Rifle Scopes FFP Reticle size question

[wb00757]

Hi,
I hope this question makes sense...
Im coming from a SWFA SS 20x and I'm finding that in competitions I would benefit from shooting at lower power (more FOV). I'm shopping for a new scope and have gotten lots of good advice on here from some of you which I really appreciate.

My question is: Say you have 2 scopes that are the same model and everything but one is 3-18 and the other is 5-25. Are the reticles the same size (thickness really) at the max magnification of each... 18x and 25x respectively? Or would they be equal at 18x on each scope?

I like having higher magnification available because I go to the range and try to shoot tiny groups for fun, but the main purpose for this optic is precision rifle comps. So I don't want to get the higher power optic and have the reticle too small to use at "match power".

Thank you,
-Chip

 

[wb00757]

Yes, stadia thickness is the term I think I'm looking for.

Doesn't the reticle get really tiny when you reduce the magnification and get really large when you increase magnification? That's why the MPO has the double lines so you can see the reticle easier at low magnification, right?

My concern is being able to see the reticle, not the "calibration" of it... If that makes sense. I like the Optika 6 but if I get the 5x30 and use it at 15 to 18 will the reticle be usable???? I know manufacturer to manufacturer as totally different but what about identical reticles in, say, the MPO scopes?

 

[Rob01]

Look at the manufacturer's diagram and break down of it's sizes and see if the lines are the same size and if they are then yes they will be the same on 18x between two scopes.

 

[wade2big]

it depends on the scope. The vortex gen ii scopes have the same reticle thickness so the 3-18 and the 4.5-27 would look the same on 18x. The vortex PST gen ii 5-25 uses a thinner reticle than the 3-15. On 15x the 3-15 would be thicker (easier to see) than the 5-25 on 15x.

With FFP scopes the thickness of the stadia lines determines how it looks across the mag ranges. Your SWFA 5-20 has .05mil thick lines. The Vortex Razor has .03 thick lines which is why it sucks below 15X. I wish Vortex would have used thicker lines on the 3-18. Would be the perfect scope for me if they would have.

 

[atepointer]

Hi,
I hope this question makes sense...
Im coming from a SWFA SS 20x and I'm finding that in competitions I would benefit from shooting at lower power (more FOV). I'm shopping for a new scope and have gotten lots of good advice on here from some of you which I really appreciate.

My question is: Say you have 2 scopes that are the same model and everything but one is 3-18 and the other is 5-25. Are the reticles the same size (thickness really) at the max magnification of each... 18x and 25x respectively? Or would they be equal at 18x on each scope?

I like having higher magnification available because I go to the range and try to shoot tiny groups for fun, but the main purpose for this optic is precision rifle comps. So I don't want to get the higher power optic and have the reticle too small to use at "match power".

Thank you,
-Chip

Thanks for putting this up just went through this experience last week. As was mentioned......I actually figured this out by accident over the weekend.....turned on my illuminated reticle at 12x and voila things got much easier! Had never flipped it on since day 1 mostly b/c I'm stupid and never purchased the glass b/c it had illum was just a great deal. Oh well.....for some of us it takes longer to lose the stoopits!

 

[Rob01]

With FFP scopes the thickness of the stadia lines determines how it looks across the mag ranges. Your SWFA 5-20 has .05mil thick lines. The Vortex Razor has .03 thick lines which is why it sucks below 15X. I wish Vortex would have used thicker lines on the 3-18. Would be the perfect scope for me if they would have.

Sucks below 15x? LOL Hardly. I use it all the time at matches in the 10-12x range without issue. Down below 8x it gets a little tough to see but not there a lot and if I am then illumination helps.

 

[wb00757]

@Bare There
@Rob01
@wade2big

Thank you, that helps me a lot! I was struggling to find the correct terminology to put my thoughts into a coherent and logical question. Unfortunately I don't have the 5-20 SWFA... It's the fixed 20x. Fixed powers are so much simpler! I'm sure most anything I'm looking at will have a larger field of view anyways which will help me if I want to use more power.

 

[wade2big]

Sucks below 15x? LOL Hardly. I use it all the time at matches in the 10-12x range without issue. Down below 8x it gets a little tough to see but not there a lot and if I am then illumination helps.

Different strokes for different folks. .03 mil reticles suck ass in my opinion below 15x. Can it be seen and used at 10x, yes but not nearly as easy as a .05 mil reticle especially if the shooter isn’t shooting on a wide open range. Take that scope into cover or poorer lighting and it REALLY sucks. Anyone who says yeah i use it at 10X would be able to use a thicker reticle easier and under a wider range of conditions than the thinner reticle on lower powers. The trade off is when the power is cranked up, a thinner reticle like the Razor is better there. That’s the tradeoff.

 

[Rob01]

Yup a good variable will work much better than a fixed 20x. Being able to dial up and down is a huge advantage.

 

[Rob01]

Different strokes for different folks. .03 mil reticles suck ass in my opinion below 15x. Can it be seen and used at 10x, yes but not nearly as easy as a .05 mil reticle especially if the shooter isn’t shooting on a wide open range. Take that scope into cover or poorer lighting and it REALLY sucks. Anyone who says yeah i use it at 10X would be able to use a thicker reticle easier and under a wider range of conditions than the thinner. The trade off is when the power is cranked up, a thinner reticle like the Razor is better there. That’s the tradeoff.

Yup that's why they make different optics for different people but a blanket statement that the Razor reticle sucks below 15x is just wrong. Could you see a .05 better? Of course as it's thicker but it's not just the Razor that uses the .03 reticles and people have no problem with other optics like the ATACRs at .033, Kahles SKMR at .035 or even the TT Gen II XR at .025.

 

[wade2big]

Yup that's why they make different optics for different people but a blanket statement that the Razor reticle sucks below 15x is just wrong. Could you see a .05 better? Of course as it's thicker but it's not just the Razor that uses the .03 reticles and people have no problem with other optics like the ATACRs at .033, Kahles SKMR at .035 or even the TT Gen II XR at .025.

Anything I write is my opinion as anything you or anyone else writes is yours and theirs. It wouldn’t be fair to anyone if I lied about what I think so as not to offend others. My blanket statement stands that .03 mil reticles suck below 15x regardless of the manufacturer. .05 mil thick reticles kinda suck below 10X. Its what it is.

The other manufacturers use similar reticle thickness as they are sizing the reticle towards the upper end of the mag range. Makes since to do it that way. Its the tradeoff made when going with a FFP reticle. Like you said there are choices out there which is good thing for everyone. Razor’s are still at this point my favorite scope even though they are weak below 15x in my opinion.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Sucks below 15x? LOL Hardly. I use it all the time at matches in the 10-12x range without issue. Down below 8x it gets a little tough to see but not there a lot and if I am then illumination helps.

Good luck......

 

[wade2big]

Good luck......

View attachment 7223848

It’s an opinion. I’m not wrong and neither are you.

It would be foolish to say that these FFP reticles are just as visible at 10x as they are at the upper ends of the mag range. Its a false statement. Not factual. Whether the shooter can make use of the reticle at the lower powers is what is subjective and varies by individual obviously.

i’ve read recently where you say you leave your scope cranked up to full power whenever you shoot matches. Seems like you don’t even use your scope down towards the lower end while @Rob01 does. Differing of opinion there it seems as well.

 

[wade2big]

@wb00757 this is a comparison of a Vortex Razor gen ii with a .03mil reticle and a SWFA 5-20x50 with a .05 mil thick reticle both at 10x and roughly at 100 yards

The razor is the top picture of each set while the SFWA is the bottom of each set.

First two picks are 5 minutes after sunset and the last two are 20minutes after sunset.

where is the Razor reticle? You cant see the damn thing without illumination. Of course people will argue that ?‍

Not the best camera work but you get the point. The camera on my phone wont focus very well when there isnt much light.

 

[wb00757]

@wade2big
Awesome!
I definitely think I like the .05mil stadia lines better based off of those pictures but in daylight and I feel like I the thinner .03mil would still be usable at 10x with my eyes. I doubt I'll ever go that low in a match, but I could. Time to do some more research!
That really shows off the difference of low light performance between those scopes too. My 20x SS would look like a dark grey haze in those conditions. Lol.

 

[wade2big]

@wade2big
Awesome!
I definitely think I like the .05mil stadia lines better based off of those pictures but in daylight and I feel like I the thinner .03mil would still be usable at 10x with my eyes. I doubt I'll ever go that low in a match, but I could. Time to do some more research!
That really shows off the difference of low light performance between those scopes too. My 20x SS would look like a dark grey haze in those conditions. Lol.

10x is usable with the thinner reticles, it is just a little tougher to see when conditions aren’t bright out. These higher mag scopes arent taylored to the low end anyhow. I just usued that 10x to better show the difference that reticle thickness can have on visibility on the lower end. I doubt you would go that low in a match either. I really like my Gen II Razor’s and definitely didnt buy them to shoot at low mag!!!

i like the thicker FFP scopes if they are used on hunting rifles. Thats why mine wears the LRTSI which are nice and bold for that purpose.

 

[beetroot]

it depends on the scope. The vortex gen ii scopes have the same reticle thickness so the 3-18 and the 4.5-27 would look the same on 18x. The vortex PST gen ii 5-25 uses a thinner reticle than the 3-15. On 15x the 3-15 would be thicker (easier to see) than the 5-25 on 15x.

With FFP scopes the thickness of the stadia lines determines how it looks across the mag ranges. Your SWFA 5-20 has .05mil thick lines. The Vortex Razor has .03 thick lines which is why it sucks below 15X. I wish Vortex would have used thicker lines on the 3-18. Would be the perfect scope for me if they would have.

This used to be the case, but Vortex made the EBR-7c the same thickness on both the 5-25 and 3-15 PST.
I agree with you that .5 mil on the 3-15/3-18 Razor is far more appropriate, my 3-15 PST with the 7c could really do with being thicker,
is it unusable? No, but it would not be held back by being thicker which would help a lot on the low end of the magnification.

 

[acudaowner]

I love my thin free floating dot for a very sharp non cluttered view from my delta stryker 5x50x56 34mm
its very fine at any mag sfp https://www.optics-trade.eu/us/delta-optical-titanium-5-50x56-hd-sfp.html

 

[wade2big]

This used to be the case, but Vortex made the EBR-7c the same thickness on both the 5-25 and 3-15 PST.
I agree with you that .5 mil on the 3-15/3-18 Razor is far more appropriate, my 3-15 PST with the 7c could really do with being thicker,
is it unusable? No, but it would not be held back by being thicker which would help a lot on the low end of the magnification.

The .2s with a thicker reticle might get tight but the .2s with thin lines below 15x sucks as well. Damned if you do and damned if you dont. I really like the 3-15 and the thicker reticle is a big part of that. Its a shame its gone.

i sold two razor gen ii and two AMG because of that 7c reticle. I like the reticle on 20x and up only. It is very useful up high and even less useful in the midrange and below. I like more versatility than that. I tried to use just the .5 mil marks in the 7c when dialed down a bit but the .2s were too distracting for me. I would despise this reticle in the 3-15 pst as even when the mag is maxed out, it is still below where I find the reticle easy to use. Personal preference as always.

 

[Rob01]

The .2s with a thicker reticle might get tight but the .2s with thin lines below 15x sucks as well. Damned if you do and damned if you dont. I really like the 3-15 and the thicker reticle is a big part of that. Its a shame its gone.

i sold two razor gen ii and two AMG because of that 7c reticle. I like the reticle on 20x and up only. It is very useful up high and even less useful in the midrange and below. I like more versatility than that. I tried to use just the .5 mil marks in the 7c when dialed down a bit but the .2s were too distracting for me. I would despise this reticle in the 3-15 pst as even when the mag is maxed out, it is still below where I find the reticle easy to use. Personal preference as always.

The red is a very important part of that statement as myself and many others don't agree with that assessment at all. It does come down to personal preference what is useful and what isn't.

 

[wade2big]

The red is a very important part of that statement as myself and many others don't agree with that assessment at all. It does come down to personal preference what is useful and what isn't.

You are absolutely correct. Like I said before I can only give my opinion and not opinions of anyone else. My thoughts are the same as many though. Look through the what I want from SHOT thread and you will see guys wanting thicker reticle AMG,s for hunting (which is what it is marketed as). My photos above is one reason why.

Even you have to admit that a small reticle is harder to make use of then a larger one. Small numbers are harder to read than larger, something fUrther away is harder to see than something closer. I can admit that some guys can make use of things less than optimal better than others.

 

[Rob01]

It's a balancing act as it is with any scope maker. The illumination takes away any issue on lower power in darker times of day for any of the .03 area reticles and not just the 7C. That's why it's there. I know the battle cry on the site is mostly "illumination? I don't need that and I never even put the batteries in" but that's pretty ignorant IMHO. You are only limiting yourself not using it. I have used illumination for years in many brands of scopes and reticles in matches and not just for night fire. The 7C is fine for me at lower powers but if i ever did find a time I had a harder time seeing it due to time of day or lower than 8-10x I just turn on the illumination. Simple.

And the AMG is not marketed as a hunting scope but a cross over match/ "open landscape" hunting scope. If you are hunting inside 100 yards in thick woods then the AMG might not be the right choice.

 

[wade2big]

It's a balancing act as it is with any scope maker. The illumination takes away any issue on lower power in darker times of day for any of the .03 area reticles and not just the 7C. That's why it's there. I know the battle cry on the site is mostly "illumination? I don't need that and I never even put the batteries in" but that's pretty ignorant IMHO. You are only limiting yourself not using it. I have used illumination for years in many brands of scopes and reticles in matches and not just for night fire. The 7C is fine for me at lower powers but if i ever did find a time I had a harder time seeing it due to time of day or lower than 8-10x I just turn on the illumination. Simple.

And the AMG is not marketed as a hunting scope but a cross over match/ "open landscape" hunting scope. If you are hunting inside 100 yards in thick woods then the AMG might not be the right choice.

We agree completely on this.

I took pictures with illumination between the two scopes but didnt post them. It made a world of difference. I mentioned that in the post. The thinner reticle with illumination was better than the thicker without for sure. Illumination and FFP scopes go hand in hand.

 

[Steel head]

I’m running a scope with a H-25 reticle on my 260 which is pretty thick.
It’s great at 800-900 and in if targets aren’t really tiny.
Fast and easy at any magnification.
It kinda sucked at smallish targets further out this weekend.
It was hard to see the target and missed shots.

The reticle on my other rifle is quite good at distant targets and closer targets with magnification up a bit but at low power illumination is quite helpful.

 

[atepointer]

Hi,
I hope this question makes sense...
Im coming from a SWFA SS 20x and I'm finding that in competitions I would benefit from shooting at lower power (more FOV). I'm shopping for a new scope and have gotten lots of good advice on here from some of you which I really appreciate.

My question is: Say you have 2 scopes that are the same model and everything but one is 3-18 and the other is 5-25. Are the reticles the same size (thickness really) at the max magnification of each... 18x and 25x respectively? Or would they be equal at 18x on each scope?

I like having higher magnification available because I go to the range and try to shoot tiny groups for fun, but the main purpose for this optic is precision rifle comps. So I don't want to get the higher power optic and have the reticle too small to use at "match power".

Thank you,
-Chip

What did you end up doing? And also how does the reticle thickness work out for you on the 20? Thanks

 

[wb00757]

@8pointer
I haven't done anything yet. I'm trying to fund my new scope by selling knives I make but most people are pretty tapped out from Christmas still.... I literally tried to sell plasma but my veins are too small? ?.

I'm not making a decision until I get my hands on an Optika 6 to look at. I live really close to Kenzie's optics so when they get them in I can decide. Leaning towards the MPO after playing with a Crimson Trace 5-25x56 today though....

The 20x reticle is about perfect for me. I can easily see it against most any back drop during the day. I would guess that it becomes unusable as light diminishes before other scopes might because it is very fine.

 

[atepointer]

Gotcha I shop the same way. I had a 10x and went to 12. Love the glass clarity and I think it's gonna serve me well on LR duty. As much as I enjoy shooting tiny groups and targets that will be left for my 6.5 with XTR II 5-25. I can still have plenty of fun on my lil gasser with it.....watching to see what you end up with and thoughts. Have fun!