Rifle Scopes March Scopes at SWFA, Euro Optics, and Long Range Supply

[Alpine 338]

I'm a long time fullbore, high power and now F-class shooter. I only ever use MOA (I actually dream in MOA,) and even though I "understand" mil, I don't use it. I hold off on the target using the rings, so I like a fairly uncluttered reticle. So enlighten me, what would I look for in a mil reticle for PRS?

Again, it would boil down to personal preference. For me, and I will use the above posted picture of the FML-T1 as an example...

Overall good layout on the reticle, but get that cluster of big lines out of the center of the reticle. Have the main horizontal and vertical lines continue to the center, and have them intersect with a hollow square hole in the center, just like the Leupold TMR reticle does. No floating dot.

I prefer the main lines to be 0.05-Mil thick, but no less than 0.04-Mil. some people would still complain about that being too thick, but realistically, even at a 1000-yards, you're not obscuring the target, unless your trying to shoot at a 1" dot, again, not realistic. You need the thickness to be adaptable for field conditions; low light, dark background, heavy mirage, aging eye's, low magnification, etc.
I use the MSR reticle in a S&B 5-25 on most of my rifles. Use it on my ELR rigs, shooting out beyond 2000-yards, and it never obscures the targets, and the line thickness on the MSR is 0.05-Mil.

I like the 0.2-Mil hash marks on the FML-T1. Very simple, uncluttered format, and easy to see (unlike the Burris SCR, which is harder to see). March could go as far as using a tapered reticle (Like the FML-1), starting out at let's say 0.06, and tapering down to 0.03 in the center.

As far as the Christmas Tree part of the reticle, I like how it is uncluttered, and easy to see through so to speak, but until I see it at 30x magnification, I'll reserve further comments on that part.

 

[Alpine 338]

Continued from above. A Mil based Christmas Tree reticle needs to have the grid simple and clear enough to see through, allowing you to see splash on steel targets, or misses in the dirt. The ones that are too busy obscure your shots. When I was using a Tremor 3, I found myself moving the reticle down after the shot to see where it went. The Grid needs to have enough information to allow for semi-accurate holds (both elevation and wind), so I would add a small dot in the middle 0.5-Mil portion to help with that.
Grid size, back to reality... If you think you need to hold 13-mils of elevation, you really should be dialing instead of holding to make an accurate shot. For example, a 6mm Dasher or a 300 WM will only need between 6 to 7-Mils for a 900-yard engagement. So, you don't need the Grid to extend beyond 10 or 12-Mils in elevation.

 

[Denys]

Continued from above. A Mil based Christmas Tree reticle needs to have the grid simple and clear enough to see through, allowing you to see splash on steel targets, or misses in the dirt. The ones that are too busy obscure your shots. When I was using a Tremor 3, I found myself moving the reticle down after the shot to see where it went. The Grid needs to have enough information to allow for semi-accurate holds (both elevation and wind), so I would add a small dot in the middle 0.5-Mil portion to help with that.
Grid size, back to reality... If you think you need to hold 13-mils of elevation, you really should be dialing instead of holding to make an accurate shot. For example, a 6mm Dasher or a 300 WM will only need between 6 to 7-Mils for a 900-yard engagement. So, you don't need the Grid to extend beyond 10 or 12-Mils in elevation.

That's helping me understand quite a bit. Thanks for that.

I'm a systems guy, been in IT all my life so I have a habit of devising methods and algorithms for things all the time. If I take your last sentence above, are you saying that if you put up a Christmas tree type of reticle and your rotation scale is say 15 mils per rev, you would only provide the grid for about 2/3 or 3/4 of a full revolution? I don't want to get lost in the weeds here and I don't know how often someone would hold at 10 or 15 mils, but that would be a visual clue to dial a full rev without having to count clicks?

 

[Alpine 338]

That's helping me understand quite a bit. Thanks for that.

I'm a systems guy, been in IT all my life so I have a habit of devising methods and algorithms for things all the time. If I take your last sentence above, are you saying that if you put up a Christmas tree type of reticle and your rotation scale is say 15 mils per rev, you would only provide the grid for about 2/3 or 3/4 of a full revolution? I don't want to get lost in the weeds here and I don't know how often someone would hold at 10 or 15 mils, but that would be a visual clue to dial a full rev without having to count clicks?

Please don't equate the Grid to the Turrets, two different items to consider.

The Turrets should not be high density for two reasons, 1 - to allow tactile movement. 2 - to allow easy visual reference to what is dialed. However, having the turrets at 10-mils per revolution would make it easy to dial 10-mils, and use the grid scale at 10+ and make it easy to extrapolate. Also easy to go into the second and third revolution on the turret, and keep things straight, especially if the turrets don't have a visual or mechanical device that shows what turret revolution you are at?

What I was referring to as far as the Grid, I was stating there's a point where you loose accuracy when holding over, two reasons I can think of; 1 - Optical distortion the further you are from the optical center of the scope. 2 - Targets being smaller (Physically and Visually) at greater distances, and holding to a higher degree of accuracy. Both of these would suggest you should dial elevation rather than try holding if you want to place accurate shots.

Now if you are engaged in warfare, and there's no penalty for missed, or added shots in a Designated Marksman role, then you may want a Grid that extends further, like let's say 15-mils.

 

[plidenbrock]

Flawless tracking. Lowlight did a great review of the 3-24, it’s on You Tube. One issue that did appear 6 years
ago was that a Euro client of March ordered some optics in NATO 6400 MILs. Guys in the US got a few of
these spec optics, and tested them using USMC 6283 MILs, so,there’s your error. Lowlight was just
about the only guy who tested it and posted a vid that got it right, and explained the calibration difference.

After posting, it dawned on me that's what you would think I was referring to. I apologize for not making my concerns clearer.

Lowlight explained the difference very clearly in his March 52mm review, and it made perfect sense. I take his reviews to the bank. He even demonstrated on his calculator that one click is 0.097 mils for the 1/6400th - a SMALLER amount than the 1/6283.

Now if that's true, then mathematically it should take MORE clicks to get to where you need to go, since the click value is smaller.

Where a scope uses the 1/6238, it should take right at 100 clicks x 0.1m/click to get to "10.0mils". For 1/6400, 100 clicks should take you to 100 x 0.097 = 9.7mils, so it should take MORE than 100 clicks to get to a true 10.0mils on a 1/6400 system.

However, "Lil Chantilly" and "Pitch Black Precision" posted videos (years apart) wherein at 10.0mils, or 100 clicks, the reticle had more elevation dialed in than it should have been. At 100 clicks, the reticle had moved FURTHER than what was supposed to be 10.0mils at the given distance. On their videos, to get to true 10.0mils on the target, there had to be LESS than 100 clicks.

So if those videos are to be believed, the tested scopes didn't track properly in EITHER system. The testers noted windage errors from one side to the other, as well.

Since part of the theme of this thread was "why is March not more prevalent in the US?" I was only attempting to address why a March was not on my rifle. The 3-24x52 F1 tactical with their FML-T1 reticle would already be on my rifle were it not for that concern.

 

[Denys]

Please don't equate the Grid to the Turrets, two different items to consider.

(snip)

What I was referring to as far as the Grid, I was stating there's a point where you loose accuracy when holding over, two reasons I can think of; 1 - Optical distortion the further you are from the optical center of the scope. 2 - Targets being smaller (Physically and Visually) at greater distances, and holding to a higher degree of accuracy. Both of these would suggest you should dial elevation rather than try holding if you want to place accurate shots.

Yes, that was what I was trying to convey in my earlier post. Sort of a visual aid that once you are holding here or need to go further, you need to dial up one rev (or 1/2 or 2/3 or 3/4, but I like integers) using the size of the grid as reference for the dial, and get back closer to center.

But never mind, it's my ignorance of PRS that is leading me astray.

 

[Glassaholic]

Now if you are engaged in warfare, and there's no penalty for missed... shots

I'd say there is a penalty in this situation, that being the target begins to shoot back at you

 

[DellaDog]

For me it’s easy. Add a reticle like the MPCT2 or SKMR3 on the new PRS scope and I’m all in.

 

[Glassaholic]

it's my ignorance of PRS that is leading me astray.

I don't know if this is necessarily true, what we're talking about is the mil system which in reality is no different from the moa system you are used to, both are angular measurements and have no relationship to linear measurements though our brains try to tell us otherwise. I think in large part this is due to the ill-conceived concept that moa equals inches and mils equals centimeters - this is how I used to think about the two. Think about it this way, some tape measures have both standard (imperial) and metric on them, if you go to measure the length of an object you'll see on one side of the tape measure it says 10" but if you look on the other side it will say 25.4 (in centimeters or 254 millimeters), is one wrong and the other right? Not at all, they are both right, just different units used to measure. Now lets go back to MOA vs. Mil, they are both units of angular measurement so that 1 moa = 1.047" (1/4 moa = .26175") at 100 yards and 1 mil = 3.6" (.1 mil = .36") at 100 yards. We can then equate mils to moa, for example, you might buy a 20 moa canted rail for your action but you put a mil scope on that rail, now what... well just convert moa to mil which 20 moa equates to roughly 5.93 mils, so that 20 moa cant will actually allow for an additional 6 mils of elevation travel in your scope. And let's take those moa's and mils out to 1000 yards, because they are angular measures they actually stay the same at various distances (1 moa is 1 moa whether at 100 or 1000 yards, same with mils) but what changes is the distance, so your 1 moa at 100 yards is 1.047" but at 1000 yards it is 10.47" and your 1 mil at 100y is 3.6" but at 1000 yards it is 36" (this is why mils is more effective as a backup ranging tool because it's easier to think of things with a measurement of 36" and increments thereof, upper body torso, bottom of brisket to top of shoulder, etc.). All this to say your moa reticle as well as your mil reticle serve as rulers through your scope, so regardless of the range, if you're POA (Point Of Aim) is dead center but your POI (Point Of Impact) is measured on your reticle at 2.4 mils low, then you know you need to adjust elevation 2.4 mils up, it's the same thing on your moa scope, if you look at POI and notice that it's 12 moa low, then you're going to dial 12 moa up on elevation, you do not need to worry about converting anything to inches or centimeters, use the reticle as your ruler and move according to what the reticle says for any given distance. Hopefully I've helped and not muddied the waters, it took me quite a while to understand the concept and train my brain away from inches and centimeters.

 

[Alpine 338]

Thanks @wjm308 I try to explain that to guys who use MOA, and they are so wrapped up tight around the MOA equates to inches, that they cannot fathom anything else.

I started out with MOA, and transitioned to Mils about 12-years ago. I can shoot both, and see the merits in both systems. The beauty of Mils, it's so easy to range with in either Imperial or Metric sizes and distances.

 

[jb1000br]

MARCH SCOPES @ EUROOPTIC LINK

Guys - this is just fresh, but check out the page so far...please let us know the ones you want us to stock most so we can focus our energy there. Pics to follow as we are able.

Thanks!

 

[Glassaholic]

MARCH SCOPES @ EUROOPTIC LINK

Guys - this is just fresh, but check out the page so far...please let us know the ones you want us to stock most so we can focus our energy there. Pics to follow as we are able.

Thanks!

Nice, where are the 5-40's? Granted they will become obsolete once the 5-42's hit, but just curious where you put them as I don't see them with the F scopes. Also, I'm sending you a PM Jason so check that if you would.

 

[Denys]

I must say, wjm308, that your post is excellent. I read it all and enjoyed it.

My point however, is really hinging on HOW I use a scope in competition and how I make adjustments. I am positive this is very different from how PRS shooters use their scopes and therein lies my disconnect.

As I explained earlier, I only compete in F-Class now and as my 60th birthday is several years behind in the rearview mirror of my life, I doubt I would ever get into PRS. One aspect I have been getting into is wind coaching and that makes things worse for a specialization point of view.

When I am shooting a match; I set up my scope for the distance. I have exact come-ups for 300, 600 and 1000 yards (my most common distances, with 1000 yards being the lion's share of the matches.) So there is absolutely no ranging involved. The distances aare known and the target sizes are consistent, match to match, venue to venue; even international matches.

I will guage the wind before the start of my string and I will make a windage adjustment on my scope that should result in my first shot being in the black, most probably in the 9 to 10 ring. I may need to adjust elevation because of variation in density altitude from one match to another, and I try to have that done going to new venues, but it's not uncommon to have to adjust elevation down throughout the day as the temperature rises or the barrel heats up, etc. With the sighters, I may decide to adjust the windage some more, but once the string starts, I very rarely adjust the windage. I will hold off on the target using the rings, which are all of known dises and that never changes.

Holdovers are never used in F-Class. We may favor high or favor low on target but that's also done using the rings on the target. If I instruct the shooter to favor low, that would mean holding the waterline at the bottom of the X-ring or just underneath it. If more adjustment is required, we dial up or down a click or two. A good F-class reticle will have long horizontal stadia wires, wings if you will. Above and below are unimportant.

What is also quite common is holding off on target by several rings and even out of the black and into the last ring in thw white or even edge of the frame. That would represent about 3.5MOA from center. We can go further if needed, but at that point we may use the windage dial, or stop shooting waiting for a change. Of course, at that point, you have to be mindful of the clock. It can get quite interesting when you have to run 2 or 4 shooters in a specific time.

As you can see, it's a totally different game when it comes to scope use.

 

[Clint E.]

I like the layout, except the inside 1+/- Mil of the reticle. I think that part would be useful in a 1 - 8x scope on a carbine, but it's out of place on a precision rifle scope

I agree it gets a bit crazy in the middle, it is not the optimal 'PRS' reticle, I get the feeling that they designed as more of a practical reticle that could be used in lower light / dark backgrounds and not get washed out. When you run the scope a 3x with the illumination only the center portion illuminates and it basically acts like a red dot.

Also, I would like to shoot a mover with it, the typical mover hold seems to be 1.5mil and that gap between the center portion could work perfectly for timing mover shots. Shooting movers with other reticles sometimes I get lost in the heat of the moment, and this gives you a reference point you cant miss, I am hoping it will help me suck less.

 

[DellaDog]

Nice, where are the 5-40's? Granted they will become obsolete once the 5-42's hit, but just curious where you put them as I don't see them with the F scopes. Also, I'm sending you a PM Jason so check that if you would.

They’re there, under FX. I have the 5-40 .05 Mil. Great scope, but would really like .02 hashes.

 

[Glassaholic]

They’re there, under FX. I have the 5-40 .05 Mil. Great scope, but would really like .02 hashes.

Thanks Della, I thought the 5-40's were also just "F" scopes, bad on me for being lazy and not looking through the rest ?

 

[Glassaholic]

I must say, wjm308, that your post is excellent. I read it all and enjoyed it.

My point however, is really hinging on HOW I use a scope in competition and how I make adjustments. I am positive this is very different from how PRS shooters use their scopes and therein lies my disconnect.

As I explained earlier, I only compete in F-Class now and as my 60th birthday is several years behind in the rearview mirror of my life, I doubt I would ever get into PRS. One aspect I have been getting into is wind coaching and that makes things worse for a specialization point of view.

When I am shooting a match; I set up my scope for the distance. I have exact come-ups for 300, 600 and 1000 yards (my most common distances, with 1000 yards being the lion's share of the matches.) So there is absolutely no ranging involved. The distances aare known and the target sizes are consistent, match to match, venue to venue; even international matches.

I will guage the wind before the start of my string and I will make a windage adjustment on my scope that should result in my first shot being in the black, most probably in the 9 to 10 ring. I may need to adjust elevation because of variation in density altitude from one match to another, and I try to have that done going to new venues, but it's not uncommon to have to adjust elevation down throughout the day as the temperature rises or the barrel heats up, etc. With the sighters, I may decide to adjust the windage some more, but once the string starts, I very rarely adjust the windage. I will hold off on the target using the rings, which are all of known dises and that never changes.

Holdovers are never used in F-Class. We may favor high or favor low on target but that's also done using the rings on the target. If I instruct the shooter to favor low, that would mean holding the waterline at the bottom of the X-ring or just underneath it. If more adjustment is required, we dial up or down a click or two. A good F-class reticle will have long horizontal stadia wires, wings if you will. Above and below are unimportant.

What is also quite common is holding off on target by several rings and even out of the black and into the last ring in thw white or even edge of the frame. That would represent about 3.5MOA from center. We can go further if needed, but at that point we may use the windage dial, or stop shooting waiting for a change. Of course, at that point, you have to be mindful of the clock. It can get quite interesting when you have to run 2 or 4 shooters in a specific time.

As you can see, it's a totally different game when it comes to scope use.

Thank you Denys, that does help me understand better your dilemma. If I am understanding you correctly, let's just deal with one aspect of getting the round accurately on target - wind. You mention that you do your best to get your elevation dialed in beforehand for each distance because they are known (with adjustments based on atmospherics), so in a perfect world, if you aim (POA) dead center ideally you see a tiny bullet hole in the center of the X-ring, but that of course means no wind which unless you live in a bunker probably is not going to be the case. So instead of seeing the bullet hole in the center of the X-ring you see that it is centered vertically but you notice your bullet impact horizontally is between the 9 and 10 ring, so now you know you need to adjust your POA by that same distance, right, and so your move your POA over to adjust accordingly. You are using those rings exactly like you would use the reticle with an moa/mil hash reticle and in the case where you're always shooting a target that has rings, you know you can adjust based on those rings, but now lets take the game to PRS or hunting. Now you're shooting at a steel target or an animal that has no rings around it, so now what do you do? Well with steel you're going to try and spot your splash (the impact of the bullet in the dirt hopefully somewhere near that steel plate), but instead of looking for rings around that plate, you are actually looking at the hash marks on your reticle, so if line your scope back up to the original POA and look at where your splash was and notice that it was .6 mil to the left, now you're going to hold your rifle so the .6 mil hash mark on the right side (of vertical) horizontal stadia lines up with the center of the target (you should notice that the center of your crosshairs now falls on the POI where you noticed the splash), you've now just compensated for the wind just like you do with the rings on the targets, but you've done so using the reticle in your scope instead of relying on the rings of a target (which don't always exist). But here's the problem, with competition and with hunting, first hits count and especially with hunting you don't really want to shoot at your game and hope to see splash next to it because instead of splash you might hit a leg or somewhere else that leaves the animal injured but not dead and running off where you have to go track it. That's where ballistic calculators and tools like the Kestrel come into play, and of course being able to read wind at distance helps enormously. So we look at our ballistics chart or we punch in values on the Kestrel and the system comes up and says for 12mph wind you need to hold .6 mils (or whatever the value is for the given distance you've selected based on your trued ballistics) and now instead of looking for splash, you're actually correcting for wind beforehand and adjusting your rifle/scope accordingly and hopefully instead of seeing splash in the dirt next to the target you see the POI center mass and are rewarded with a delayed ting of that bullet ringing the steel.

So, having explained all the above, I realize this may be as confusing as all get-out to "read" the explanation, so I'm going to try and put together some images that might help explain this a bit more (I'm a visual guy so images really help me out). And if I've completely misunderstood what you're asking I apologize and hopefully someone else can step in and help us both out

 

[koshkin]

Interesting discussion.

The fundamental difference is that for F-Class the distance is known, the target size is known, the ballistics are known. The conditions need to be read, but fundamentally, the corrections are thought of in terms of somewhat arbitrary units of target size. The important part is that those units are linear, not angular. The only reason MOA comes up with F-class at all is that the scopes they use traditionally have MOA clicks. That's it. Half the F-class people I have talked to would not know what an angular unit is if it hit them on the head and, honestly, they do not need to. For their sport, it makes no difference.

With various "practical" precision shooting disciplines, the target size can vary, target distance is not clear, inclination from the shooting position to the target can be all over the place, shooting positions are all over the place and the terrain can have a god aweful effect on how the wind changes. When you have to adjust on the fly, you need a consistent unit of measure that is native to you sighting system, since that is what is in front of you. Native measurement system for a riflescopes is angular, either mrad or MOA, with mrad being the dominant system for a variety of good reasons that are outside of the scope of this discussion.

The difference between PRS and F-class is not mrad vs MOA. It is angular vs linear units.

ILya

 

[Papagrizzly]

Just so everyone knows, The current stock of March scopes at Marchoptics.com is all being liquidated at 30% off list. These scopes are with full warranty from the factory, and there a few pieces of each model available. Some are sold out, but you can easily see what's available. Limited to quantities on hand and no back orders.

 

[308pirate]

Thanks @wjm308 I try to explain that to guys who use MOA, and they are so wrapped up tight around the MOA equates to inches, that they cannot fathom anything else.

I started out with MOA, and transitioned to Mils about 12-years ago. I can shoot both, and see the merits in both systems. The beauty of Mils, it's so easy to range with in either Imperial or Metric sizes and distances.

Like you, I'm fluent in both. Being used to angular measurements professionally (engineering and navigation) the concept of using the reticle to measure everything in angles came naturally. Before getting into precision rifles, I used to shoot NRA service rifle with iron sights and I used angles (in MOA) the same way. Your data book has a MOA grid over the target plot and you use that plot to correct your sights in .25 MOA increments. I never cared, nor do I care now, how far off in inches (or any other linear unit) my shot went off the mark.

And you're right. Trying to explain that to the average gun owner/hunter is like punching yourself in the balls. I no longer even try. I just tell them "you'll have to figure it out on your own".

 

[DellaDog]

I’m glad when I started a few years ago I went Mil, solely because that’s what I picked up here.

I have no real concept at all of linear measurements (a good thing) and just use my reticle as a ruler. See where the round hits on my ruler and adjust. No clue what the distance is. Exactly why I wish March would come out with a better/more graduated “ruler”.

(Though one could do the same with MOA, if they’d just forget about inches)

 

[Glassaholic]

ILya made a much more eloquent explanation. However, I put together these images, let me know if they help you understand the concept (image courtesy of JC Steel Target Video). Reticle is my own design. In the example below, you take the shot and notice that while your POA was center mass on target, the POI was actually 2.2 mils to the right, all you have to do is move your reticle to the left until that 2.2 mil hash mark is now center mass and take the shot again, as long as the wind didn't change your POI should now be center mass. This is how you use the reticle as your ruler to determine how to adjust based on wind (same principles for elevation as well).

Now lets say the wind changes from 12mph to 8mph, you put that in your ballistics and you notice it now says your adjustment should be 1.8 mil instead of 2.2, no worries, you simply put the 1.8 mil hash mark at center mass and voila, your bullet should hit the same place.

PS - this is an exaggerated example and does not necessarily represent real world conditions, it is given purely as an example to understand how to use the reticle as your ruler.

EDIT: Added link to video because JC Steel is a great company, the video is cool, and Jake Vibbert is a Hider who often contributes his knowledge.

 

[308pirate]

ILya made a much more eloquent explanation. However, I put together these images, let me know if they help you understand the concept (image courtesy of JC Steel Target Video). Reticle is my own design. In the example below, you take the shot and notice that while your POA was center mass on target, the POI was actually 2.2 mils to the right, all you have to do is move your reticle to the left until that 2.2 mil hash mark is now center mass and take the shot again, as long as the wind didn't change your POI should now be center mass. This is how you use the reticle as your ruler to determine how to adjust based on wind (same principles for elevation as well).

View attachment 7107017


View attachment 7107021

Now lets say the wind changes from 12mph to 8mph, you put that in your ballistics and you notice it now says your adjustment should be 1.8 mil instead of 2.2, no worries, you simply put the 1.8 mil hash mark at center mass and voila, your bullet should hit the same place.

PS - this is an exaggerated example and does not necessarily represent real world conditions, it is given purely as an example to understand how to use the reticle as your ruler.

That shit is so intuitive and obvious that I just can't fathom why it's so hard for so many people to grasp.

And what's more, it works the same way with milliradians of arc, minutes of arc, or any other angular measure you care to use.

 

[Alpine 338]

@wjm308 I came up with a very similar reticle as your design, but instead of round dots, it was little squares. And the grid had wind hold values, much like the Horus dots in the Tremor 2/3.

I presented the reticle to the Engineers at S&B, but I guess they didn't think much of it, as a year later they introduced their GRID reticle.

 

[308pirate]

I presented the reticle to the Engineers at S&B, but I guess they didn't think much of it, as a year later they introduced their GRID reticle.

Never do consulting work for free........

 

[Glassaholic]

That shit is so intuitive and obvious that I just can't fathom why it's so hard for so many people to grasp.

And what's more, it works the same way with milliradians of arc, minutes of arc, or any other angular measure you care to use.

I think it's so difficult because they don't think of it as a ruler, they still think they have to convert inches or centimeters when the answer is literally staring them in the face

 

[308pirate]

I think it's so difficult because they don't think of it as a ruler, they still think they have to convert inches or centimeters when the answer is literally staring them in the face

I honestly think is that most people out there just never use angular measurements for anything so they can't conceptualize what they're being told.

On top of that, the great majority of rifle owners have no concept of a bullet's trajectory. So we may as well be speaking in chinese to them.

 

[Glassaholic]

@wjm308 I came up with a very similar reticle as your design, but instead of round dots, it was little squares. And the grid had wind hold values, much like the Horus dots in the Tremor 2/3.

I presented the reticle to the Engineers at S&B, but I guess they didn't think much of it, as a year later they introduced their GRID reticle.

Sounds nice. I've shared mine with various mfr's as well, I don't ask for any royalties but would just love to see it come to fruition somewhere. I've modified it over the years to what I have now, the difficulty may be the actual laser that etches the glass, sometimes dots and circles are difficult for lasers.

 

[koshkin]

Sounds nice. I've shared mine with various mfr's as well, I don't ask for any royalties but would just love to see it come to fruition somewhere. I've modified it over the years to what I have now, the difficulty may be the actual laser that etches the glass, sometimes dots and circles are difficult for lasers.

Angular size of reticle features has to be translated into physical size of the features that need to be engraved on the reticle cell, so the same reticle may be harder or easier to make for different scopes. Complex designs are generally easier to make for scopes with long focal plane objectives for obvious reasons.

ILya

 

[lennyo3034]

ILya made a much more eloquent explanation. However, I put together these images, let me know if they help you understand the concept (image courtesy of JC Steel Target Video). Reticle is my own design. In the example below, you take the shot and notice that while your POA was center mass on target, the POI was actually 2.2 mils to the right, all you have to do is move your reticle to the left until that 2.2 mil hash mark is now center mass and take the shot again, as long as the wind didn't change your POI should now be center mass. This is how you use the reticle as your ruler to determine how to adjust based on wind (same principles for elevation as well).

View attachment 7107017


View attachment 7107021

Now lets say the wind changes from 12mph to 8mph, you put that in your ballistics and you notice it now says your adjustment should be 1.8 mil instead of 2.2, no worries, you simply put the 1.8 mil hash mark at center mass and voila, your bullet should hit the same place.

PS - this is an exaggerated example and does not necessarily represent real world conditions, it is given purely as an example to understand how to use the reticle as your ruler.

Who do I pay to get this reticle in all my scopes?

 

[Lowlight]

Just so everyone knows, The current stock of March scopes at Marchoptics.com is all being liquidated at 30% off list. These scopes are with full warranty from the factory, and there a few pieces of each model available. Some are sold out, but you can easily see what's available. Limited to quantities on hand and no back orders.

interesting you still want to sell on here, after it was explained in simple terms how the rules of this site work.

Lucky for you, I am traveling and teaching today and this weekend, so I will pretend I did not see it vs sending you an invoice for your stealth sales plug In violation of the rules.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

PapaG posting and advertising his unapproved sales in a thread where an approved commercial sponsor aka @jb1000br is posting and advertising same manufacturers products.....

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[Glassaholic]

Angular size of reticle features has to be translated into physical size of the features that need to be engraved on the reticle cell, so the same reticle may be harder or easier to make for different scopes. Complex designs are generally easier to make for scopes with long focal plane objectives for obvious reasons.

ILya

^^^ What he said

My understanding is that making reticles is a really difficult process that requires semi-conductor photo-lithography processes and requires the use of acid in part of the process. The reticle itself is one small piece of glass with the reticle pattern etched onto it and the size of that glass is dependent on the optical design. Think of a piece of glass a 1/2" in diameter with the entire reticle etched in, the major portion of the reticle (the hash marks that we see) only takes up maybe half the space of that 1/2" piece of glass and that etching process has to make all those lines and dots at precisely the right size so when they are viewed through the scope they are legible and accurate.

Here's a pic of an etched glass piece and the website it comes from has some good info on the process

Optical Microstructures – POG Präzisionsoptik Gera GmbH

Customized optical microstructures from POG for life science, aerospace, sports optics, machine vision or semiconductor industry.

www.pog.eu

And just in case that website ever disappears, here is the info from the page:

Microstructures etched in glass and filled

• illuminated reticles for telescopic sight and other optical sights
• minimum feature size of usable illuminated etch and fill structures is 5µm
• also combined with chrome pattern
• chrome cover of the etch and fill pattern to avoid stray light towards the objective lens is available as an option

Etch and Fill Process

masking of the pattern

etching of glass with hydrofluoric acid

removal of the mask and filling of the structures with special white paint

The filled structures can be illuminated from the side by using an LED and will scatter the light toward the eye of the viewer.

The etch and fill pattern can be combined with chrome pattern.

 

[Denys]

Nice, where are the 5-40's? Granted they will become obsolete once the 5-42's hit, but just curious where you put them as I don't see them with the F scopes. Also, I'm sending you a PM Jason so check that if you would.

I think you can find a few 5-40x56 at marchoptics.com. i thought they were all gone, but the site says they have a few left,

 

[Glassaholic]

I think you can find a few 5-40x56 at marchoptics.com. i thought they were all gone, but the site says they have a few left,

I don't want one, was just asking Jason where they were on his site in case someone else was interested

 

[carbonbased]

I'm not a PRS shooter. I'm a prairie dog shooter, a varmint hunter, but I think there's a fair bit of similarity to PRS.

Here are my thoughts for the March reticle designers if they want to build a reticle that has varmint hunting crossover.

Background: I am a hold-over shooter. I don't have much time to hit those small prairie dogs at 8"-12" when standing and maybe 4" wide (for adults) at 300-550 yds, but sometimes as close as 200 yds. At those distances, I shoot a .204 exclusively. I imagine the target size may be similar to a PRS match at 1000+ yds, but I don't know and I'm too lazy to work that out right now. I tend to be at 15x-20x most of the time, but I'll go to 27x if the mirage permits and I'm shooting out there a ways.

The scope I currently use is a Vortex Razor 4-27 gen II with the EBR-2c MRAD reticle. It is almost perfect, and it must be darn close to perfect for PRS to score highly (2nd) in the "What the pros use" article here: https://precisionrifleblog.com/2018/12/21/best-scope/
They've since moved onto the ERB-7c MRAD reticle, and I think its horizontal line has too many hashes for me because one of the main challenges for me is finding the critters in the scope! Anyway, here is my "perfect" small varmint reticle:

Take the EBR-2c…with its:

1. .03 mil lines for the crosshairs
2. wind holds going out all the way to 2 mils right off the bat (it's real windy in the Dakotas!)

and add the Minox MR4…with its:

1. the mil numbering is "every other", or 2, 4, 6. This helps keep the reticle clear!
2. the wind hold numbering is at the ends of the tree lines, and not next to the center line (clearer view!)
3. limited vertical line north of the horizontal. Again, this keeps things clearer so I can glass for targets with the less obstructed view on top
4. non-through .2 mil hash marks on the horizontal stadia (drum roll…clearer view!)
5. but delete the L shaped mil ranging scale to the upper right of the center. Useless for me and it would get in the way. I use a laser rangefinder to, uh, range.
   

What I'm agnostic about:

1. center dot with tons of open space around it (MR4) vs open center (Vortex). I sight my rifle in at 300 yds, and lots of my shooting is done past that. So the targets are below the main horizontal stadia.
2. The wind hold dot sizes. I like the .06/.09 small/big combo on the vortex, but maybe the .05/.08 on the Minox would be grand. Never looked through a Minox.
3. the .2 hashmarks on the vertical stadia. I somewhat prefer .5 on both horiz/vert for clarity, but the PRS crowd seems to like .2. Meh.

I have used scopes with .04 mil vert/hort stadia, and they are just too thick for the stuff I shoot, at the mags I shoot at. I know .03 lines work fine with the Vortex, so I see no reason to move to the .035 lines of the Minox.

I hope that helps. Good luck with your new scope, March! It looks interesting, for sure. I'm especially interested in the eyebox, as shooting critters for 8 hrs is tiring on the eyes and the ease of "getting behind the scope" is a big part of minimizing eye strain.

For comparison, here is a Vortex EBR-7c MRAD reticle. The background is busier, but I'm working with what I could find. It's just too many…LINES EVERYWHERE on the horizontal.

 

[lennyo3034]

I actually like the parallax on the March for “practical” style shooting. Yes it’s difficult to get perfect, but it’s very easy to get “good enough”. I just set it somewhere between 100 and infinity and never touched it all weekend.

 

[Clint E.]

I actually like the parallax on the March for “practical” style shooting. Yes it’s difficult to get perfect, but it’s very easy to get “good enough”. I just set it somewhere between 100 and infinity and never touched it all weekend.

I agree, this has also been my experience .

 

[Clearlight]

^^^ What he said

My understanding is that making reticles is a really difficult process that requires semi-conductor photo-lithography processes and requires the use of acid in part of the process. The reticle itself is one small piece of glass with the reticle pattern etched onto it and the size of that glass is dependent on the optical design. Think of a piece of glass a 1/2" in diameter with the entire reticle etched in, the major portion of the reticle (the hash marks that we see) only takes up maybe half the space of that 1/2" piece of glass and that etching process has to make all those lines and dots at precisely the right size so when they are viewed through the scope they are legible and accurate.

Here's a pic of an etched glass piece and the website it comes from has some good info on the process

View attachment 7107036

Optical Microstructures – POG Präzisionsoptik Gera GmbH

Customized optical microstructures from POG for life science, aerospace, sports optics, machine vision or semiconductor industry.

www.pog.eu

And just in case that website ever disappears, here is the info from the page:

Microstructures etched in glass and filled

• illuminated reticles for telescopic sight and other optical sights
• minimum feature size of usable illuminated etch and fill structures is 5µm
• also combined with chrome pattern
• chrome cover of the etch and fill pattern to avoid stray light towards the objective lens is available as an option

Etch and Fill Process

masking of the pattern

etching of glass with hydrofluoric acid

removal of the mask and filling of the structures with special white paint

The filled structures can be illuminated from the side by using an LED and will scatter the light toward the eye of the viewer.

The etch and fill pattern can be combined with chrome pattern.

Amazing how precise etching can be, and how small. Here’s a reticle from a 5-40 March next
to a bic lighter.

 

[Glassaholic]

^^^ Yes, exactly, I understand with lasers they can be very precise but when we're talking to a level few can see with the naked eye it's pretty amazing what they can do these days.

 

[rcmigpilot]

Not long ago I read an article about using x-rays to etch chips as the light photons were too big.