DNT is gonna let us do a reticle

[Tictacticaltimmy]

The SFP ranging box is a really cool concept, but I don't think it is relevant to this thread. My understanding is DNT is looking to simply change the etched reticle on an existing scope of theirs, not spec out a completely new optic.

@BigJimFish have you reached out to PA with this idea? It seems right up their alley, could easily apply this idea to their 18/72" acss ranging feature.

In general it seems to me the reticle designs should try to maximize the usefulness for the ways 90% of potential buyers will be using the optic 95% of the time. because trying to make the optic usable for every niche application demands compromises which makes it less usable in those 90-95% applications.

Examples of such compromises would be, in my opinion, windage marks that extend past 5 mils instead of having nice thick bars up to that point. Or having vertical stadia more than 2mil above the center... Or perhaps having vertical stadia anywhere above the center.

I actually think making these sorts of compromises are a mistake nearly all optic companies make particularly in the long range target shooting market. A reticle design that did away with them could be really strong for the way most of us use these optics.... And let the people shooting niche applications buy something else.

 

[blksno]

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.

I get all that and value that info, but I don't know if the relevant info revolves around the people on the site shooting steel and target/comps.
I think it's just a factor that, for me personally, I don't see this as the ideal optic for hunting anyway, so I'm not really looking to design a reticle for a purpose the majority won't use it for.

It's like trying to make sure you put child seat hooks in the back seat of your mustang. Ok cool, it works for that, but you're talking about 10% that might buy it for colony varmints vs the 75% that are going to buy it for some type of competition shooting.

 

[carbonbased]

I get all that and value that info, but I don't know if the relevant info revolves around the people on the site shooting steel and target/comps.
I think it's just a factor that, for me personally, I don't see this as the ideal optic for hunting anyway, so I'm not really looking to design a reticle for a purpose the majority won't use it for.

It's like trying to make sure you put child seat hooks in the back seat of your mustang. Ok cool, it works for that, but you're talking about 10% that might buy it for colony varmints vs the 75% that are going to buy it for some type of competition shooting.

The interesting thing about a reduced (edit: height) tree idea is it slides in between a simple cross and a full tree.

Since the simple cross is coming back into fashion for some top shooters, the reduced (edit: height) tree middle ground is something no one is doing. Like, hold until a certain point and then dial for more extreme distance shots. Open bottom and top for trace/splashes.

I dunno man, not going to fall on my sword here, but I think it’s worth thinking about.

 

[carbonbased]

Just updated as you emoji’ed.

 

[stanley_white]

The interesting thing about a reduced tree idea is it slides in between a simple cross and a full tree.

Since the simple cross is coming back into fashion for some top shooters, the reduced tree middle ground is something no one is doing. Like, hold until a certain point and then dial for more extreme distance shots. Open bottom and top for trace/splashes.

I dunno man, not going to fall on my sword here, but I think it’s worth thinking about.

Is this a reduced tree?

-Stan

 

[carbonbased]

Is this a reduced tree?

-Stan

View attachment 8623990

Whoops, reduced HEIGHT tree, not width. Less mils down. At least two mils left/right.

If one desires a more open reticle at 1mil down, that’s ok if you do that sneaky thing @koshkin ‘s March reticle FML-TR1 does. The stuff at 1.5mil and 2mil down is easy to align by eye UP to the empty.5mil/1mil “imaginary” horizontals. Look to the left side that I didn’t modify and you’ll see.

He also made the tree a little narrower by his use of numbers in the ends instead of dots.

For example, by not using a big dot for 2mils right and then hanging the number to the right of the dot, he saved that much visual space by using a narrow number instead.

This way you get both things…more open and also pretty easy to align in open space.

 

[blksno]

I just went back and looked at the weight of the various dots/lines on various reticles that utilize a higher mag range, as well as some form of tree reticle.
This is a break down of how heavy the data is OFF the main stadia. The dots, or dashes or whatever that makes up the "tree" portion of the design ideas.
The focus for me being the weight of the floating center dot, and then the weight of the rest of the tree or grid or secondary hold off data below the main stadia.

	MainStadia	Center Dot	1 mil indication dots	secondary dots
DNT TOR	.04	.05	.08	.05
Mil XT	.033	.05	.10	.05
GR2ID	.04 (assumed)	.05	.08	.06 - .04
EBR-7D	.03	.03	.09	.06
Gen3 XR Fine	.025	.05	.10 (+ shape)	.05
MPCT3x	.034	.036	.2 (O shape)	.036
my basic v4	.03	.03	.2 (+ shape)	.03

From what I can see, the .information is all fairly consistent overall. Mine borrowing bits and pieces from many.

I may tweak a v5 so the + shapes aren't as pronounced, not as "long". Mine are 2x longer than the Gen3XRfine, but not as heavy. I think that's a good thing, but I'm open to the change.

As you can see by the main stadia...I think this slight bit of girth helps to make the remaining tree "vanish" when you're not looking for it. I don't really see .3 or .4 or somewhere in the middle as a deal breaker, considering we're rarely holding on the line itself...however, mine does have openings at the mil marks.