All the time, in fact some PRS stages specifically don't allow you to dial. 900-1000yd targets are pretty common as well.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Alternative proposal: There is no shortage of options in the 5-25 and 7-35 class of scopes that all have excellent reticles. And as noted above, just taking a 5-25 reticle and shoehorning it into a 3-18 body usually doesn't yield satisfactory results since 3-18s tend to be used differently than the higher mag options.
Is it possible to set out to design an exceptional "MPVO" reticle and put it in a 2-12 or 3-18 body instead? There are numerous threads active right now about the true lack of a great gas gun scope. FFP, durable, waterproof, locking turrets, and most importantly, some sort of illuminated horseshoe so that it is actually usable at both minimum zoom and maximum zoom.
Here's just a sampling of threads with dozens and dozens of people looking for such a scope (myself included). I would humbly suggest that it would be better to make a scope for a market segment that doesn't exist rather than creating yet another scope in one of the most saturated scope classes.
MPVO for Tactical Games Thoughts/Recommendations
I do Tactical Games competitions and the furthest we've shot out to is about 600 yards. A lot of guys are starting to go with a 3-18 type scope (something like Mk 5 HD) and offset red dot. We will typically have one to two stages where we shoot out to distance 200 - 600. Most distances on...www.snipershide.com
MPVO Options
What’s out there that’s usable. Been looking at the Mark 4hd 2.5-10, but what other options are out there in the same price range or cheaper? Looking to put it on an 18” gas gun. A quick search on you tube, nets a ton of options, but I am not really trusting of most of the YouTubers. I was...Did Steiner just quietly build the MPO we have all been asking for? H6xi
Well, this checks a LOT of boxes. https://www.steiner-optics.com/riflescopes/h6xi-2-12x42mm Edit, just noticed MOA and no locking top turret. 😭😭😭 Still fits a good mid-range hunting scope application.
This has been my latest search, an optic to put on my Aero M5 and my SPRish rifle. Within my budget the closest I can find to what I would like is in the Athlon Helos 2-12 but the center dot is too big for what I want. A 1 moa center dot doesn’t help much for grouping and covers a lot of space out to any real distance. Plus I don’t like that it has a 1 mil gap between the crosshairs and the dot.
Ranger green would be a better color I think. You don't see many scopes in that color.
I'm no artist, and this isn't to scale...but I could run something like this or slight variation of:
Probably more 5-25 ideal to me and stripped version for 3-18.
Probably more 5-25 ideal to me and stripped version for 3-18.
I like the floating plus sign in the middle and for the floating “dots”, like the Burris SCR2 reticle. It allows me to really hone in on the center of the bull to get the tightest groups.
The only other things I’d like to see is maybe a tool-less locking elevation and windage system like the Vortex Razor Gen3. And to tighten up the turret feel. The clicks are nice and positive, but the turrets still have a bit of “wobble” feel to them.
Also, maybe a slight bit of IQ improvement in the upper mag ranges, since after about 25x it starts to degrade noticeably. And improved low-light performance, since it gets slightly dark when the ambient light drops at high mag.
Last edited:
Here's my take. This reticle would be primarily for 15-25 power use, and probably wouldn't work for shit in a 3-18. It'd be damn close to my ideal for PRS. Can't think of anything else I'd want for ELR, tactical, or general long range but those aren't my strong suit.
I like the EBR-7D a lot, but my gripes are as follows:
- No differentiation between .2, .4, .6, & .8 on the vertical. It sucks ass.
- No differentiation of the same in the horizontal. Less shitty as there's at least a half mil mark in there
My favorite parts about it
- Dots in the tree make it significantly more see through
- .025 mil center dot. Super fine is great for punching paper
- .1 mil open per side is tits. I use a .1 hold all the time. I hate having to interpolate like that on tiny targets.
- .025 line thickness works great in the higher power range. Not so great at lower power but if the FOV is large enough, you get away with it.
Changes to EBR-7D:
- All .2 & .8 stadia are .075 mils tall on the horizontal, and .150 on the vertical
- All .4 & .6 stadia are .125 mils tall on the horizontal, and .250 on the vertical
- 1 mil worth on windage removed from either side of the 2 mil line in the tree. Could probably do without more, but it doesn't affect me much leaving it.
Additional notes:
I got lazy and didn't put the vertical numbers on or the .1 section past the 6 mil mark on the upper half of the vertical stadia.
I like the EBR-7D a lot, but my gripes are as follows:
- No differentiation between .2, .4, .6, & .8 on the vertical. It sucks ass.
- No differentiation of the same in the horizontal. Less shitty as there's at least a half mil mark in there
My favorite parts about it
- Dots in the tree make it significantly more see through
- .025 mil center dot. Super fine is great for punching paper
- .1 mil open per side is tits. I use a .1 hold all the time. I hate having to interpolate like that on tiny targets.
- .025 line thickness works great in the higher power range. Not so great at lower power but if the FOV is large enough, you get away with it.
Changes to EBR-7D:
- All .2 & .8 stadia are .075 mils tall on the horizontal, and .150 on the vertical
- All .4 & .6 stadia are .125 mils tall on the horizontal, and .250 on the vertical
- 1 mil worth on windage removed from either side of the 2 mil line in the tree. Could probably do without more, but it doesn't affect me much leaving it.
Additional notes:
I got lazy and didn't put the vertical numbers on or the .1 section past the 6 mil mark on the upper half of the vertical stadia.
I used a maker's edition of SolidWorks. Any CAD software should do it and I'd imagine there's plenty of other 2D software that could
This thread is worth reading.
www.snipershide.com
-Stan
Thinking out loud, a reticle for the OEM crew
So, after looking that the Riton, Arken, et al, recently I really dislike some of the reticles they use. I get asked by the OEMs all the time about a SH reticle and normally the thinking is, nah, I don’t want my stuff in low cost scopes, but then after mulling over it for a few days I was...
www.snipershide.com
-Stan
Been saying this for years. The current MPVO reticles are somewhat close but instead of a giant ass dot, put a fucking chevron in the middle. Primary Arms has a lot of fucked up reticle designs but even they got the chevron portion right. Apparently none of the other LPVO/MPVO manufacturers like having defined aim points.Alternative proposal: There is no shortage of options in the 5-25 and 7-35 class of scopes that all have excellent reticles. And as noted above, just taking a 5-25 reticle and shoehorning it into a 3-18 body usually doesn't yield satisfactory results since 3-18s tend to be used differently than the higher mag options.
Is it possible to set out to design an exceptional "MPVO" reticle and put it in a 2-12 or 3-18 body instead? There are numerous threads active right now about the true lack of a great gas gun scope. FFP, durable, waterproof, locking turrets, and most importantly, some sort of illuminated horseshoe so that it is actually usable at both minimum zoom and maximum zoom.
Here's just a sampling of threads with dozens and dozens of people looking for such a scope (myself included). I would humbly suggest that it would be better to make a scope for a market segment that doesn't exist rather than creating yet another scope in one of the most saturated scope classes.
MPVO for Tactical Games Thoughts/Recommendations
I do Tactical Games competitions and the furthest we've shot out to is about 600 yards. A lot of guys are starting to go with a 3-18 type scope (something like Mk 5 HD) and offset red dot. We will typically have one to two stages where we shoot out to distance 200 - 600. Most distances on...MPVO Options
What’s out there that’s usable. Been looking at the Mark 4hd 2.5-10, but what other options are out there in the same price range or cheaper? Looking to put it on an 18” gas gun. A quick search on you tube, nets a ton of options, but I am not really trusting of most of the YouTubers. I was...Did Steiner just quietly build the MPO we have all been asking for? H6xi
Well, this checks a LOT of boxes. https://www.steiner-optics.com/riflescopes/h6xi-2-12x42mm Edit, just noticed MOA and no locking top turret. 😭😭😭 Still fits a good mid-range hunting scope application.
I’m not a huge tree guy but I could live with that. Just add a mill grid x and y in the right corner and I would be happy with that. Maybe a ring around it if it sucked at 3x
Please NO to the whole Chevron idea.
I have a bunch of Primary Arms scopes and I really wish they didn't have the stupid Chevron from back in the 60s or whatever.
A center cross hair is a much better aiming point, or a single dot with a circle around it.
We can agree to disagree. I always get frustrated when the massive dot they put in the center covers my target entirely, and doesn't help when trying to zero the optic. Center crosshair would probably work fine but it looks gay.
I like different color options.
Agreed with the comments of less cluttered reticles, especially for a crossover optic. Otherwise the high mag options with small floating dot all work great.
Too bad they couldn't shrink them turrets. That's really my only complaint with the current offering. I know it would probably have to be a different scope design, but shrinking them to steiner/ march levels would be awesome.
Agreed with the comments of less cluttered reticles, especially for a crossover optic. Otherwise the high mag options with small floating dot all work great.
Too bad they couldn't shrink them turrets. That's really my only complaint with the current offering. I know it would probably have to be a different scope design, but shrinking them to steiner/ march levels would be awesome.
With emphasis on precision or visibly at 3x?
I feel like it'll be real easy to make everyone unhappy with a bad crossover reticle.
How heavy is a 3-18 DNT going to be? Similar to the Match Pro 3-18 and Strike Eagle 3-18 I imagine, around 26-28oz?
I was thinking similarly. Although, marks above the center crosshairs, while good for holdovers, might also be easier for ranging in the reticle. Less busy than below and it works if you know the height of a known object.
I am an expert in nothing but I like clean reticles that have some Christmas tree to them. I like the holdovers for windage but I have used them for ranging at close distances in the woods where the laser rangefinder is dinging off a leaf that is 30 yards from me instead of my target zone that happens to be 70 yards away. I know the width of a tree there of the same species as what I am next to, so I have a known width.
Granted, I may not have to dial anything and might even hold under but then, I am a bit of a geek and like math.
As for illumination, I have not really needed it but it could be a neat thing to have and that is what has really driven optics like Arken in the market, IMO. It may not be the most primo glass but they have features galore. So, I expect the same with DNT.
MilC then add the donut from bushnells G2H so we actually have something usable on both ends.
That's cause it looks like shit when it's anodized
Get rid of the .2 marks above the horizontal and I like it
Oh and the fat part on the horizontal needs to go
Last edited:
3-18, JTAC reticle from TT and combine with the death donut of the bushnell g2h from the lrhs series, and make it illuminated. 
It would be nice to see on a FFP when powered way down that some type of reticle is enhanced. Half the time on my FFP I need to run it at 6 power to actually see and use the reticle. Kind of like the crazy Arken 1-8 does, minus the stupid Predator symbols. But have a usable reticle at 1-4 power
Agree with everything. However, one of my biggest complaints 3 or 4 mil above the center, is they are too thick and obscure the target area. Can we go 1 mil above in the same thickness, and then a thinner, finer mil 2-4?
Something like this, but finer above center.
Stole this pic from another thread lol
Last edited:
For the 3-18 crossover reticle, which by design should be used in the lower mag ranges, MSR2 style (no tree but keep the ranging features) and bring a bolder line thickness, say 0.15 mil thick, from the 10 mil inwards to about 3 mils from center. Continue the 0.2 hashes from center out to the 3 mark, keeping the 0.5 mil hashes in place, then go to 0.5 hash marks only out to 10 mils left and right. Also, no need to use 0.1 hashes on the horizontal line if you keep the ranging feature in a bottom quadrant. And use actual daylight bright illumination (with both green and red options) for the 1 mil center-only as it currently is in the MSR2 so that at 3x it can be used like a red dot sight.
What about something similar to the George Gardner/bushnell G3, but with a floating dot, .2 windage on the main stadia, .2 thickness? For 3-18, circle of death. Or something similar that doesn’t infringe on anyone’s “design”.
For a crossover I like half mil tree like the Vortex EBR2D. I’ve had a 3-15 PST2 for several years and it’s pretty usable down to about 6x for sub tensions. Taking off a little windage and elevation to thicken up the outer edges for the horizontals and lower vertical would make it work duplexish to 3x.
Done quick on my phone so not fancy…
Done quick on my phone so not fancy…
I don't understand why scope manufacturers insist on 10+ mils of windage on the horizontal stadia. Bringing the bold horizontal stadia in to ~5 mils makes it much more usable at low power.
For 5.56 with a 15mph wind I'll go subsonic before I hit 5 mils of wind.
What about a very fine donut around the center that is only usable when illuminated.
That way it doesn’t clutter the center of the reticle and if you want to use it at low magnification you can just crank the illumination up to 11.
That way it doesn’t clutter the center of the reticle and if you want to use it at low magnification you can just crank the illumination up to 11.
The EBR 2c in the 3-15 was a really nicely sized reticle, I believe the 2d is the same thickness.
I'd do basically what you've said, thick outer bars that come into the 5mil mark, but make them proper thick, 1mil like on the G2H reticle.
Then make the main stadia .06mil thick, and include a centre dot (I actually prefer centre cross), with illumination for the first 2mils only.
Probably would like a tree the same as the EBR-7C reticle, keep if fine so it disappears at low magnification but once you dial up to around 8x is becomes useful.
This would be my preferred reticle for something aimed at bolt gun hunting/competition use, but for run and gun/AR world stuff, guys probably want more of a tree that you can use at lower magnification.
I try to never hold in a tree more than about 4mil over but AR guys often seem to like the full 10mils of tree, as you need it with short barrel 223s at distance.
It’s crazy how close to the same reticle we choose then just modify it a bit.
There is so much positive here in one day. Crazy to see the gears turn.
I don’t think I can change the turrets but I can ask, that would make it nice. Even the Maven style tool less might be nice ?
I like the reticle above but the rising hash marks might be a tremor thing and covered by trademarks
I think we have a solid 25x to 35x I would look at the 18x and the cross over options, less defined in the wild
There is so much positive here in one day. Crazy to see the gears turn.
I don’t think I can change the turrets but I can ask, that would make it nice. Even the Maven style tool less might be nice ?
I like the reticle above but the rising hash marks might be a tremor thing and covered by trademarks
I think we have a solid 25x to 35x I would look at the 18x and the cross over options, less defined in the wild
here is where we had left off in 2021. I have about 20 different files and am not sure on the final one but this was close.
1. Yes, though I just picked up a Primary Arms ACSS BPR-MIL Athena reticle with a chevron and I don't particularly hate it.
2. Yes, Mil-XT Tree is nice but the ZCO MPTC-3X is superior. I like the GridTree
3. .2
4. I honestly don't hate the moving target and rapid ranging features of the T3 - but don't get a lot of chance to use it - the ranging in the Athena BPR-MIL is nice that it's offset. There is a lot of debate on the intended target width for ranging estimation. If it should be 16" (average torso width), 18", or 20" (clothed/armored large males). At the very least 3-4 mils up top if ranging/moving targets isn't desierable.
3-18 would be a really good SPR/DMR type optic. Hopefully in 34mm.
Sniper Grey to match the old Navy SEAL sniper grey Sage EBR stocks would be sick. Or RAL8000...
Or AOR1 cerakote, at least that would be worth the damn $250 premium ZCO charges to color their stuff baby poop.
Maybe it’s just Maven, but grey seems way better in theory than reality. Makes them look cheap, imo.
I wouldn’t mind a compact 3-18x50 something like a blend between the Athlon Ares ETR and the Bushnell DMR with a proper crossover reticle. I don’t mind 30oz as long as it’s bomb proof with capped/locked windage. Elevation turret not being locked isn’t as big of a deal.
Once we have the reticle designed, what is the potential for a
Snipers Hide pre-paid group buy?
Snipers Hide pre-paid group buy?
I sometimes shoot in higher than normal winds, so I'd want the "fat" as you put it, on the reticle.
It's mostly because it's a 2-12 and we need to see the reticle on 2x. Here's a tip for shooting groups, dial up .2 mil and use the top of the dot to aim with because your bullet will hit just high of the dot. In conjunction put the dot snugging something square or crossed on the paper target so the edges of the dot are touching on two sides.
We all love to think we're 1/2 moa all day long shooters with rifles capable of that but the truth is that's not the case much of the time. I've won a wide assortment of rifle matches using air rifles, rimfires, centerfires, and I wouldn't describe myself as a 1/2 moa guy at distance. Plus lets be honest, how many times are we using the center dot for distance?! Only if dialing for wind which we don't normally do because most of us are holding off.
This 2-12 scope isn't meant to be compared to 2.5-15, or a 3-18 either, nor meant to be an optic for extreme precision. It's a compromise to satisfy a lot of scenarios reasonably well. I like 15x and 18x, and I like precision, but the reticle has to be correct for low power too. The closest I have is a Helos G2 4-20 with a .05 thick mil reticle which is getting sketchy using 4x.
For another scope, depending on which lower magnification ratio is used, like if 4x or 5x ratio, and if 2.5x or 3x power on the bottom end, the center dot or cross, can be seen at the right size, which is the trick. But then you will typically have a scope with more weight and more length which comes back to which compromise one will tolerate more.
A work around would be a wider and thicker Circle Of Death in the 2-12 because it's somewhat assumed that COD will be used for closer engagement in which touching off a quick shot holding in the kill zone will result in a decent enough hit. This way the center dot can be reduced slightly, however now you've got some obscuring from the COD, and the dot is getting very small to see on 2x if one wants to use it.
Aside from that I think for many a 2.5-15 or 3-18 would be more appealing for precision and general duties with a slightly thicker reticle than what we normally see and mentioned more than once here. Those scope companies have been terrified to do this because of the Tiny DoT Tribalistic attitude, which is fine on those 5-25's and 6-36's where .025-.03 mil is more desirable.
Similar threads
