Did you get Cal Zant’s reticle? Curious what you think of it.
I did. Some parts of it I kinda get. Some make no sense to me. I should probably ping him and see what the rationale behind some features was.
That having been said, when I evaluate a scope, the reticle is not really a part of how i think it stacks up. Now, if I do not like the reticle it will not be something I add to my list of recommendations, but that is a different thing.
To be fair, I need to do some shooting with it to be certain, but off hand, the open center is interesting and should work fine. The primary vertical and horizontal stadia with 0.2 mrad hashes are in-line with modern expectations. I would prefer then to be a little more symmetric horizontally, but a good number of reticles out there are not symmetric, so I am in the minority here.
The tree is what gives me a bit of trouble. First of all, it goes all the way down Horus-style for more than 30 mrad. I am sorta on the record that this is useless. If they restricted the tree to 10-15 mrad, I'd probably like it a lot mroe. Also, there are those horizontal lines every 10 mrad below the primary that go all the way to the edges. I do not understand their purpose. Are they for quick visual reference of every 10 mrad? Under what circumstances do you need to quickly make a shot that requires 20 or 30 mrad of holdover with the reticle?
The tree is based around 0.5 mrad grid. I would probably prefer to have it based on 0.2 mrad like the primary stadia, but that is really a personal preference. If you only use the tree infrequently, keeping it sparse is not a bad idea. However, if you use the tree infrequently, why do you need the whole 30+ mrad tall mosquito net?
Now, Leica's simpler Ballistic reticle is perfectly reasonable and I would not hesitate to recommend that. With PRB reticle, time will tell.
ILya