I'm not suggesting either is better than the other, just pointing out that I designed mine, based on a mix of what can be considered a fine line (.03) like the PR2... as well as a heavier line (.05 and .07) you would utilize if you zoom outside the top end.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
And shows why I like having illumination on all my optics. People always come in with their cool “I never even put a battery in” but they obviously have no idea what they are giving up for performance.
Here's one where we can test/see some of the benefits of illumination, but also compare the issues when non-illuminated features remain in FOV.
This vs Mil-C (left) vs MSR-2K (Khales version)
This vs Mil-C (left) vs MSR-2K (Khales version)
Would you please show this reticle on 3x if possible and use the background of the bottom photo. Thanks
yes, I can tomorrow...but
I think a better question is to just ask what reticles are usable at 3x...what features do you like to have usable at 3x and design accordingly. Personally, I don't think there is 1 answer for both options.
What you're asking for is 6.7 PowerStroke in an F150 chassis that pulls 20k lbs and has seating for 8 people. At some point, you gotta make compromises.
I don't have anything left on my shelf in a 3-18 size...I'm patiently waiting for more info on PrimaryArms 2.5-20x
Here's 4 of the 6-36 and 7-35 options I had on the shelf...on the bottom and top power.
Last edited:
Personally, Yes.
If you want quarters...shoot minutes.
I completely agree that for a reticle to actually be usable at 3x in real world conditions, it takes a significant compromise. That's why I think it makes sense to make such a compromise in the 3-18 scope that would be a turn off in the 5-25 and 7-35.
Personally I am a fan of a bold 2mil circle around the center crosshairs, like on Ilya's Mrad reticle seen in the Meopta Optika6. Combined with reasonably thick crosshairs to draw the eye to the center it works great for quick offhand shots. You can do it as a segmented circle so it doesn't totally interfere with the windage/elevation lines.
I do too. At least if the hashes are designed in such a way that it’s easy to differentiate between them…like the NF MIL-XT/C reticles (or most of the DNT reticle below).
That’s the one thing that I don’t like about the DNT mil reticle: the very innermost hashes right around the center are a little harder for me to immediately “count”.
I think I get why it’s designed that way, which is to draw your eye in. I believe the counting thing is more impt.
If my holds are gonna be something like 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 etc… then why have 0.25? It just makes it take a little longer to figure and involves more approximation on my part. Not impossible to do, but it’s not what I prefer to do.
I think the actual point is that by going .25 hashes ...you have less tick marks between your mils. 3 instead of 4...And with most plates being minimum .3-.4 mils wide anyway... that .05 difference is usually a nonissue. Maybe I'm wrong
I get it...but regardless, I've never been overwhelmed by .2 mil holds.
Right, I understand why they do it. I also agree that 0.2 mil holds is not so much information that you get lost in it. I actually feel it makes everything more simple to use. I think 0.25 hash marks is like having a ruler divided into 1/3” segments when all of your measurements are in 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 etc.
Here's why I don't feel overlaying a design onto a photo is a legitimate representation. it' gives you an idea, but I don't think it's the end-all be-all.
Near as I can tell...at 18x you'll see roughly 10 mil side to side...(as per the Leupold Diagram) and zoomed out to 3x you'll see roughly 60 mil from side to side. Stands to reason with a 6x erector.
For me, and this might just be me, but the tree seems to be overly complicated. I feel that it should be more simplified rather than being a collection of +,-,., and | symbols.
Also on the horizontal crosshair if you’re only going to number 2, 5, and 10 mils then the full mil hash marks should at least be the same height as each other. Personally I would prefer every other mil numbered as it makes more sense to me.
Not trying to say anything bad about your work here as I appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into this, I just feel a technical reticle already carries with it a certain amount of noise to begin with and making more continuity throughout would help in digesting all of the information being given.
Autism man, I do this kind of stuff for fun. Even if it never sees the light of day. I enjoy doing it.
Challenge images are designed to be difficult, so appreciate the OP presenting is design in this kind of background for critque.
Just for demonstration purposes, I penciled in a no4 style post here to just show the effect it has. I do think this techique helps for 3-18 type crossover reticles. THLR and the NF 1-8 FC-Mil put alot of emphasis on this style for using on low power as well.
Many 5-25x optized reticles lack this kind of heavy center poset, eg its well-known issue with the MSR2 reticle on low power.
German No 4 post A/B is as follows...
Just for demonstration purposes, I penciled in a no4 style post here to just show the effect it has. I do think this techique helps for 3-18 type crossover reticles. THLR and the NF 1-8 FC-Mil put alot of emphasis on this style for using on low power as well.
Many 5-25x optized reticles lack this kind of heavy center poset, eg its well-known issue with the MSR2 reticle on low power.
German No 4 post A/B is as follows...
Last edited:
I like how you have the crosshairs descending in size. I think you’re on to something there. The 5 mils mark just isn’t needed I don’t think, but it also doesn’t detract from it either and some could find it useful.
The tree to me, and this is no offense, reminds me of a linoleum floor tiling and I just get lost in it. I don’t want to have to remember what a plus means vs a dot or a line and where it means what. I think having larger 1 mil mark dots and amaller .2 dots at every mil, and maybe a large one mil dot and smaller half mil dots in between would be good and offer less of an information overload. Or possibly small crosshairs for the 1 mil marks in the tree and small .2 dots in between at every mil and then half mil dots descending every half mil would be good? Whatever it is it should have continuity throughout the tree.
Those all make sense to me. I already have to think enough when shooting as it is, I don’t want to have to put so much effort into remembering everything in my reticle that I get paralyzed by thought while trying to decipher everything in front of me or getting lost in the pattern it all creates. I don’t want to ask myself why is this a certain size vs this other one and why is it different on this line vs the line above it. What is this trying to tell me? If that makes sense?
Edit: I like the layout of the crosshairs in the first one with the thickness in the tree of the third one if I were going to choose.
Last edited:
In this example I like the right one the best.
I totally agree. Reminds me of that Leica PRS reticle. A pass from me, but appreciate the effort.
@blksno.
yes, "I can tomorrow...but
I think a better question is to just ask what reticles are usable at 3x...what features do you like to have usable at 3x and design accordingly. Personally, I don't think there is 1 answer for both options.
What you're asking for is 6.7 PowerStroke in an F150 chassis that pulls 20k lbs and has seating for 8 people. At some point, you gotta make compromises."
Me, yep most of us buying a 3-18 would accept the compromises since we already have the 5-25's and up. I have the Helos G2 2-12 DMR too but at times I wish I had more magnification. Of course a .3 mil sized dot wouldn't be okay on a 3-18.
Like I mentioned in one of my earlier posts the main difference we need is the reticle being seen closer in for a running deer or coyote, maybe even self defense on a AR.
A reference I have was the Burris XTR2 BCD/circle reticle in their FFP 1-8. IIRC at 10 mils wide it worked great for paper in 3 gun matches. On 1x I didn't use the .1 mil centerdot for normal paper distances I used the 10 mil wide circle as fast as I could. Then best to dial up some for the steel farther out and use the center dot or holds. Dialed up to 8x the COD is out of the way which was nice.
What I'm getting at is this - 3x isn't what we'd use for precision, like as if we were trying to hit a dime at 50Y, no 3x is for taking advantage of the wide FOV, getting a shot off quickly, and hitting something sizable. Otherwise dial up magnification to suit the situation and use the reticle stadia like normal. I'm guessing the last reticle you made for a 3-18 would be seeable by 6-7x??, which is fine, but then the FOV is much less which is also now another compromise.
The trick is making a circle the most optimal size as well as the thickness of it. If it was 5 mils wide it should be out of the way for most scenarios but also 9" wide at 50Y/human head size/coyote chest, 18" wide at 100Y/torso size for deer. 27" size for elk torso at 150Y. Again for "quick" shots only on 3x or slightly higher. Yes it's compromise, but what isn't, however 3x would be plenty usable.
"What you're asking for is 6.7 PowerStroke in an F150 chassis that pulls 20k lbs and has seating for 8 people. At some point, you gotta make compromises."
I understand your analogy!
My truck is a 23 F250 HO 500HP/1200lbT because my gas 6.4 2500 Dodge wouldn't pull my 5th wheel well on hills.
Thanks for taking the time to contribute to our community with your reticle designs!
yes, "I can tomorrow...but
I think a better question is to just ask what reticles are usable at 3x...what features do you like to have usable at 3x and design accordingly. Personally, I don't think there is 1 answer for both options.
What you're asking for is 6.7 PowerStroke in an F150 chassis that pulls 20k lbs and has seating for 8 people. At some point, you gotta make compromises."
Me, yep most of us buying a 3-18 would accept the compromises since we already have the 5-25's and up. I have the Helos G2 2-12 DMR too but at times I wish I had more magnification. Of course a .3 mil sized dot wouldn't be okay on a 3-18.
Like I mentioned in one of my earlier posts the main difference we need is the reticle being seen closer in for a running deer or coyote, maybe even self defense on a AR.
A reference I have was the Burris XTR2 BCD/circle reticle in their FFP 1-8. IIRC at 10 mils wide it worked great for paper in 3 gun matches. On 1x I didn't use the .1 mil centerdot for normal paper distances I used the 10 mil wide circle as fast as I could. Then best to dial up some for the steel farther out and use the center dot or holds. Dialed up to 8x the COD is out of the way which was nice.
What I'm getting at is this - 3x isn't what we'd use for precision, like as if we were trying to hit a dime at 50Y, no 3x is for taking advantage of the wide FOV, getting a shot off quickly, and hitting something sizable. Otherwise dial up magnification to suit the situation and use the reticle stadia like normal. I'm guessing the last reticle you made for a 3-18 would be seeable by 6-7x??, which is fine, but then the FOV is much less which is also now another compromise.
The trick is making a circle the most optimal size as well as the thickness of it. If it was 5 mils wide it should be out of the way for most scenarios but also 9" wide at 50Y/human head size/coyote chest, 18" wide at 100Y/torso size for deer. 27" size for elk torso at 150Y. Again for "quick" shots only on 3x or slightly higher. Yes it's compromise, but what isn't, however 3x would be plenty usable.
"What you're asking for is 6.7 PowerStroke in an F150 chassis that pulls 20k lbs and has seating for 8 people. At some point, you gotta make compromises."
I understand your analogy!
My truck is a 23 F250 HO 500HP/1200lbT because my gas 6.4 2500 Dodge wouldn't pull my 5th wheel well on hills.
Thanks for taking the time to contribute to our community with your reticle designs!
Last edited:
That's getting close.
Are the side bars just off the 5 mil hashes .1 mil thick, edit, they look more like .4 mil thick?
Decided to make a closeup of my design that I posted earlier. Go vote for it there if you are so inclined.
Closeup with a little modification around the center horizontal. Got a little warped somehow in the mobile editor I was using…oh well.
Closeup with a little modification around the center horizontal. Got a little warped somehow in the mobile editor I was using…oh well.
at 5 mil, it goes to .2 thick.
at 10 mil, it goes to .5 thick
I changed to a circle, roughly .75 thick and is based on the old Bushnell BTR-2 that was used in the 1-8.5x SMRS. Near as I can tell...the BTR-2x is roughly .5 mil thick and 6 mil across.
I have never had issues seeing that circle on 1x when illuminated. So there should be no issue seeing this at 3x.
.75 thick and also 6 mil across
Looking seeable on 3x but the circle at .75 mil thick might be pushing it a bit because it intrudes a little for a windage hold at 2 mil below the center dot. After looking at it .5 mil thick and 5.5 mil wide would probably be better?? Also maybe make the circle quadrants even/the same, and shorter like the lower quadrants, for congruity. Other than that this is a good compromise. I'm not sure how else to improve the "seeing the reticle on 3x" theme while having fine enough center dot, hash marks, and main crosshair for mid magnification and as high as 18x for precision.
Others can weigh in to see if this freaks them out or not. There has to be a positive consensus or there's no use making something that won't sell well.
Edit, lay the reticle out on a few animals at shorter distances or a deer at 100Y??
Last edited:
I think that’s a good step in the right direction. I’m not a fan of the stadia layout in between the full mil marks on the vertical crosshair but in all for a crossover reticle this isn’t too bad. I think the circle could use some refining but it’s definitely on the right track I think.
Is the single “-“ in the tree at 5 mils a mishap or is there a reason behind it?
Edit: I like dots vs the + in the tree but I also realize this isn’t being taylor made for just me.
Last edited:
It would seem this DNT is daylight bright enough for a slightly overcast day.
It was -20 with the wind chill so I wasn't real thrilled about being out there nit picking if everything was in focus, but I'll have to wait for summer to truly test bright bright daylight. That said...I believe the DNT line is plenty bright to make it usable in the 7-35 range.
Element Theos 6-36x on 20x
DNT The One 6-36x on 20x
It was -20 with the wind chill so I wasn't real thrilled about being out there nit picking if everything was in focus, but I'll have to wait for summer to truly test bright bright daylight. That said...I believe the DNT line is plenty bright to make it usable in the 7-35 range.
Element Theos 6-36x on 20x
DNT The One 6-36x on 20x
My vote is for something with a floating center dot, a christmas tree, and nothing above the center.
Take the Leupold PR2.
Make the center dot .1 MRAD.
Make the thin horizontal and vertical stadia .1 MRAD.
Make the hash marks .05 MRAD.
Make the thick stadia 2 MRAD with no taper as it meets the hash marks.
Make the horizontal stadia go out to 6 MRAD on each side of the center dot.
Remove the Christmas tree and you have an upgraded PR3 for those who want it.
-Stan
Make the center dot .1 MRAD.
Make the thin horizontal and vertical stadia .1 MRAD.
Make the hash marks .05 MRAD.
Make the thick stadia 2 MRAD with no taper as it meets the hash marks.
Make the horizontal stadia go out to 6 MRAD on each side of the center dot.
Remove the Christmas tree and you have an upgraded PR3 for those who want it.
-Stan
I disagree with this mentality. Nobody is holding +/- quarter minutes of wind or elevation.
I ask my question because I truly don't believe fifths works as fast as quarters for anyone.
I am biased as someone who reads a tape measure a lot. But it is factual that the human brain cuts things in half really well.
So lacking a half mil mark is a huge downfall to me. Breaking the reticle down into half mils, then half again are references everyone gets more quickly.
Does it seem counterintuitive on paper to not match your turret increments? Maybe
I had the Mil C and the leupold PRS1 MIL, and went back to half-mil reticles. A sea of hashes is not more precise or quick IMHO, and we already have a plethora of options like that.
TLDR: With quarter MIL references I am not needing to count hashes ever. With fifth references, I am counting just about every time to make sure Im in the right spot. Am I alone in that?
I think for non-robots, human error will always be greater than stadia hash mark accuracy.
Or, shorter, most humans aren’t good enough to be able to take advantage of .5 vs .25 vs .2 hash marks.
-Stan
Yes^^^
This is effectively it^^^
Fact is I can hold a near perfect 0.3MIL hold just fine with a quarter MIL reticle. The error isn't 0.05MIL at all.
The issue is always the wind estimate in the first place
I agree. Where it makes a difference is how well you can digest that information. Some obviously can digest the reticle breakdown better in quarters. For me it’s fifths. Neither is impossible to do, it’s just in how you process that information I suppose.
Like Luckyshot said, broken down into fifths he has to count the stadia lines. For me I don’t have to count those. Everything just falls into place for me with 0.2 hashes. For him it doesn’t.
For me breaking it down into quarters throws me off, but that’s me and how my mind puts it all together I suppose.
I don't think it's really about holding quarter moa of wind...it's the graduation of the reticle itself. I started out shooting MOA and moved to MIL probably 12 years ago. to this day, if I look through a reticle and see it segmented into quarters...I assume it's MOA.
I had a HUGE issue with an IOR reticle I tried a couple years ago. Was only going to be prone and still It wasn't worth trying to get used to.
I'm not sure they are faster, I certainly didn't suggest they would be. Maybe, as you suggested...it's because of the .2 clicks on the turret? It just seems logical. I feel like a .25 mil reticle and a .2 mil turret is a similar complication to a Mil Dot retitle and an MOA turret. Just doesn't seem to be logical.
I don't disagree with this...and it's part of why I prefer a reticle that has a .2 mil system...to have 1/2 mil floating dots. When time is a factor, I've never had an issue using the 1/2 mil floating dot as my reference point and then I don't have to count hashes.
I guess it's very rare that I need to actually COUNT the hashes as long as I can quickly and correctly identify the proper stadia.
Shooting rimfire, i don't have any issue going back and forth from a 0 hold, to a 12.7 hold...but I prefer hold over unless I'm trying to do 4-5 different distance targets. If it's just 2 or 3...I generally hold. Maybe I've just gotten used to it.
Last edited:
These aren't edicts or orders of march on this, just some thoughts after reading through the thread:
- I saw mention of PRS vs hunting/sniping. Dual purpose things usually end up not the best at both. So, maybe a focus on one use type over the other? Hunting/sniping doesn't restrict what the shooter can do as in the PRS game rules.
- For the guys that hold wind instead of dial, the importance of the center dot decreases since it's rarely a no wind day.
- Busy tree reticles. I rarely get to see splash where I hunt & train. It's great when I have a dusty dirt backstop to quickly line up a splash and place the closest tree dot near that splash for quick follow up, but like I said, rare. So, less is more?
- .2mil wind hash with a different tic/mark for .5mil, like the Leupold Mk4HD reticles show
- Be great to have a 18" quick range lines for IPSCs and zombies, like I saw in a Nightforce scope. (ACOG type)
- I'm leaning to the Leupold PR3-MIL ish with some enhancements
- I saw mention of PRS vs hunting/sniping. Dual purpose things usually end up not the best at both. So, maybe a focus on one use type over the other? Hunting/sniping doesn't restrict what the shooter can do as in the PRS game rules.
- For the guys that hold wind instead of dial, the importance of the center dot decreases since it's rarely a no wind day.
- Busy tree reticles. I rarely get to see splash where I hunt & train. It's great when I have a dusty dirt backstop to quickly line up a splash and place the closest tree dot near that splash for quick follow up, but like I said, rare. So, less is more?
- .2mil wind hash with a different tic/mark for .5mil, like the Leupold Mk4HD reticles show
- Be great to have a 18" quick range lines for IPSCs and zombies, like I saw in a Nightforce scope. (ACOG type)
- I'm leaning to the Leupold PR3-MIL ish with some enhancements
That’s it right there. I too grew up using MOA and switched to mils.
MOA breaks down to half's then quarters.
Mil breaks down in tenths then fifths.
If I were using an MOA reticle I absolutely want it broken down in quarters. Not a mil reticle though. I honestly don’t even want .5 mil marks. It’s a spacial relation thing I suppose. I know this is the center, hold between these two stadia and go! We have already established that it isn’t a fidelity thing, rather how well we can process the information.
While I agree with a lot of this I would like to comment on the tree part. Me wanting the tree is not primarily for spotting splash and correcting my shots. The main purpose of that tree for me is wind holds when I’m holding over instead of dialing elevation. Making corrections is secondary to this function.
I did the entire 7-35x design with the intention of NRL/PRS type shooting, but lets not pretend there's not huge chunk of us that use a match grade optic and reticle and hunt with it anyway.
The 3-18x option I jsut did for giggles...that's not an option I would personally grab, so I was just spitballing based on what everyone else suggested they would want
I will admit I like the tree for both reasons.
Now...we have seen a trend with a lot of the top shooters going to a more JTAC style reticle because....well...they are some of the top shooters.
I don't believe this optic is really designed for them.
I have two of the DNT 7-35s but I've still never seen one at a center fire match.
That said, I believe the tree style is a learning aid for new and fledgeling shooters and for that...the DNT is already in a class of it's own.
Similar threads
