Possible improvement to thr fc-dmx please read before commenting

[Hoody2shoes]

I've been back and forth with nightforce for some time now and have suggested they reduce the thickness of the segmented circle lines in half (.25mil to .1mil). No changes to the actual dimensions-still 4mil in diameter. Doing so would clean up the image with illum and create a cleaner circle dot and less of a blob like in the picture. The short version is if we can get enough support this is an easy change and would have a good chance of becoming reality. If you're interested leave a comment. This is going to be cross posted on the hide as well. Thank you for your time and support

Edit***the second illum pic is the suggested change. It was edited on my phone so it may not be the clearest thing

 

[Glassaholic]

I've been back and forth with nightforce for some time now and have suggested they reduce the thickness of the segmented circle lines in half (.25mil to .1mil). No changes to the actual dimensions-still 4mil in diameter. Doing so would clean up the image with illum and create a cleaner circle dot and less of a blob like in the picture. The short version is if we can get enough support this is an easy change and would have a good chance of becoming reality. If you're interested leave a comment. This is going to be cross posted on the hide as well. Thank you for your time and support

Edit***the second illum pic is the suggested change. It was edited on my phone so it may not be the clearest thing

Something to keep in mind, one of the things many love about the DMx is how bright it is at 1x, if you reduce the thickness the illumination will not be as bright, so it is give and take. This reticle is mostly designed for their LPVO's which has a first purpose use at 1x with other magnifications being secondary in many ways. Also, good luck getting Nightforce's attention, they really don't pay attention to these forums, I assume their have their own market research team and are greatly influenced by military contracts which is what drives design.

 

[Hoody2shoes]

Something to keep in mind, one of the things many love about the DMx is how bright it is at 1x, if you reduce the thickness the illumination will not be as bright, so it is give and take. This reticle is mostly designed for their LPVO's which has a first purpose use at 1x with other magnifications being secondary in many ways. Also, good luck getting Nightforce's attention, they really don't pay attention to these forums, I assume their have their own market research team and are greatly influenced by military contracts which is what drives design.

Thank you for the feedback

With this style illum the thickness of the line doesn't have any carryover to the actual brightness of the reticle. Remember the original reticle (fc-dm) had even thicker stadia and was the same exact brightness. Same with the nx8.

Edit***
You may have a larger reflective surface area throwing the sun into your eyeballs but the thinner lines will be just as "bright"-only thinner

Fwiw I'm not the only person who's discussed this with them

 

[1911hombre]

The FC-DMX is so many worlds apart and better than the FC-DM that I highly doubt they're gonna change it anytime soon. Also, as long as you're pestering them about the inadequacies of their newest bestest LPVO reticle, see if you can get them to drop their prices and shave a few ounces off them, also maybe red/green illum like Digilume. Keep us posted.

 

[Hoody2shoes]

The FC-DMX is so many worlds apart and better than the FC-DM that I highly doubt they're gonna change it anytime soon. Also, as long as you're pestering them about the inadequacies of their newest bestest LPVO reticle, see if you can get them to drop their prices and shave a few ounces off them, also maybe red/green illum like Digilume. Keep us posted.

You mean when the fc-dm came out and everybody bugged them about the center reticle obscuring too much of the target under magnification so they changed it? Just to be clear, you're saying voicing your opinion isn't valid and will never have any impact? Is that really your stance? If you aren't being sarcastic then please disregard or dm me and I'll edit this.

 

[1911hombre]

You mean when the fc-dm came out and everybody bugged them about the center reticle obscuring too much of the target under magnification so they changed it? Just to be clear, you're saying voicing your opinion isn't valid and will never have any impact? Is that really your stance?

My stance is that the improvement from FC-DM to FC-DMX was very substantial and tons of people asked for it. The difference between FC-DMX and this hypothetical reticle you desire is, at least IMO, slight and I go as far as saying of questionable value. For what it's worth, I hate that second illumination photo. I am able to shoot good groups with the FC-DMX and don't see the need for finer stadia.
I might even start pestering NF to leave that reticle alone.

 

[Cutout]

I have the FC-DMx reticle and I like it just the way it is. I would like this reticle less if they made these changes.

 

[fdkay]

Didn't read it, commenting anyway

 

[Makinchips208]

@Hoody2shoes i never considered reducing the thickness of the ring as I have liked the reticle on all magnifications.
But, this evening I took it out and looked around with it with your suggestions in mind, and can see how a thinner ring at low power could possibly be an improvement, if I’m trying to hold more precise at further distances.
But from about 3x magnification and up the thickness doesn’t pose a problem to me.
Reducing the reticle brightness also helps, but then it is too dim for other settings.
My Verdict; I wouldn’t want it thicker, it’s ok as it is, but thinner might help in some scenarios.

 

[Hoody2shoes]

@Hoody2shoes i never considered reducing the thickness of the ring as I have liked the reticle on all magnifications.
But, this evening I took it out and looked around with it with your suggestions in mind, and can see how a thinner ring at low power could possibly be an improvement, if I’m trying to hold more precise at further distances.
But from about 3x magnification and up the thickness doesn’t pose a problem to me.
Reducing the reticle brightness also helps, but then it is too dim for other settings.
My Verdict; I wouldn’t want it thicker, it’s ok as it is, but thinner might help in some scenarios.

That was the idea. It changes zero usability under magnification but helps the 1x use. A small positive with no negative

 

[Makinchips208]

That was the idea. It changes zero usability under magnification but helps the 1x use. A small positive with no negative

Yeah. I agree.

 

[Threadcutter308]

Didn't read it, commenting anyway

@mcameron

 

[Cutout]

@Hoody2shoes i never considered reducing the thickness of the ring as I have liked the reticle on all magnifications.
But, this evening I took it out and looked around with it with your suggestions in mind, and can see how a thinner ring at low power could possibly be an improvement, if I’m trying to hold more precise at further distances.
But from about 3x magnification and up the thickness doesn’t pose a problem to me.
Reducing the reticle brightness also helps, but then it is too dim for other settings.
My Verdict; I wouldn’t want it thicker, it’s ok as it is, but thinner might help in some scenarios.

Why would you be "trying to hold precise at further distances" on low power? It seems to me that low power is for close range and should be fast to pick up, thus a "blob" at 1x is more beneficial than harmful.

That was the idea. It changes zero usability under magnification but helps the 1x use. A small positive with no negative

It's not "no negative," IMO. Making the reticle harder to see at 1x seems to be making unnecessary sacrifices and I'm failing to understand what it is you think you're gaining from that. The thickness isn't a problem at higher power, where you would be using holdovers anyway, so why mess with it and make it effectively invisible if you're not on the ideal brightness setting/battery dies/you go from a dark room to a well lit room, etc. Maybe you're in a hurry and don't have time to scroll through settings every time you transition between areas. I don't see making the reticle even thinner as an all win/no loss proposition, so help me understand.

 

[Hoody2shoes]

Why would you be "trying to hold precise at further distances" on low power? It seems to me that low power is for close range and should be fast to pick up, thus a "blob" at 1x is more beneficial than harmful.


It's not "no negative," IMO. Making the reticle harder to see at 1x seems to be making unnecessary sacrifices and I'm failing to understand what it is you think you're gaining from that. The thickness isn't a problem at higher power, where you would be using holdovers anyway, so why mess with it and make it effectively invisible if you're not on the ideal brightness setting/battery dies/you go from a dark room to a well lit room, etc. Maybe you're in a hurry and don't have time to scroll through settings every time you transition between areas. I don't see making the reticle even thinner as an all win/no loss proposition, so help me understand.

But its not harder to see. I give you a thinner reticle thats just as easy to see.

 

[Cutout]

I think a 65 MOA cicle and a 1 MOA dot (going from memory, I'm not looking it up) is a bit of a false equivalency. The center dot on the FC-DMx is 0.2 MRAD. That's significantly smaller than 1 MOA, which is already pretty dang small. It needs that ring to make it visible, and on max brightness it is going to be visible even if it is half the thickness of the already tiny dot. But you're not always at max brightness. You may find yourself transitioning between dark and bright areas, or you may have a battery die, or all sorts of other considerations... in those cases, the reticle would be even harder to see than it already is, and I see that as a down-side.
I see your point, but agree to disagree.

 

[Cutout]

What are the subtensions on that reticle? Are you sure it's thinner than the FC-DMx? I think you might be wrong about that.

 

[Hoody2shoes]

I think a 65 MOA cicle and a 1 MOA dot (going from memory, I'm not looking it up) is a bit of a false equivalency. The center dot on the FC-DMx is 0.2 MRAD. That's significantly smaller than 1 MOA, which is already pretty dang small. It needs that ring to make it visible, and on max brightness it is going to be visible even if it is half the thickness of the already tiny dot. But you're not always at max brightness. You may find yourself transitioning between dark and bright areas, or you may have a battery die, or all sorts of other considerations... in those cases, the reticle would be even harder to see than it already is, and I see that as a down-side.
I see your point, but agree to disagree.

I understand the brightness thing-speaking strictly from experience I've never needed my atacr past about 7/10 and that's including desert shooting and working force on force in training environments. After speaking with nightforce thinning them out would not affect the actual light output. The argument could be made for perceived brightness but they noted they could actually ADD to the brightness if needed. I'm not sure I've ever heard of anybody using the center at 1x without illum anyway-its already too small and most people just bracket with the posts.

 

[Makinchips208]

Why would you be "trying to hold precise at further distances" on low power? It seems to me that low power is for close range and should be fast to pick up, thus a "blob" at 1x is more beneficial than harmful.

Right, I don’t try to shoot precisely on 1x, as I would have a second to crank up some power at distance.
I was simply trying to see where it would benefit me and that’s all I could come up with.
I like the reticle the way it is, but I’m open to changes personally. Not that my opinion matters. Lol

 

[Hoody2shoes]

What are the subtensions on that reticle? Are you sure it's thinner than the FC-DMx? I think you might be wrong about that.

I remember hearing they are supposed to be .5moa but can't find any data on it.

 

[Hoody2shoes]

Right, I don’t try to shoot precisely on 1x, as I would have a second to crank up some power at distance.
I was simply trying to see where it would benefit me and that’s all I could come up with.
I like the reticle the way it is, but I’m open to changes personally. Not that my opinion matters. Lol

I'm not talking precision as in distance-I'm talking precision as in placing a shot into the t-box at close ranges or in between armor. Not having a massive blob covering it helps

 

[Cutout]

I remember hearing they are supposed to be .5moa but can't find any data on it.

I'm pretty sure that's not correct. Anyway, the amount of area being illuminated matters. The stars are brighter than the moon. If you cut down the amount of area being illuminated, it will be perceivably (and that's all that matters) dimmer.

 

[Hoody2shoes]

I'm pretty sure that's not correct. Anyway, the amount of area being illuminated matters. The stars are brighter than the moon. If you cut down the amount of area being illuminated, it will be perceivably (and that's all that matters) dimmer.

So the segmented circle on the tremor 8 is thinner and equally as bright...

 

[Cutout]

So the segmented circle on the tremor 8 is thinner and equally as bright...

Not a reticle I'm very familiar with. What are the subtensions?

 

[Hoody2shoes]

Not a reticle I'm very familiar with. What are the subtensions?

They aren't published just like the fc-dmx isn't. I have time behind it and own an fc-dmx. I'm not sure how much thinner but it IS thinner and cleaner while being just as blindly bright if you choose it to be. I'm not trying to be argumentative-I've been talking about this for a year now and have close to 100 people that have agreed it'd be an improvement with you being 1 of 2 in disagreement. I'm truly trying to understand what your eyes see vs mine.

 

[Cutout]

From the few pictures I've seen, the center dot looks a lot bolder on the Tremor 8 too. I don't hate it. But I still prefer the FC-DMx

 

[Hoody2shoes]

From the few pictures I've seen, the center dot looks a lot bolder on the Tremor 8 too. I don't hate it. But I still prefer the FC-DMx

It is. And I don't want to change the center dot. The tremor 8 is .35mrads. I would reduce the thickness on the rings of the fc-dmx while keeping a .2mrad center dot

***something to note on the tremor8***
The .35mrad center ISN'T THE ZEROED PORTION OF THE RETICLE. I'm not going to tackle that here but there's a reason for the setup though I would have preferred a .2mrad center still

 

[Cutout]

It is. And I don't want to change the center dot. The tremor 8 is .35mrads. I would reduce the thickness on the rings of the fc-dmx while keeping a .2mrad center dot

As Charlie Kirk says, we have clarity but not agreement. I wouldn't want to trim down one without thickening the other, and I like the fine center dot.

 

[Hoody2shoes]

As Charlie Kirk says, we have clarity but not agreement. I wouldn't want to trim down one without thickening the other, and I like the fine center dot.

Fair enough! Thanks for the input!

 

[Cutout]

Fair enough! Thanks for the input!

Likewise. Out of curiousity, since you have used the Tremor 8 and we were just talking about it in another thread, where do you zero it and for what cartridge?

 

[Hoody2shoes]

@Cutout check your dms

 

[Glassaholic]

Thank you for the feedback

With this style illum the thickness of the line doesn't have any carryover to the actual brightness of the reticle. Remember the original reticle (fc-dm) had even thicker stadia and was the same exact brightness. Same with the nx8.

Edit***
You may have a larger reflective surface area throwing the sun into your eyeballs but the thinner lines will be just as "bright"-only thinner

Fwiw I'm not the only person who's discussed this with them

I have had to brush up on my knowledge of diffractive reticle technology and still trying to understand the relationship between the diffractive angle etchings and the spacing and the wavelength of light but from what I understand so far, you are correct, the brightness of the illumination should not diminish with a thinner horseshoe/quad, this is a great learning opportunity for me as I tend to geek out on some of this stuff.

 

[Hoody2shoes]

I've used the tremor 8 before it was all over the webz... I've held onto this one for awhile

Eliminate the bdc from the tremor 8 and change to standard mrad spacing.
Keep the same 100y/m zero at the 1 mil hold under dot as the tremor 8
From mils 1-3 a simplified tree mean to put rounds on target at distances carbines excel at.
Mil 1 has 1 wind holds
2 & 3 have two. The wind holds are staggered a bit
Mils 4-10 have a full grid
Mils 1-3 have no half mil marks.
Basically donut of death and Mils 1-3 for fast shooting and for a universal bdc of sorts. 4-10 for slow shooting.

 

[Cutout]

Now that's cool. I would like to see that.