Re: Mil GAP or GEN II XR for my new USO
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SoCalPete</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hello all,
Jeff @ USO is waiting for my answer on which reticule I want since they are ready to install the erector in my new USO. Which reticule would you prefer and why?</div></div>
I owned and used a 35mm tube, 3.2-17X 44mm Lo Pro ERGO with 0.1 MIL EREK, 0.1 MIL LH US#3 M40 Windage, and Green GAP reticle for a couple of years. Great scope and reticle. The clean design of the GAP reticle allows a nearly unobstructed view of the target area, allowing easy spotting and adjustments if necessary. Part of this "clean" design are the short full MIL hash marks and short 0.5 MIL hash marks that do not bisect the main lines (the hash marks don't pass-through the main lines, they "T" into them). The only improvement I would add to the GAP reticle I would be a 5th MIL added at "9", "12", and "3" broken-down into 0.2 MIL increments for easier size estimation/milling.
Some posters in this thread have mentioned the "MPR", which has 0.2 MIL hash marks to either side of each FULL MIL. However, the MPR's MIL, 0.5 MIL, and 0.2 MIL hashes are all too long and all bisect the main lines. This makes the MPR much less clean and clutters the view, making spotting impacts close to the aiming point more difficult to see and correct for. I spent a lot of time looking through various USO models configured with MPR and GAP reticles at various magnifications both before and after I bought my first GAP-equipped SN-3 3.2-17X 44mm ERGO Lo Pro. And comparing a Gen 2 XR-equipped PMII 5-25X 0.1 MIL CCW and Gen 2 XR-equipped 3.2-17X ERGO alongside an MPR-equipped USO 3.2-17X ERGO and T-PAL, I found the MPR reticle too busy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SoCalPete</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Scope is SN3 3.2-17x TPAL, 44mm objective, 35mm tube.</div></div>
Excellent scope. A friend's 35mm tube, 3.2-17X 44mm T-PAL with EREK is really nice - solidly-built, very positive "clicks", excellent image quality, and very smooth-turning magnification and parallax adjustments. Its' great, even though his scope is MOA-based (wink).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SoCalPete</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've had a USO in Mil-GAP and liked it for its simplicity and "cleaniness" if that makes sense. It does get a little thick on high magnification...</div></div>
I never had a problem using my GAP reticle-equipped 3.2-17X 44mm Lo Pro ERGO quartering and shooting 0.5 MOA targets out to almost 1,000 yards, but if you find the GAP's reticle <span style="font-style: italic">"a little thick on high magnification"</span> you definitely will not like the MPR, as the MPR's line thicknesses are the same as the GAP's. Add-in all the hashes cluttering the view and you would probably hate it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SoCalPete</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm however looking into shooting with a local club on tac competitions where there will be some stages where holding for elevation and wind will be required, or recommended, and I'd like the features of the GEN II XR to train with. Does this reticule get "busy" sometimes?</div></div>
I don't own nor have I used USO's version of the Gen 2 XR, but I have compared Gen 2 XR-equipped USO's to PMII 5-25X Gen 2 XRs' side-by-side. While the reticles did look different between the USO and PMII, John Williams (USO Owner) has told me that the USO subtensions are standard Gen 2 XR. I (and others) have had the same experience when comparing Gen 2 XR-equipped PMIIs' alongside Gen 2 XR-equipped Premier 5-25Xs' (although the reticle specifications are the same on paper, the reticles appear slightly different when viewed through the scopes in person <span style="font-style: italic">with the scopes' adjusted to the same <span style="font-weight: bold">indicated</span> magnification).</span> Obviously, there is no way to know if the <span style="font-style: italic">indicated</span> magnifications were <span style="font-style: italic">exactly</span> the same. That said, I own and use two (2) Gen 2 XR-equipped PMII 5-25X 0.1 MIL CCWs'. All of the lines of the Gen 2 XR are more fine (thinner) than those of the GAP (and MPR), providing a very clean view of the target and surrounding area. Shooting and spotting with a Gen 2 XR is very easy.
Also, contrary to what some posters like to say - some MPR proponents included, the Gen 2 XR IS NOT busy. Again, the fineness of the Gen 2 XR's lines plays a part in this as all lines, dots, and hash marks are very fine. This makes the Gen 2 XR great for shooting small targets regardless of near or far as well as for observation and correction calling.
The downside is that, aside from optical properties - reticle visibility is dependant upon line thickness, ambient lighting, terrain background, and magnification. The fine lines of the Gen 2 XR reticle make it more difficult to see than a reticle with thicker lines and hash marks. Even in good light, <span style="font-style: italic">for Hiders' who have used a Gen 2 XR and posted on the Hide'</span>, the magnification setting at which the Gen 2 XR's hash marks and dots are visible (and thus usable) seems to be around 7X or 8X. Your mileage may vary. I can see and use the hash marks and dots down to 7X but it takes me some effort. The sweet spot for me is 10X+, but I often crank up to 25X for paper and steel because I have a more exact aiming point. The 17X top end of the 3.2-17X you have on order should be enough for .5 MOA targets out to 1,000 yards with either the GAP or Gen 2 XR reticle.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SoCalPete</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rifle will be Howa heavy barreled .308, 26" 1-10 twist in either B&C Medalist A2 or Manners T4 with CDI DBM.</div></div>
Given a choice between a B&C Medalist A2 and a Manners T4 I would definitely go with the Manners T4. B & C stocks' aren't constructed nearly as sturdily, and feel hollow and cheap compared to McMillan and Manners stocks.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SoCalPete</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks much!
</div></div>
You're welcome, I hope this helps.
And, just-in-case your spelling of <span style="font-style: italic">"reticle"</span> wasn't tongue-in-cheek, the proper term and spelling is <span style="font-style: italic">"reticle"</span>, NOT <span style="font-style: italic">"reticule"</span>.
Keith
