I feel like they slow you down quite a bit. I further thought that the LR reticle did an excellent job with line widths and I loved the triangular outer crosshairs sections that guide your focus to the middle and are wide enough to be visible when you dial way down in power all the way. The LR also did a pretty good job at making the tree section thin and unobtrusive though it made the cardinal sin of labeling the tree in such away the labels are only correct in the vertical dimension and not the horizontal which will cause a lot of people to miss count. If the label is only correct for the vertical, the label needs to be beside the central crosshair and not out in space where it looks like it is labeling both. If you want the label out to the side you pretty much have to go with a pretty wide tree so that you have graduations that have the same windage as drop value so that a label can represent both.
Minox 5-25x56 LR reticle
Zero Compromise MPCT 1 reticle
So, my basic thoughts are:
1) Start with the Minox LR reticle. Despite it being an uncommon optic, I think they may have triangulated, cleaned, and polished the general thinking on all purpose mil reticles to the highest degree on that reticle.
2) Simple .2 mil graduations everywhere, No switching.
3) People seem to like floating dots and it is never a good idea to deviate from trend too much.
4) Triangular outer crosshairs is a nice touch and helps enhance the reticle functionality when dialed down in power.
5) Make sure your Christmas tree is very sparse or drop it all together. Honestly, I have always wanted somebody to do just full mil graduations here but the sparse .2mil ones on the Minox LR were well done. Don’t underestimate how much busy tree sections can interfere with your ability to see splash. There is a reason for the trend backwords to dropping the tree section altogether. I really like my tree free MPCT 1.
6) Nothing at all above the centerline. I have wanted someone to do this for a long time. I think it will end up great for seeing trace on the lighter stuff match shooters use and I have never used any of those graduations for anything anyway.
7) I think putting lines depicting a 90 degree 10mph crosswind for something common and sort of in the middle like say a 135gr 6.5cm amongst the Christmas tree might make a nice visual aid and reminder. I think it might be worth the space.
8) When you do illumination, always illuminate the whole crosshairs.
9) Yes, you do need to label at least every 2 mils on the main crosshair. It is sooooo much faster for the shooter. Honestly, I prefer every mil.
Also, If you guys want a reticle design off the beaten path for an alternate choice, I do have some concepts for that as well. I would certainly recommend you have at least one reticle that is right in the middle of the market though. Innovation is better as a side bet than something I would put all my chips on. Even an idea that is demonstrably better than the current norm is rarely successful at dislodging inertia and group think.
First off, my take is certainly going to be a little biased by how often I am switching between designs due to doing a bunch of optical reviews each year. If something gets real complicated, I generally end up hating it because I switch back and forth too often to be in practice on any unusual set of features. That being said, I do get to experience a lot of designs first hand. My thoughts:
I’ll start with comparisons. Probably my two favorite designs the last couple of years have been the Zero Compromise MPCT 1 and the sole Minox 5-25x56 LR reticle. Immediately you will see what they have in common. They are pretty simple and have .2 mil graduations pretty much everywhere. I really hate scopes that constantly switch up graduation widths. I feel like they slow you down quite a bit. I further thought that the LR reticle did an excellent job with line widths and I loved the triangular outer crosshairs sections that guide your focus to the middle and are wide enough to be visible when you dial way down in power all the way. The LR also did a pretty good job at making the tree section thin and unobtrusive though it made the cardinal sin of labeling the tree in such away the labels are only correct in the vertical dimension and not the horizontal which will cause a lot of people to miss count. If the label is only correct for the vertical, the label needs to be beside the central crosshair and not out in space where it looks like it is labeling both. If you want the label out to the side you pretty much have to go with a pretty wide tree so that you have graduations that have the same windage as drop value so that a label can represent both.
Minox 5-25x56 LR reticle
Zero Compromise MPCT 1 reticle
So, my basic thoughts are:
1) Start with the Minox LR reticle. Despite it being an uncommon optic, I think they may have triangulated, cleaned, and polished the general thinking on all purpose mil reticles to the highest degree on that reticle.
2) Simple .2 mil graduations everywhere, No switching.
3) People seem to like floating dots and it is never a good idea to deviate from trend too much.
4) Triangular outer crosshairs is a nice touch and helps enhance the reticle functionality when dialed down in power.
5) Make sure your Christmas tree is very sparse or drop it all together. Honestly, I have always wanted somebody to do just full mil graduations here but the sparse .2mil ones on the Minox LR were well done. Don’t underestimate how much busy tree sections can interfere with your ability to see splash. There is a reason for the trend backwords to dropping the tree section altogether. I really like my tree free MPCT 1.
6) Nothing at all above the centerline. I have wanted someone to do this for a long time. I think it will end up great for seeing trace on the lighter stuff match shooters use and I have never used any of those graduations for anything anyway.
7) I think putting lines depicting a 90 degree 10mph crosswind for something common and sort of in the middle like say a 135gr 6.5cm amongst the Christmas tree might make a nice visual aid and reminder. I think it might be worth the space.
8) When you do illumination, always illuminate the whole crosshairs.
9) Yes, you do need to label at least every 2 mils on the main crosshair. It is sooooo much faster for the shooter. Honestly, I prefer every mil.
Also, If you guys want a reticle design off the beaten path for an alternate choice, I do have some concepts for that as well. I would certainly recommend you have at least one reticle that is right in the middle of the market though. Innovation is better as a side bet than something I would put all my chips on. Even an idea that is demonstrably better than the current norm is rarely successful at dislodging inertia and group think.
Last edited:
I just don't know if the Minox LR is different enough than the TOR to justify the switch. Both are good, but pretty similar.
2) Can you elaborate. I don't hate it, but I personally still prefer to have the 1/2 mil floating dots like the TOR and MilXT
3) I think most have accepted that, but the size is up for discussion still. I maintain .03 for an optic that goes over 30x
4) easy to add or adpot
6) I'm ok with nothing at all above the center line, but it seems most people have voiced at least 2 mil over. (i would be ok with 1 mil and very minimal information)
7) I could see that, but how many stadia down would you want it? Surely not crazy like the Tremor. My dasher looks like it would .5 mil at 400 yds and my creed would be like .4 mil at 400 yds. so they are almost the same...but its such a small amount, I wouldn't need it on my reticle.
8) elaborate again, do you mean the entire cross hair like both hor and vert stadia or the entire reticle completely??
9) I like every 2, but I don't need the first one.
I don't have any issue with the TOR at all, but if you've got some outside the box ideas, I would absolutely be down to see, hear or read about them.
Minox LR
DNT TOR
Please do not label every single mil. Unnecessary and adds too much clutter. Every even mil should suffice. Also MR4 > LR 
Cool.
Where will these be available for purchase?
I realize it'll be awhile before they're available.
Where will these be available for purchase?
I realize it'll be awhile before they're available.
You need to number every other ab to make this more user friendly. Maybe a floating dot nose as well?
Your right, the LR is pretty similar to the TOR which is darn near identical to the MilXT.
2) What bothers me a great deal when I encounter it in reticles is a lot of mixing and matching of graduations such as half mill graduations on the vertical stadia but .2mil graduations on the horizontal except in some other places where they are .1mil. It is a lot and can be made even worse by having your full mil graduations change style on different parts of the reticle as well. Basically, don't be the G4P reticle. As for the half mill floating dots in the tree section like on the TOR and MilXT, I don't like them. Lately I have been actually been liking no tree at all best and if I had one in I would make it as minimalist as possible. Probably just dots at full mil intervals. All those markings in that area just really seem to frequently interfere with the ability to pinpoint just exactly where the shot hit and the splash started. Perhaps it's just my eyes on this but that's how I feel.
The amount of graduation width and marking style switching on this reticle absolutely drove me crazy. This is not an example of a reticle I like, sorry George.
3) Line width and DOT size certainly must be calibrated to the power range. With the reticles I have designed I spent a lot of time thinking about this. Truth is, I actually like a duplexed center a bit more than a floating dot but I have clearly been out voted on this and it doesn't matter to me much anyway.
6) Do you use the vertical stadia above the center line. I don't feel like I really ever need them and I'm surprised nobody has tried a reticle without. It seems like that section keep shrinking, just get rid of that appendix already. I am pretty curious if it would help me catch trace more.
7) I really don't know if I would end up liking it or thinking it would be a bad call, but an inverted parabola looking thing representing typical wind drift for say 10mph might be an interesting visual reference. I might also find it interfered with my splash reading. But I would be game to try it.
8) What I mean is not just a one mil by one mil X in the center. Instead, at least all the graduated crosshairs. It probably isn't a good idea to illuminate any of the thick ungraduated area beyond that as it might blow out your nightvision.
9) A label every 2 mils is what most have. I think I once had one with every mil labeled though and I actually ended up liking it. Perhaps I am misremembering but I don't think so as it surprised me that I did.
Lastly, the out of the box idea. I have pitched it to a few scope makers before and it was actually on a patent application I did back in the day. It is a rangefinding section placed in the second focal plane. This means that the scope would have a first focal plane reticle as well as this ranging section in the second focal plane. There would be no alignment required between the two as the ranging section does not have any aiming points but it would require an extra piece of etched glass. In order to determine the range, the shooter aligns a target of a known size with the graduated section on the reticle and rotates the power ring changing the size of the target relative to the second focal plane scale until the target fits properly. The distance can then be read off of the power ring as it is calibrated for that purpose. There is no math involved because the power ring is efectivly doing the calculation for you. Depending on your erector ratio you could design for say 200-1k yards given a 7-35x scope as it has a 5x erector ratio. Some of you guys may remeber the MSK3 reticle I designed for the Optisan CX6 12 years ago had a calibrated power ring for range determination. Some will also know this sort of concept was first utilized by Jim Leatherwood in the ART, perhaps the most brilliant, out of the box, and underapreciated rifle scope design in history. This is a broader version of just the ranging half of that concept in that it is designed to be used on a variety of different sized targets instead of just one. The scale is also set on an angle so it also functions on both horizontal or vertical targets. It is actually pretty surprising how fast, easy, and accruate a power ring scale like this is at ranging a target.
2nd focal plane scale shown in lower left depicting a vertical silhouette target properly aligned and the power ring adjusted for proper fit.
The range of the target being read off the power ring.
Let me know what you think of the rangefinding concept.
While I will be interested to see which reticle is finally decided upon, thus far this thread strikes me as never have so many, argued so passionately, to continue the status quo, and call it an original idea.
-Stan
-Stan
I think you're right, one of the most outside the box ideas I've ever heard of and absolutely have never considered. However, I feel like it's more of a military concept. Everything is dependant on objects of know size, which animals and targets ARE, but they aren't singularly relatable.
If it's calibrated for man size/shape, or IPSC...it's not really useful for a PRS stage that has 8-16" circles and squares.
I dig the idea, and if I was shooting people that were trying to kill me...I'd say absolutely, give me that! Not sure if it would be worth it for this particular optic or brand.
I think its just like choosing a camo pattern on a rifle.
Imagine having virutally unlimited options of camo pattern, BUT NO WAY TO PAINT YOUR OWN... EVER!
Everyone has an opinion on how they would like it to be a little different or a little better, but on a reticle, you have virtually ZERO voice or ability design your own. I always thought it would be great for folks to offer a Custom Shop option like Leupold used to do, but instead, design your own reticle the way YOU want it. Especially since they are just laser etched glass anyway.
It wouldn't be difficult at all do develop a program that would allow consumers to walk through the design process and see CGI / AI images of how the reticle would playout in a real world scenario.
A second focal plane ranging option, combined with a first
1. Vary the line thickness in the design based on what needs to stand out more than other things.
2. Vary the line visibility e.g. the crosshair is easily visible while the tree may be less visible a la S&B Grid.
3. Second focal plane ranging marks.
Make something with all of the above three, and you're breaking new ground.
-Stan
The concepts in this thread so far that I think are neat / new / of value are as follows:
1. Vary the line thickness in the design based on what needs to stand out more than other things.
2. Vary the line visibility e.g. the crosshair is easily visible while the tree may be less visible a la S&B Grid.
3. Second focal plane ranging marks.
Make something with all of the above three, and you're breaking new ground.
-Stan
I agree the vert and horiz stadia need to have the abilty to stand out. I pointed that out earliyer with the existing TOR reticle. Someone would have a VERY hard time telling me the TOR dots clutter up the image and they are hard to find trace or splash behind them.
The only thing that makes the GR2ID different than a MilXT is that the MilXT limits the dots to the horizontal and the GR2ID decided to use dots for a full grid, horz and vert. But neither of those themselves make the grid or dots less visible. It's the weight of the information, dots dashes, lines or dick shapes doesn't matter. It's how heavy they are in relation to the main vert and horz stadia.
So, the big and little wind dots on the EBR-2C (my fav reticle along with the 2d) and its later 7x variants are .06 and .09mil. The TOR’s are .05/.08mil.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the 2C’s little dots interfere with finding little rodents at higher magnifications (pdogs, 13 stripe ground squirrels, etc).
This is because the target and the background are often a very similar color (edit: brown) with low contrast between them. Any slight muddling of the sight picture distracts the eye when looking for them through the scope.
Mind you I’m not talking about actually shooting, I’m talking about looking for the target that you just spotted with LRF binos and are currently trying to re-find in the scope.
Even though the TOR’s dots are a wee bit smaller, the effect will still be there.
It’s an issue that I put up with because I don’t usually dial for speed reasons.
For this very reason I do wish a manufacturer would limit the lines of the tree. Like cut it off at 3 mils (my pref), or 4 or 5. Whatever they think they can do and still sell it. Also delete everything above the horizontal stadia…even that one single vertical line is distracting.
Obviously this site has a white steel target/comp focus, I get it. But I think it’s helpful to think outside of just that discipline. The reticle I’d like is for small varmint shooting.
Last edited:
For example, here is my exact reticle. Found this pic on the net.
Imagine a terrain-colored pdog is down near the bottom. Then imagine some mirage. Your eye is tired from shooting all day (not just a 2min stage). Some dust is swirling around. Maybe you have eye floaters. You’re trying to find that damn pdog you just ranged with the LRF binos or your spotter buddy is trying to explain where tf it is. Swearing may be involved.
That’s the scenario that I’m talking about.
Similar threads
