Re: Premier Gen II XR reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: orkan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fucksake... unwad your panties.</div></div>
Seems like you need to follow your own suggestion. Maybe if you chill-out you'll be able to think less rigidly.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: orkan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was simply commenting on how I'd rather see hashes all around, rather than the mix of hash's and dots.</div></div>
Well, if you want hashes all around and MIL/MIL you can always get a USO with a GAP, Canadian, or MPR reticle. The GAP reticle has hashes all around and the full and half MIL marks are easily discernable from one another. The GAP reticle is still my favorite USO reticle - its clean, fast & easy to use, and the hash marks obscure very little.
Maybe its just me but it seems like you're unnecessarily complicating a simple idea - dots denote MILs'. The original USMC Mil Dot scopes all used "football" dots, later came the Army's round Mil Dot. Their subtensions were different, but both were dots and subtended 1 MIL from center-to-center, period. A MIL is a MIL is a MIL.
So, any demarcation midway between two adjacent MILs is a .5 MIL, period. Doesn't matter what it is. When Premier developed the Gen 2 Mil Dot reticle guess what - dots were used at the full MIL locations and hashes were used at the .5 MIL locations. Pretty simple.
BTW, I do understand and appreciate the idea of having all hashes or all dots, but consider that if similar markings are used to denote MIL and .5 MIL the demarcations must be of different enough style, size, and/or length to easily differentiate themselves from the other demarcations. The GAP reticle does an excellent job in this regard. However, dots and hashes are easy to tell apart even if they are of similar size.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: orkan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Coming from other reticles that are either all hash's or all dots, and in the case of the hash's the long hash is always the 1 mil marker, and the half hash is always .5 mil. THAT is WTF I'm talking about.</div></div>
Fair enough. However - thats' not what you said here:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: orkan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why is the .5 mil hash's long, and the 1mil hash's short?
Seems to be completely opposite compared to every other reticle I've seen. My first impression is that I do not like it. Am I missing something? </div></div>
As I said, and which you have not addressed - <span style="font-style: italic">twice</span>, is:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...On the Gen 2 XR full MILs' are either dots or hashmarks, and all hashmarks representing full MILs' are longer than the .5 MIL hashmarks.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: orkan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why is the .5 mil hash's long, and the 1mil hash's short?
Seems to be completely opposite compared to every other reticle I've seen. My first impression is that I do not like it. Am I missing something? </div></div>
From my quote of you above, it seems that you did not look at the PDF of the Gen 2 XR closely enough before spouting-off. If you examine the PDF of the Gen 2 XR you will see that <span style="font-style: italic">"On the Gen 2 XR full MILs' are either dots or hashmarks, and all hashmarks representing full MILs' are longer than the .5 MIL hashmarks."</span> (Self-quote).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: orkan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not saying I dislike the reticle, as I haven't even received the scope yet to get a first hand account of it.</div></div>
Respectfully, its' not my concern nor do I care whether you like or dislike the reticle - I just pointed-out that your statement about the hash mark lengths is incorrect. Another person who reads this thread and doesn't do adequate research may read what you said and take it at face value. That may sway a sale one way or the other. No matter what the outcome may be, that decision was based on misinformation.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: orkan</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for your opinion... but relax... and don't act like the reticle follows industry standards... because it DOESN'T. Not that its a bad thing. I'll find out in a few days whether its for me or not. </div></div>
WTF? I mention that <span style="font-style: italic">"the basic layout of dots at full MILs (on the majority of the reticle) is preserved"</span> - and that means I'm acting as if the Gen 2 XR "follows industry standards"? You should have played William Hurt's part in "Altered States" - your interpretation is ... interesting.
I know that the Gen 2 XR doesn't follow industry standards. In fact, except for that little detail about the Gen 2 XR being MIL-based, the Gen 2 XR's design is very non-industry standard. The subtensions of the line widths are very fine, and the .01 MIL dot size buck convention.
Keith
