I’m curious how many people prefer the 0.2 mil hash marks on the Vertical axis as opposed to 0.5? I know alot of people like them on the horizonal for when they are dialing elevation and holding wind. But for holding elevation, how necessary do you find them over a 0.5 mil hash?
Rifle Scopes 0.2 mil marks on the VERTICAL
- Thread starter shaun1826
- Start date
after switching from the Cronus BTR to the Razor Gen 1 EBR-7C - the one thing i miss is the .2 in the elevation.
used it a lot on hold over stages.
however - i haven't shot a match yet with the new scope so i'm sure i'll get used to it and be fine. but it was nice to have and wasn't super cluttered.
used it a lot on hold over stages.
however - i haven't shot a match yet with the new scope so i'm sure i'll get used to it and be fine. but it was nice to have and wasn't super cluttered.
yeah i'm not sure. but i think if they used the same style of hashes for .2 all the way around as they did in the windage, it would be way too crowded. i already think the windage hashes are a little too thick for my liking and crowd my sight picture when trying to spot my shots.
i'm waiting to use it in a match setting and see exactly how i do with it. small chance i think i might not like it and start looking at different reticles.
we'll have to see.
having said that. i've shot with plenty of guys only running .5 in their elevation and have no issues on hold overs.
Yep. The 0.2 look to tall on the horizontal. And then having the 0.5 below makes a cluttered look. I haven’t seen one in person though, only thru the scope pics, so take this with a grain of salt.
On the vertical, I try to come up with creative ways to get holds to 1-mil or .5-mil intervals to make it easy, if target size allows. Or at least I did when I had my SWFA HD that had .5 everywhere. Haven't shot a stage like that with my new Delta Stryker yet.
For instance, our last match had us going from 200 to 400 to 600 to 800 and then all the way back down - no dialing allowed 2MOA targets. So I dialed for 400 (1.8 mils), and 200 was 1.5 hold-under, 600 was 2 mils hold over, and 800 was 4 mils hold over. I think some of those had .1 mil of variance from actual DOPE, but on a 2MOA target it didn't matter. Time was much more important on that stage, and it made life really easy. I think I cleaned it or only missed one.
I do agree that a reticle should be consistent on each stadia.
For instance, our last match had us going from 200 to 400 to 600 to 800 and then all the way back down - no dialing allowed 2MOA targets. So I dialed for 400 (1.8 mils), and 200 was 1.5 hold-under, 600 was 2 mils hold over, and 800 was 4 mils hold over. I think some of those had .1 mil of variance from actual DOPE, but on a 2MOA target it didn't matter. Time was much more important on that stage, and it made life really easy. I think I cleaned it or only missed one.
I do agree that a reticle should be consistent on each stadia.
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
I think the 0.2 hashes are too busy. I started with a TMR reticle. To me, it is super simple to just use the 1 mil and 0.5 hashes as a quicker reference and favor one side or the other.
For instance, say I need 0.4 or 0.6. I just put the 0.5 on the center and favor left or right of center. If I need 0.3 or 0.7 I just use half way between the 1 and the 0.5.
Counting tiny hashmarks is very distracting to me. Having the center between mils be an open space instead of a hash is opposite of what I have learned to look for.
For instance, say I need 0.4 or 0.6. I just put the 0.5 on the center and favor left or right of center. If I need 0.3 or 0.7 I just use half way between the 1 and the 0.5.
Counting tiny hashmarks is very distracting to me. Having the center between mils be an open space instead of a hash is opposite of what I have learned to look for.
#Mil-C4LYFE
In all seriousness though, different strokes... some guys like the .2s, others don’t. I fall into the former category but I’ve taken the time to get accustomed to them and now using them is just second nature.
In all seriousness though, different strokes... some guys like the .2s, others don’t. I fall into the former category but I’ve taken the time to get accustomed to them and now using them is just second nature.
I prefer .2 throughout.
But, here is an argument for .5 on vertical and tree.
Tree is typically used as an “only if I have to feature.”
It’s used at one or less stages in match and unless in a very dynamic hunting or combat situation, not that often.
But, using the entire FOV of the optic is used quite a bit more. For scanning, spotting, and seek impacts.
Less hashmarks = less clutter = more useable FOV.
That’s the reasoning some reticles have .2 on main windage, but not always on tree or vertical.
But, here is an argument for .5 on vertical and tree.
Tree is typically used as an “only if I have to feature.”
It’s used at one or less stages in match and unless in a very dynamic hunting or combat situation, not that often.
But, using the entire FOV of the optic is used quite a bit more. For scanning, spotting, and seek impacts.
Less hashmarks = less clutter = more useable FOV.
That’s the reasoning some reticles have .2 on main windage, but not always on tree or vertical.
If you hold most all shots, something like an h59, mil-xt, or T3 reticle is probably better than a standard or tree reticle.
Similar threads
