Rifle Scopes FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Thinking further on my last post....

I am starting to lean back towards letting the marks straddle the cross-hairs.
1MOA marks being the smallest in length and letting them just go away at low power.
Giving the 2MOA marks just enough length and width to be useable at low power.
10MOA marks same thickness as 2MOA, but longer to ease counting....dont want to have to go barefoot to count to 40MOA.

Sorry to leave out you mil fans.......may spend time on that after I get this right in my head.

 

[Justinmd]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Personally the 1moa marks could go away and I wouldn't be bothered, 2 moa or half mil is fine.

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Justin;
Agreed, but in a fairly high powered scope, would you want the 1MOA marks?
As the power gets up around 17, there is plenty of room for them.

Come to think of it, just having the option of them becoming hidden is another feature the dual reticle allows. You couldnt do that in a strictly FFP system. The ranging reticle can be designed to "clean itself up" as components become too small to resolve.

 

[Justinmd]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

I just don't have a need for them (1moa), and a suspect others feel the same. However, If you can have them and not clutter up everything, well then there's no reason not to.

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

That sounds perfectly reasonable. Thanks!

 

[9H_Cracka]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Not sure if this is of any help, but typically a MIL scale reticle has small tics at half a mil and bigger at full mil, or about 1.8 and 3.6 minutes respectively. This more closely aligns with the 2 minute hash marks versus 1 minute hash marks.

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Yeah, NineH.
I had not thought about it, but that is helpful.
Maybe thats why many MOA reticles are 2MOA minimal divisions? Maybe it makes things easier for Mil users who switch over....or it just works visually.

 

[9H_Cracka]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

I think the latter Raf from a clutter perspective. Judging a fraction of a half mil was relatively easy, so splitting up 2 minute graduations seems very doable.

Last field session (Monday??) with the 308 I worked on holding wind and elevation using the reticle instead of clicking. Man a level really helps with that, at least from a confidence perspective, when not using something that looks like a Horus.

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

NH;
What, in particular, does the Horus have that lends itself to what you were doing? Do you mean that it is so cluttered with lines that its easy to fing a "plumb" reference?

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Oh, yeah...
Playing around with reticle drawings and resizing them to simulate powering-down, I think you are correct. Too much "clutter".
This is why I was thinking of providing 1MOA marks that only are vsiible at higher powers.
One concern, though, will the user get confused when the reticle changes from high to low power?

Its still more useful than a SFP only reticle, but is the benefit of a fixed main aiming point overshadowed by a change in the appearance of the reticle? Not really sure, here.

 

[lanwickum]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

I really like your 1 moa the disappears idea. even 2 moa disappearing at really low powers.
I'ld prefer at least 17x or even 20-25x for next scope. My shooting is mostly 300-1200 yards. Sometimes further, but for now that is mostly for giggles.

Shooting at 1000 yards the 1 min marks would be nice. This is just over 10" at that range. WOuld be using at least a 17x preferably.

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Montana;
I plan to get a 3.2-17x very soon now, we are in the same boat. I like high power, just dont want a 1 foot thick cross-hair.

I take it you dont think it will be confusing having 1MOA and 2MOA marks at high power and then losing the 1MOA at low power?
Thats the trouble with new ideas...you dont know what it will be like using them.

 

[doc76251]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

.02 from the outfield,

I don't think anyone would get confused if there were only 4 little lines vs 9 little lines to choose from. Kinda intuative. I could be wrong though, all ready happened once today

Cheers :beer:

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

You were wrong?

Doc!
I have lost all faith in you!

You must be busy, figured you would jump in and argue against some of my recent thoughts on this.

Glad to hear you think that will work. Question is...do you think its a good idea having them go away? Would you want it on your scope?

I know we are starting to differ on the cross-hairs. I was swinging towards the Duplex, but I am starting to lean back towards a fine SFP reticle.

 

[9H_Cracka]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Raf, the Horus reticles have a grid so that when you hold up and off your target is not floating out in space.

If you hold up 3 and left two for a 600 yard shot in a 20 mph full value wind with a dot or scale reticle you're target is out in the clear part of the reticle. Not so with the Horus, their claim to fame.

Sure it can be done without the Horus with practice. My point was that when you start using these high fangled reticles their is a learning curve. So I'm starting the learning curve on the holding with a mil scale reticle.

Keep the ideas coming!

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

NH;
I should have known the answer to that.
Yes, I have seen them...not in person though.
Holding large amounts for windage and elevation is quite alien to me. I can see where it would help....and confuse.

The Horus just looks so damn busy to me....like looking through a venetian blind.

 

[doc76251]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Raf,

To answer the question as to would I want 1 MOA at low power. No, not realy mandatory if I'm dialing down that far things are generaly moving pretty fast and are pretty close OR it's dark as hell.

If we go with the standard of saying 3.2 - 17 is the power we're working with I'd like them to come on line at about 6X. I'd like to see in the first 10 MOA a 5 MOA hash mark and a 7.5 MOA hash mark. I'm kinda up in the air about a 2.5 at the moment but if I were to go for it, it would have to be smaller than either of the above. Kinda like how I drew it.

As for the reasoning, I DO HOLD for wind especialy when shooting follow up shots. I DO UKD and movers. There is a viable need for having marks in close to the cross hair but I think they can be thinned out a bit and shoved over to the side 10MOA to clear out the center. That being said I don't want my fine ranging marks all the way out in left field either.

On the Horus, I looked through Lindy's at ASC. On first blush it does look a bit cluttered in there. However with very little concentration it was easy to pull out the different crosses and focus on them. There is merit to that system.

Yep been busy as a one legged ........ well, you get the idea .

Cheers :beer:

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Hmmmmmm.
Well, I kind of like the 2MOA marks, and at high powers 1moa is nice too.
I understand the need for the 5 and 7.5 marks....but I am not sure I like them being the only marks in the first 10MOA. Hard to tell though, until you can actually use them.

Would it be a poor idea to have 2.5MOA graduations on one side of the cross-hair and 2MOA marks on the other side with 1MOA marks showing up on the 2MOA side starting AT 6 power?

Are the 5MOA and 7.5MOA marks needed in the vertical?

Doc, you caught me not paying attention. I understand you drawing better now.

Sorry you are so busy, but glad you are keeping our guys healthy!

 

[memilanuk]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Raf,

FWIW, I like the idea... a lot. My beef w/ the FFP reticles is that the few I've used were too damn thin to be useful at low powers (disappeared in brush or dark backgrounds), and felt too thick or coarse at higher powers (don't like the reticle covering up the part of the target I'm trying to hit). So, I get by w/ SFP's, even though their design makes them less than ideal in some ways for even my use as 'target' scopes... i.e. holding off using the reticle changes value if I ever dial down the magnification.

This thing looks damn near ideal for what I want... fine aiming point that covers less apparent turf on the target as I increase the magnification, allowing more precise aiming, while maintaining consistent hold-off values w/ the hash marks regardless of what magnification the scope is at... sound <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">outstanding</span></span> to me. If this does come to fruition I might have to swallow my dislike for some of the U.S.O. zealots out there and buy one after all...

I was fixin' to start saving my spare change for a new scope... hopefully by the time I have enough, these things will be on the market!

Monte

 

[lanwickum]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Like to see them only mark 10 moa in like you. Then disappear on lower powers It would be great for using them in knob adjustments. measure your miss and adjust. A more exact moa measurement, I like. Been using mil dots and converting, slow and not very accurate.
Just to hold like I often do, the 1 or 2 moa sure would be nice. I usually would only use a 12x-25x anyway.

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Its been a busy weekend. Sorry I have not responded or gone farther with this.

Milanuk;
Ditto what you said.
Glad to see someone else in interested in this.
I mistakenly thought there would be more interest.
Oh-well.

Montana;
I hear you! I feel the same way about it.

I said before...I really like the looks of the Type 1 MOA reticle USO already offers.

Will be re-doing my drawings in Visio as time permits.
-------------------------------------------------
Here is where I am in my "personal" wants for a reticle system.

SFP: Straight single thickness x-hair, 1/4MOA or smaller.

FFP: Take the Type 1, strip away the radial lines(cross-hairs). Add very short 1MOA marks between the 2MOA marks, so short they are obscured by the SFP reticle when at low power.
Add .5MOA and .75MOA marks in the left and right 0-10MOA areas but on top of the x-hair instead of the bottom. This lets you concentrate on them for windage/mover holds.

Lastly, on the FFP:
Add at least 20MOA of marks to the top instead of leaving it bare like the Type 1 is.
I am torn about the last item, not sure they are needed. That bare area leaves a nice patch for observing naked women.

I dont know for sure that John will be wanting to try this out, but I am volunteering to be the gunea-pig for this project. My wallet is volunteering too.

I figure if it all goes to crap, I can always pay to have the scope changed to one of thier standard reticles.....for a price of course.

 

[memilanuk]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Raf,

Remember, you are dealing a fairly small eclectic crowd here... I imagine there are a fair amount of lurkers watching from the sidelines until this becomes something more than vapor-ware. The appeal of this reticle may in fact be to a larger scale market, i.e. target shooters, that isn't interested in 'minute of man' reticles. Unfortunately... this is also a market that has for the most part... has never heard of U.S. Optics, and most likely, would never spend $2000-3000 for a semi-custom scope. I hate to say it, but you might want to see if other upper-end vendors like Leupold or NightForce would be interested. JMHO.

YMMV,

Monte

 

[outlawsix]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Been watching. This is something I'm interested in. Just wanting to see how it plays out.

I prefer to cry once and get exactly what I want. Than having to settle for something not quite what I'm looking for.

Keep it going let's see what happens when it gets made. I definately think you are on to something.

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Outlawsix;
Glad to hear it. The more people like you who show an interest, the more likely USO is to want to give this a whirl.

milanuk;
No first-hand experience with NF, but I have heard others here say NF is not interested in FFP reticles. Also, Leupold does not seem too keen on them either. They seem busy re-shaping Objective bells.

Who knows, they may be interested, but USO is already in the custom business. Also, if you missed it, John has already thought some of this out. He has already spent time talking about this with me.

You may be right, though....may not get much interest.

My girlfriend called me "small and eclectic" once.
Can you explain what that means?

 

[doc76251]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Hey Raf,

I dunno if this is dying on the vine or just beaten to death. I think you have it nailed down as to what you are looking for in the reticle and described how it will function. Now we just need to see if John can turn paper into steel and glass.

There is plenty of conceptual intrest but were down to the "show me" stage.

Cheers :beer:

 

[Guest]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Raf, anything less than 1MOA graduations and you will be unsatisfied if you shoot long range. You have to decide if this is going to be a close to medium range or a medium to long range precision scope. Kinda hard to make it both and it be perfect. I would not want anything less than 1MOA. It might be perfect everywhere else, but lines too far apart would be a deal breaker. I like the fine graduations. Aim small miss small. And certainly it is better for ranging in 1MOA gards. I don't know what Doc is thinking in the 2.5, 5, 7.5 MOA stuff!

 

[doc76251]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

kgunz,

I am in agreement with Raf in that I don't want all the little ranging marks in my aiming area. In the first 10MOA from the center you need something for holds and movers. I figured with 5, 7.5 and now 2.5 that you could guestimate fairly close with them. For ranging you just slide over to the 10 - 20 area, if it's +10MOA you start at a 5 MOA mark and use the 1's. i saw the Canadian TPAL and didn't like the idea that I would have to aim all the way out to the edge to range.

my .02

Cheers :beer:

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Here's a question, Doc;
As I have never shot movers, and only made-up windage holds in my head while using a mil-dot, are the 1/4MOA 1/2MOA and 3/4MOA significant for some reason? Would 2MOA grads work alright?

My preference leans towards the center being cleaner, for the reason you stated......but these markings do deviate from the 1 or 2 MOA theme the rest of the reticle uses. This may add confusion, this is why I was thinking they should only apppear on top. Now I am thinking of 2MOA again.
Sorry if I appear to be inconsistent.......I am new to reticle design.

As for ranging, Doc's argument makes good sense to me. No need for finer ranging marks in the center unless the object is smaller than the graduations there. You can always move your hold away from center to measure those.

I can see it will be a tough thing to come up with a pleases-all reticle.

Kgunz;
The 1MOA grads will only go away below half power or so. Your NPR1 is set up for 1MOA marks at 22 power only(if thats what you have)....yet you think this is a compromise when it has useable 1MOA marks from 17 power all the way down to 9 power or so?
Maybe I misunderstand you?

I am going to have to draw them both to decide which I prefer.

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Doc;
You are probably right..."beaten to death".
Will post a few more drawings as I have time to do them, but am looking forward to hearing from John.

 

[Guest]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Raf, my 1MOA marks in my reticle are the same <span style="font-weight: bold">size</span> all the time on all powers. If I crank my scope down to 11 power then my 2MOA windage hold is now equal to a 1mil (4MOA) hold for moving targets. I have no problem with the 1MOA gaps as it does not interfere with my ability to see or aim. 1MOA marks also allows me to engage targets from a 100 yd zero out to 1000 yds without adjusting my scope.

 

[Guest]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Of ourse this is your reticle. You'll have to decide what is more comfortable for you and what you like better. I would want nothing less than 1MOA up and down, and nothing more. But that is just me.

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Kgunz;
Yup, I understand how your SFP reticle works.
If you educate yourself on the changes in MOA spacing that occur and make reference of the exact power setting these changes become even multiples of the full-power MOA spacing....you are in fine shape. Of course, this is a compromise.

The goal of this project was not to remove any sense of compromise, but to try to lessen the effects of compromise in certain areas, so the potential customers of this product can be MORE comfortable with a reticle.

My latest thoughts on what this reticle should be has 1MOA spacing at full power...as does the NF you are showing. At anything but full power, you are lacking 1MOA marks. In this one the 1MOA marks stick around until somewhere around half power.....yet to be nailed down exactly.

It is the opinion of at least 2 people posting in this thread that at low power 1MOA marks make the reticle a little cluttered and are not fully needed. Its a trade off to keep a clean sight picture. It will still have twice the ranging resolution you claim to have at low power.....and it maintains its accurate mark spacing throughout all power settings.

How many MOA will your elev and windage marks be at 7 power, 8, 9, 12, 15, 17, 19?

I dont know for sure, and you have not volunteered, the model or power range of the NF you are comparing it to......so I am guessing. In the end, there is no comparison. Two completely different beasts.

Something does not ring true, correct me if I am wrong, that at 22 power you have 2MOA windage marks and at 5.5 power they become 4MOA marks.
Somehow you also call the 4MOA marks... 1 Mil, pretty loose figuring for someone so worried about how this reticle will pan out.

You are not presenting compelling evidence for a change in any of my conclusions...so far. I wont speak for the others.

Yes, I am targeting a reticle for my personal likes, but I dont pretend that others may not have better ideas on this. Please, feel free to elaborate on another reticle design. John will be the final voice on the exact product, if he offers one. This is just a wish list....and it is not exclusive to me and I dont wish it to be.

This is public domain.

 

[Guest]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Raf, I hope my post did not come across the wrong way. I like your idea and hope you persue it. I was just talking about MY personal interests in a scope. Have you looked thru the MDMOA scope yet? It is very nice.

My scope is a Nightforce 5.5x22x50

4 MOA = 4.1"
1 MIL = 3.6"
.5" is darn good enough for me

Like I said, this reticle sounds good. I like the concept. I was just sharing what I thought would make it advantageous for ME. When I think about a tactical rifle scope, it has to be clear and easy to use. FFP or SFP don't matter to me. It needs windage marks usuable for mover holds. It needs enough reticle subtention to be accurate for ranging. And the reticle needs to match the turrets.

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Thats cool, then.
I am SURE we will not all agree on the same reticle design. I bet there are plenty of people who dont see any need for a static x-hair.

I really dig the NPR1. If it were FFP I would dig it more. Simple, clean...did I mention I really like it?

When I heard it was coming, I thought twice about going that way.

I currently have my sights set on a USO, even if its just an FFP-only model. I just figured, why not ask?

On the .5MOA variance.......I also agree.
But when you add up that and the other errors you can create by guessing, it could add up to 1MOA of error.
I believe that with an FFP reticle, one can still resolve very close to below .5MOA with 2MOA marks at low power. I am assuming that if one needed a perfect shot and had the time to resolve the target, one would dial up power, and could have 1MOA marks yielding better resolution.

To tell the truth, I am not fully secure in my thoughts on this reticle.......am waiting for more thoughts from you and others.

In the end, if I can get a fine static x-hair and FFP accurate ranging marks......it will be an awesome thing.

Eventually, I hope it will be done, even with compromise in the reticle. The best way to get an improved reticle is to shoot one that is not perfect. Right now, this is all fantasy and guessing. This is one reason I am leaning towards the Type 1 for my first one.......easier for John to just strip that mask down to bare components that already work pretty well. It should become apparent quickly if 1MOA marks will be helpful.

If I can try one out, Doc will be right there, he lives a few miles away. I bet both of us will have alot more to add to this discussion.

 

[Guest]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

One more thing Raf, that .5" is applied to a moving target, not a stationary target. The standard hold for a walking man out to 600 yds is 1 mil. I use 4MOA. Even if I turned the power to 11.38 power to make it equal to a mil, it would be splitting hairs on a moving target. We on the same page now?

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Cant argue with that, dont have the experience. Makes sense though.

 

[doc76251]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Here's a question, Doc;
<span style="font-weight: bold">As I have never shot movers</span> , and only made-up windage holds in my head while using a mil-dot, are the 1/4MOA 1/2MOA and 3/4MOA significant for some reason? Would 2MOA grads work alright? </div></div>YOU WILL

:beer:

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Doc;
"You will"...I was hoping you would say that.

I have alot to learn.

As I said, I may just settle for a modified Type 1 MOA for my first try. Cant hurt.

If you have time to think, you should be working....we are not paying you to think!

Work has been killing me lately, but I think about what you guys are doing and it makes my job seem like no big deal.

Talk to you soon.

Shall we say bad things about John to get his attention?

 

[doc76251]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Bad things about John. Bad things about USO. Bad things about John. Bad things about USO. Bad things about John. Bad things about USO.

Cheers :beer:

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

I am gonna tell him you said that.
Your SN-3 will probably be delivered sometime in 2008.

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Doc;
Did you see the thread about USO spotters?
Wouldnt that rock...an SN-3 in MOA and a spotter in MOA?

You need to get one so I can borrow it!

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Gent's;

Sorry there has been no progress as-yet.

I am seriously in the market for a USO SN-3, as I said before......intend to get one on order this week with JBW. This one will have to be one of his standard reticles.

I have not given up on the idea at all, have been very busy at work though. More to come, later.

If this works out, I will either pay for the reticle replacement on the SN-3 or order another.
Its only money.

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

I would still like to see this happen.
Any other interested parties?

 

[BretShooter]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

I see this has died a lonely death. Damn! It seems so promising. I would love one.

I see JBW didn't get back to this thread. Rafael, did he speak to you about it again?

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

No, I have not talked with him about this for a while. USO has alot of projects in the works right now. I was thinking of bringing it up again in a few months, probably after the Spotting scope is finished.

I am glad you are interested, my interest has not dropped. Doc said he was still interested when I spoke to him a few days ago.

Was hoping for more interest... as USO's interest in this will increase with a larger prospective customer base for the idea.

I will be saving a few bucks towards it, for changing my new SN-3 reticle out or towards a new scope with this system. I may ask for a one-off, and John thought it doable, but it will certainly not be cheap. I just need to save for a few more months and I will bring it up again with him.

I will certainly report here with any progress!!!

 

[BretShooter]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

If I were you, I would hold out for a few others to be interested. A one off would mean you alone pay for the developement costs of the new reticle system. Once it is done (the development) it is done, and any additional scopes shouldn't cost much more than the equivalent scope with a current reticle. The additional cost would be the extra reticle install cost.

I would imagine that the etching of the new reticle template (mask?) would be well over $1000 by itself. I am sure John can let you know what it would be.

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Yeah, BretShooter, I think you are correct with that reticle development cost. Thats partly why I was hoping for more interest.
On top of that....its really two reticles he has to produce for this design.....$2000.00

I would have the only $4000.00+ SN-3 in existence.

Its possible the cross-hair(SFP reticle) would be cheaper to produce as there would be little trial-and-error since its exact proportion is not as important as the ranging reticle(FFP reticle). Just a guess, dont really know.

Now that I own and have used my SN-3 with the "Thin" MD-MOA reticle, I am more confident in a simple design that I could live with.

Still....this thread has been in a Coma for some time.

Glad you brought it back up!

 

[IES]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Guys,

N00b here. I had been thinking of getting a NightForce with the new NP-R1 reticle like kgunz has. That is until I completely read this thread and another one pertaining to NF doing a FFP reticle(not gonna happen?). Anyway, I'm very interested in the USO idea to say the least. While I understand the usefulness of this type of optic, money is my only problem. Only been out of school 1yr, so no excess of gun money laying around.

An idea occurred to me while I was reading page 2. I must apologize for opening another can of worms up-front. If it isn't feasible for John to have both reticles moving while turning one turret, would it be acceptable/desirable to have the reticles move independently? If so , when you zeroed your scope you would just lineup/"attach" both reticles. Then when making adjustments at full/high power, this would allow you to move the SFP reticle around using the FFP reticle as a semi-static(x and y, not z) zero reference/grid. I think it would be similar to the Horus(sans gridlines), but actually dialing the SFP reticle while leaving the FFP one where it was. To me this almost seems like a step further as far as potential capability (I’m not trying to stir anything up!!!). Of course there are catches.

The SFP aim-point would have to be bigger or shaped differently than any mark on the FFP to avoid confusion or getting lost on high-power when SPF is superimposed over FFP scale.

I’m sure you guys can come up with problems/caveats that I overlooked!

Another idea. If you have the option of independently adjustable FFP and SFP, could you go a step further and have some kind of user-selectable scope 4WD. That is, flip a selector switch so you can choose whether or not the reticles operate dependently or independently.


Like I said, I'm new, but this thread really captured my attention.

I’m some of my ideas and most of my terminology will give most you guys a good laugh.

Flame/Educate Away.

Dan

 

[Rafael]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

IES;
Nice to hear you are interested.

In conversations with John of US Optics, he gave me the impression that there will not be a problem getting the reticles to track together.
I got the impression that the two will have to be aligned with each other, but once they are locked in place it should work fine.
If I understand things correctly, getting them to move independently would be a "greater" challenge than getting them to move together.

Personally, I dont feel the need to adjust them independently. I don't condemn the idea, but there are probably enough challenges to the dual reticle idea already.

Maybe others will be interested?

 

[IES]

Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?

Sorry for my tanget.

Yeah, I'm not familiar with Sheppard scopes. But like you said, it would probably be a greater challenge.

My head hurts.