-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes New Army Reticle, Details Inside
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
I do feel the MPCT2 is probably my favorite
If they added a small tenths section It would be even better but I know most don’t mil targets, But I enjoy it.
That asymmetry would seem to contradict everything I know about how the eye and brain work. But possibly I'm wrong.
Does this have any super-heavy stadia way outboard of the main reticle area (like many of the Nightforce reticles) so that we might have a chance of using it at low power, or will it simply disappear like the H59 when the power is turned way down?
I wonder how this reticle compares to the upcoming/rumored competition reticle for the Mark 5's? Had anybody seen one?
I don't understand why they need so much crazy in a reticle these days. I was assigned to the XM107 scope selection testing; the Horus scope and reticle was one of the 3 tested. We found that the Christmas tree reticle was excessive and interfered with observing trace. It was great for follow-up shots when there was splash, but wasn't necessary. Why would they push something that isn't necessary, I just cant understand... Sometimes less is more...
I believe that course of action was already in play,
Sure you can sue, question is will you win, the patents are getting old and people are fighting the prior art claims now ,
I believe they tried to sue or are in the process, but it’s defendable if you want it to be, in past people caved because the money wasn’t worth it, now they fight back.
prior art exists
Sure you can sue, question is will you win, the patents are getting old and people are fighting the prior art claims now ,
I believe they tried to sue or are in the process, but it’s defendable if you want it to be, in past people caved because the money wasn’t worth it, now they fight back.
prior art exists
Pretty much,
we would have had a better selection sooner if they didn’t, lots ideas were crushed under thumb
we would have had a better selection sooner if they didn’t, lots ideas were crushed under thumb
"Make it fast to use."
"Make it idiot-proof."
"Take away the math."
And eventually the grunts say, "fuck it, get the Mk19."
"Make it idiot-proof."
"Take away the math."
And eventually the grunts say, "fuck it, get the Mk19."
Last edited:
I'm curious about your comment; why the dislike for Horus? I'm not making accusations just curious. I bought the Horus Vision ballistic software(which you have to run on a Windows compact device) just before Horus sort of almost-but-not-quite disappeared. More recently they seem to be coming back. I'm curious about the history.
Thanks!
I've been pretty open about my general distaste for Horus style reticles. There are some grid type reticles I like (S&B's GR2ID, for example), but those are a lot smaller than this monstrosity.
For use under pressure, a reticle design has to have reasonable horizontal symmetry and a well defined primary aiming point. The eye has to be drawn to the primary aiming point. That is sorta how human vision works and how aiming works whether you are shooting or throwing a rock.
With all of the designs that have that huge grid the eye is drawn anywhere but where it is supposed to go. I think it less preposterous than Tremor3, kinda like H59, but that vertical line on the left is kinda weird.
Personally, I kida like abbreviated tree reticles. When I use the tree, I am usually within 5-6 mrad from the center. For further shots, I tend to dial and then do small corrections with the reticle.
Then again, I am not in the military, so it quite likely there are some deeper considerations there I do not understand.
ILya
For use under pressure, a reticle design has to have reasonable horizontal symmetry and a well defined primary aiming point. The eye has to be drawn to the primary aiming point. That is sorta how human vision works and how aiming works whether you are shooting or throwing a rock.
With all of the designs that have that huge grid the eye is drawn anywhere but where it is supposed to go. I think it less preposterous than Tremor3, kinda like H59, but that vertical line on the left is kinda weird.
Personally, I kida like abbreviated tree reticles. When I use the tree, I am usually within 5-6 mrad from the center. For further shots, I tend to dial and then do small corrections with the reticle.
Then again, I am not in the military, so it quite likely there are some deeper considerations there I do not understand.
ILya
It’s more the guy that peddles their product I have a problem With. He’s never heard an idea he isn’t willing to steal or exploit and say it’s his. But the premium Horus charges for their reticle makes me dislike the. Too.
SKMR: I want more vertical marks
MSR2: It does look awesome, but doesn't fit my needs
APLR: Not enough to be a true tree-style reticle.
Mil-XT: Close to perfect
Every time I look at the reticle image at the beginning my eye automatically goes to the ruler on the left.
Frank and I said the same thing. Its an awkward visual thing that is going to mess with shooters.
The premium and the whole I trademarked a christmas tree reticle so I am going to sue everyone who has something similar but different. Its not unlike to other asshats who tried to claim the term Happy Birthday and wanted to sue others for using it.
That sounds like Army. Marines figured them out long ago. It is a fun weapon system and quite effective at its intended use.
And...now that I think about it...if is the Army's fault this thread exists in the first place, for that vacuum abortion of a reticle, which we can now resume discussing.
Our MPCT2 reticle, as well as the 1 and 3, have the 0.1 mil capability. Look between the 4 and 5 mil points.
Lowlight gets it, no surprise there. Our MPCT3 reticle was designed primarily for the sport competition shooter, with military/LE applicability a secondary consideration.
Given such, with our ranging funnel, we wanted to provide a range in yards due to the multitude of different cartridges competition shooters around the world currently use. Way too much variation to provide a mil hold number due to target size being bracketed.
Military in the other hand, has different requirements that this new reticle from Leupold should do well with. I hope their speed, efficiency, and lethality is increased. I wish Leupold and all military personnel the very best of luck with this optic and reticle. Go get em!
Given such, with our ranging funnel, we wanted to provide a range in yards due to the multitude of different cartridges competition shooters around the world currently use. Way too much variation to provide a mil hold number due to target size being bracketed.
Military in the other hand, has different requirements that this new reticle from Leupold should do well with. I hope their speed, efficiency, and lethality is increased. I wish Leupold and all military personnel the very best of luck with this optic and reticle. Go get em!
I looked at the reticle about five separate times over the course of the last day and toady. Every time my eye went to the left.
I agree...I could see this being really tough to overcome in a fast muti target engagement on no sleep....
Didn't see your comment from earlier and I agree if this is the final version, it is indeed a huge miss......in my very limited experience, when the mk19 is running at the range after being pulled spotless from the arms room... sure it's great... But more times than not it malfunctioned at the worst times in uncontrollable dusty dirty conditions but I'm sure the Corps has got it all figured out
I'm really not surprised the Army did this since it's what they did when they purchased the Desert Scorpion uniform so they didn't have to pay Crye any more money. Change one small thing and boom no money to horus.
And you have to love the unintended 'ramp up a round' feature where it magically shoots 1-2 with the same recoil/feeling and then a 3rd with way more velocity and at a different trajectory for no fucking reason.
And Crye borrowed most of their design from an unused WW2 German camo pattern.
I have no idea how it wouldn't be ruled as Horusesque reticle lol
Our Mk19s ran like a swiss watch, never had a jam
Loved shooting this off the ships, we mounted them on the rails
Loved shooting this off the ships, we mounted them on the rails
Why all the hate for Horus? Is it purely cost or is there more to it? It is nice to see a reticle design that's constant across company lines, so you can choose your scope based on the scope itself, not so much a compromise between a good reticle and a good scope design.
I agree. That’s pretty busy. Imagine having to look at that when you are dog ass tired. Using at a range is one thing, but for real work, I’m not so sure.
For me, and I'm far from alone in this, the H59 and Tremor 3 are way too busy for the shooting I do. There are three consequences of this:
1) People have talked about it getting in the way when spotting hits/misses etc.
2) Eye strain. If your eye is being drawn to different elements in your field of view, it is moving. Eye movement contributes to eye strain.
3) Fatigue. Years ago I did a fair amount of work in the usability arena. Core tenet: everything your eye is presented with has to be processed by your brain - and that takes resources. If all you have is a dot to concentrate on, it takes away most of the visual processing you need to do, which leaves more capacity for getting the job done. Of course, processing power isn't everything, and you need more info than just a dot, but every element you add, regardless of how small, adds to that processing requirement, thus diminishing resources available for accomplishing the task at hand. There will be times where a complex reticle helps, there will be times when it hurts.
The trick is picking a reticle that provides the necessary info for the work you need to do, but not too much.
This quote makes sense and exemplifies the usability statement I talk about above. When you are tired, you have less brain processing power available. There are some cool videos out there of brain scans taken of people doing tasks when they are fatigued (like driving in a simulator). They are noticeably darker (less activity) than alert brains, and what's really cool is that two areas normally connected (like logic centers and motor centers) will spontaneously disconnect for a period of time in fatigued brains, then just reconnect again. In the driving example, this was explained as those times where you zone out then suddenly "come back" and you're five miles farther down the road than you just were - and you don't remember getting there.
I'm a fan of tree reticles. For quite a while, all I've had are scopes with tree reticles. For my new 300 build, which will be used exclusively for ringing steel at longer ranges, I'm rethinking that. I'm not in situations where I need to quickly jump from one target to another at varying ranges. I'm not holding over on the targets I shoot at. I don't always dial in windage, but I don't need a tree reticle for that if I'm already dialed in on the elevation. Still, it's hard for me to move away...
Aaaaaannnnndddd... just as I say this, guess what's on its way to me via the PX
Reticle is almost non-existent in your sight picture below 8x, maybe a stretch to 6x. Why not shave the weight, mechanical complexity, and price by 30% by making this a compact 6-18x FFP with 30mm tube?
im sorry, i still don’t get it. I must be an idiot....can someone try to explain?
As for the reticle, IMO, the reticle is for speed of engagement and fire adjustment. Am I gonna need 4 miles of wind or oops depending on these 2 scenarios?
My guess is some of these lines are to address a 500 yd zero by scope base to get to ELR, but what do I know. I’m thinking for the guys with this optic on a 338 Lapua or 50 bmg rifle....2mil base. Those upper plus marks allow me to swing this optic on to a 100 - 500 yd target an make quick hits...because wind effects are minimal on 338 Lapua. That’s the only way I can make sense of all that grid!
BTW, I wouldn’t buy this as my world has limits that keeps precision 338 Lapua and $5000 optics out of my safe!
I am not a sniper. I do not play one on TV. I am just a guy who likes to shoot when I get a chance, which is not often. I never shot anything over 300 meters. But I want to do more so I upgraded my optic to a new Leupold with a similar reticle. In my humble opinion, if we have to use optics like this, just go to an electronic sensor that ranges and adjusts automatically. The busiest reticle I shot was mil-dot.
I guess I will have to learn how to use this type of reticle since I just ordered the Leupold.
I guess I will have to learn how to use this type of reticle since I just ordered the Leupold.
It's for ranging targets at unknown distances.
Any stepped reticle feature like that is calibrated to some specific, consistent distance, often something like 16" vertically or 5-6'vertically. When looking at a target of that size you move the reticle across it until the target is within the upper and lower lines of one of those steps. Then you read the number associated with that step, say, '3'. That's 300 yards or 300 meters. Now you (supposedly) know the distance to the target and you either dial the drop for your round on your elevation turret, or more likely use one of the dots or hash marks below the crosshair (and the marks may also have a range mark on them so you know to use the '3' one in my example. So you hold over and fire and, allegedly, hit the target.
These kind of ranging reticles are neat looking, and might be useful in combat or hunting, but less so in precision shooting.
It can be hard to keep a moving target in each of the measuring steps long enough to get an accurate measurement. Plus what if they're taller or shorter than the calibration step? I've always wondered how the military 'mil's' human targets given the different heights of different peoples around the world.
I have a marvelous Steiner 6 x 30 bino with a similar ranging feature: there's flat baseline for the lower end of the target, and a line rising at an angle (visualize 2 sides of a triangle) At various spots on the upper angular line are the numbers, 100, 200, 250, etc. I've tried using this for practice and found it's very hard to range targets with it. For one thing I'm at a slightly higher altitude than the things I'm ranging. For another there's a lot of variation in size of the targets. And IIRC the calibrated vertical distance is something like 16", which is supposed to be the height of the vital area of a deer or something, and I'm not ranging deer.
I never had a problem with mine.
Everybody told me I was making shit up, but it's true! TheGerman said it so it must be true, or we're both crazy.
Regarding the reticle: I'm just impressed that the Army used 0.2 mil holds.
Attachments
Similar threads
