Rifle Scopes Retical view

[Dog Days]

This is a question for anyone that owns these scopes or Har knowledge of them.
The 2 scopes in question are the Nightforce 5-25x 56 with a Tremor 3 retical and the Nightforce 7-35 x56 with the Tremor 3 retical.
What is the lowest magnification you can see the entire retical?
What is the highest magnification setting you can see the entire retical?
Trying to make a choice and I do not know anyone that has these rifle scopes.

 

[Lowlight]

CS Tactical Posts images too

 

[Dog Days]

View attachment 6940242
CS Tactical Posts images too

View attachment 6940243

Thank you for the photos but it does not answer my questions what are the lowest and highest magnification settings (5,10 35 etc) that you can see the entire retical.

 

[Lowlight]

The entire reticle goes to the bottom, define, Entire Reticle

 

[IronOperator87]

I’m guessing you can see the entire reticle on the lowest power. As you zoom in your view of the reticle will be less.

 

[Dog Days]

The entire reticle goes to the bottom, define, Entire Reticle

I recently looked through a Vortex scope, at the lowest setting there was no retical in view just crosshairs. I had to increase the magnification significantly before the reticle came into view. At its highest setting, 26 if I remember correctly, I could see the crosshairs and one midot to either side and above and below center.
Entire reticle: my definition is all values that the reticle is designed to display.
I realize that at the highest magnification I will lose some of the reticle in view.
So back to my question at what magnification on the 2 scopes in question with the reticle stated (TREMOR 3) do you start losing sight of parts of the information the reticle gives you?

 

[spife7980]

I still dont know what the fuck youre asking. "All values that a reticle is designed to display"? Its designed to show the reticle...

Im going to guess that they are both atacr models? And Im going to assume both front focal plane.

As you zoom in you zoom in on the reticle. As you zoom in you no longer see the outer edges of it. Because you zoomed in.
As you zoom out you zoom out on the reticle. As you zoom out more of it comes into view. Because you are zooming out and seeing more.

If you want to see the entirety of the thing you need to zoom all the way out. Stuff doesnt just appear or disappear based on zoom, you just might need better glasses to see the details.

 

[Dog Days]

I still dont know what the fuck youre asking.

Im going to guess that they are both atacr models? And Im going to assume both front focal plane.

As you zoom in you zoom in on the reticle. As you zoom in you see less of it.
As you zoom out you zoom out on the reticle. As you zoom out you see more of it.

Look through your scope. Hopefully it is one of the two I am asking about or your answer will be of no use to me.
While looking through your scope increase the magnification until parts of the Christmas tree start to disappear. STOP. Now look at what magnification your scope is reading on the magnification ring.

 

[spife7980]

"What is the lowest magnification you can see the entire retical?" The lowest magnification.
"What is the highest magnification setting you can see the entire retical?" The lowest magnification


Ill post lowlights image again. With all front focal scopes as you zoom in those outer areas will move out side of your field of view. So for a 5x scope I imagine something like 5.1x the very outer dots will begin to disappear.

 

[Lowlight]

I have mounted an anvil next to my desk to bang my head against in hopes of answering these types of questions

Between the two black eyes I received, it appears, the lowest power is where you can see "all" the reticle.

 

[Dog Days]

Look through your scope. Hopefully it is one of the two I am asking about or your answer will be of no use to me.
While looking through your scope increase the magnification until parts of the Christmas tree start to disappear. STOP. Now look at what magnification your scope is reading on the magnification ring.

Why is the question relevant?
If I have a scope with 100 mils of elevation and can use 50 mils and have a mount that gives me another 45 mils of elevation I have 95 mils of useful elevation. If I have a scope with a tree retical I have hold over mils etched into the reticle. If I am at 20x magnification how many mils hold over can I see. Note: I am using 20x as an example. If I can only see one mil dot but need 5 I will have to turn the magnification down. Is that a problem? That depends on the distance to the target. In other words can I see it at a lower magnification. Probably can unless it's a golf ball but can you understand the question now.

 

[Dog Days]

I have mounted an anvil next to my desk to bang my head against in hopes of answering these types of questions

Between the two black eyes I received, it appears, the lowest power is where you can see "all" the reticle.

Now read the magnification setting on your scope ring

 

[Lowlight]

You see 7 Mils at 35x just like the picture posted,

You can see the entire reticle on 7x

Where did you get a Scope with 100 Mils of adjustments? That sounds like a neat scope because most only have 26 to 32 Mils in them, hell even 50 mils is pretty impressive

 

[gconnoyer]

What you're actually asking is
at 10x how much of the reticle is usable/displayed
at 15x how much of the reticle is usable/displayed
at 20x how much of the reticle is usable/displayed

on a FFP scope the more you zoom the less is visible. Like the images that Frank posted, one is probably full zoom out, 5x or 7x, and the other is full zoom, 25 or 35x.

So at the bottom end of the zoom range it looks like you have 38mils. At the very top of the zoom range you get 8mils

 

[spife7980]

I cant answer that.

Im assuming your 100 mil example was meant to be 100 moa. How much elevation do you need though? I would start there and work backwards so we could privide you with the answer you seem to want, its just not the answer to the question you actually asked. To see the whole reticle you need to be zoomed all of the way out.

 

[Dog Days]

You see 7 Mils at 35x just like the picture posted,

You can see the entire reticle on 7x

Where did you get a Scope with 100 Mils of adjustments? That sounds like a neat scope because most only have 26 to 32 Mils in them, hell even 50 mils is pretty impressive

It was an example. I have never seen a scope with 100 mils of elevation, unless Iron Man has it. Thank you. You answer my question 7 mils at 35. I'm pulling the nails out of my head. Like you with the anvil comment. Lol

 

[koshkin]

The answer to your question is in the scope specs. The reticle is usually centered in the FOV of the scope.

How much of the grid you see at a given magnification is defined by the FOV. The FOV is usually listed in degrees or feet at 100 yards. The reticle grid is usually in mrad (unless you are one of those perverts who uses MOA reticles ).

To convert from degrees to milliradians, multiply the number of degrees by 17.45.

If your scope's FOV is described in terms of ft at 100 yards, you have to do some basic trigonometry: FOV(mrad)=1000*atan(ft*3/100). That is an approximation, but it is close enough.

Given that the specs are listed only for top and bottom magnification, you can calculate an intermediary magnification starting at the top mag. For example, for the 7-35x ATACR, the FOV at 25x is approximately equal to the FOV at 35x multiplied by the ratio of magnifications (i.e. 35/25).

If you are comfortable with excel or google sheets, it is very easy to make a spreadsheet to do this for you.

Now, keep in ind that on the lowest magnifications, you usually can not see the smallest subtensions. Also, since most manufacturers cheat a little with FOV at low mags, the calculations above typically work well for the upper three quarters of the mag range. I am also assuming that the magnification settings are properly calibrated.

Oh, and Frank, as far as the anvils go and all, welcome to my world...

As a part of my dayjob, I have to explain how electro-optical systems work to all sorts of procurement agents from the government and prime contractors. About a third of them are perfectly reasonable people. And then there are the other ones.

ILya

 

[leftyk82]

Whether 3-27x, 5-25x or 7-35x, the answer will likely always be the number to the left.

Common core math.......60% of the time, works every time.

 

[roamin]

? Good thread. FPNI. Better give the OP his answer sooner or the info "is useless" lol.

 

[Dog Days]

Ok. So I Got Curious AND Did a little digging today Monday 9-27-18.
It looks like Ironman talked to March scopes. March is developing a 6-60 power scope with 400 moa of adjustment. That works out to a little over 116 mils.
There you go. There is your scope with 100 + mils of adjustment.

 

[IronOperator87]

While you are time traveling maybe you can pick up a laser, that way you won’t need one of those confusing reticle thing a mabobers

 

[Dog Days]

Jerks.
I'm new to long range and looking for answers. I came to a place, snipers hide, to get help and advice from people I thought had knowledge and experience they they would be willing to share. The first answer I received, the photos would have answered my question if there was something near each photo like at 4x and at the next photo at 35x in other words identify the photo. I seem to have made a mistake in judgement coming to this site hoping to learn something about something new to me. Go ahead make fun of those of us trying to learn what is new to us, but remember, you were new to it at one time also. What if people just made fun of you instead of helping. I'm sure I have knowledge of things you know nothing about, maybe one day you will ask a question about one of those subjects.

 

[spife7980]

Jerks.

Idiot.
We are willing to share, you just have to ask nonretarded questions to get answers that dont make your questions look retarded.

What is the lowest magnification you can see the entire retical?

The lowest magnification. Duh.

What is the highest magnification setting you can see the entire retical?

The lowest magnification. Duh.

So back to my question at what magnification on the 2 scopes in question with the reticle stated (TREMOR 3) do you start losing sight of parts of the information the reticle gives you?

Immediately. As you zoom in you are no longer zoomed out where you see the reticle in its entirety.

Why is the question relevant?

Its not.

If I have a scope with 100 mils of elevation and can use 50 mils and have a mount that gives me another 45 mils of elevation I have 95 mils of useful elevation. If I have a scope with a tree retical I have hold over mils etched into the reticle. If I am at 20x magnification how many mils hold over can I see.

This is a decent question assuming its a question and not a fucked up declarative sentence like typed. That I cant answer with hands on experience but it should be ~8 mils judging by every other 20x scope on the market.

Note: I am using 20x as an example. If I can only see one mil dot but need 5 I will have to turn the magnification down. Is that a problem? That depends on the distance to the target. In other words can I see it at a lower magnification. Probably can unless it's a golf ball but can you understand the question now.

Is that a problem? Depends on you personally. I would like to have enough elevation available to dial and not have to hold over ever. My cousin didnt listen to my advice and to hit at 1570 yards a month ago with his 308 he needed to dial all the way up and turn his second focal plane scope down to 9x to have to hold for it and still see the target, at 18x with the proper hold he was looking into the trees beyond the target. . I would have a problem with that, he didnt mind it because he saved 200 bucks going cheap on the scope. Different stroke for different folks.
As to how much elevation you need is a variable that we cant define, provide the dope for your rifle if you have already gathered it or get on jbm and plug your info in and check for yourself. That will get you a number that you can then use as a basis of comparison.


Thats pretty much all you asked. Much of it is common sense and goes without saying.

 

[winniethepooh]

I just clicked on this thread and I have a feeling someone benches 275....

 

[Steel+Killer]

Jerks.
I'm new to long range and looking for answers. I came to a place, snipers hide, to get help and advice from people I thought had knowledge and experience they they would be willing to share. The first answer I received, the photos would have answered my question if there was something near each photo like at 4x and at the next photo at 35x in other words identify the photo. I seem to have made a mistake in judgement coming to this site hoping to learn something about something new to me. Go ahead make fun of those of us trying to learn what is new to us, but remember, you were new to it at one time also. What if people just made fun of you instead of helping. I'm sure I have knowledge of things you know nothing about, maybe one day you will ask a question about one of those subjects.

OP this place can be brutal at times you got to have thick skin here, but most guys mean well even if they come off as assholes, this place is a treasure trove of knowledge when it comes to LR shooting. I think what your question is/was is how many MILS or MOA of the reticle is left for hold over at each zoom/magnification setting. I don't know the answer because I don't have the scope in question, but I am sure there are some here that do. It would be nice for manufacturers to provide photos or that info in their specs, but they are to busy answering emails about "when the fuck is my scope going to be shipped"........LOL

 

[scudzuki]

Although FOV is usually expressed as "x width at y distance", FOV is angular.
"x width at y distance" is tangent value of the angular FOV.
I've owned a few different high power variable scopes that top out at 25x or so and the angular FOV on all are around 7 mils, so that's how much windage or elevation correction the shooter has available via ANY reticle in an FFP scope at 25x or so (except for some of the Horus reticles that position the horizontal stadia above center).
As for the FOV of any random scope at lowest power, one has to find the "x width at y distance" spec at that power for the scope in question and trig it out. Multiply the angular FOV (in degrees) by 17.45 to get the angular FOV in mils.

 

[IronOperator87]

Being you are new to long range (as am I) I recommend doing a little more research before you dive into any Horus type reticle as they have their pro’s and con’s like anything else. Download the Podbean app and listen to Frank’s Everyday Sniper Podcast episode 4 he talks about Horus reticles. Plus there is a bunch of other great info there that might save you some grief in the future.

 

[FourT6and2]

Is this guy simply asking at what point in the zoom range the TREE starts to disappear behind the outer edge of the sight picture? If so, then yeah... immediately. The tree is basically all the way at the bottom at minimum magnification. So as soon as you start to zoom, it's already touching the edge. So the answer to this guy's question, as already answered, is... immediately lol.

To see the entire tree portion of the reticle, you have to keep the scope at minimum magnification. Man... don't even need to own the scope to see that.

 

[Bender]

But..... nevermind..............

 

[Fig]

I actually understood what he meant. Tremor 3 was a bad initial choice for his post precisely because it's one of the largest reticles out there. Most christmas trees do not etch all the way to the very edge of the FOV on low power...

Although they aren't "sniper" or even very useful for competition, I like my NF, NSX, SFP scopes on my hunting sticks. When the majority of the shots are sub 400 yards, and generally on the lower end or the lowest power, it's a hell of a lot more comfortable and useful to me to have a full sized reticle instead of a teeny tinny shrunken one. I don't care so much about wind hold marks at those distances (although it's easy for me to figure in my head) because I've ranged the animal with a laser and I'm holding off based on the animal in the field of view rather than milling it with hash marks. I run the big 56mm scopes not for their magnification power, but for their light gathering abilities at low power. It just all around works better for me.

I've tried hunting with FFP scopes and I find I'm thoroughly annoyed by the way they behave @ at the lowest settings, which is where I'm generally killing animals. If I was hunting out West and typically had 400+ yard shots I'm sure I'd feel differently.

My guess is that the OP is thinking along these same hunting lines, and is trying to figure out how much power has to be dialed to get a comfortable reticle for hunting. My advice is not to bother. If you're concerned go with a SFP scope and the issue goes away. NSX SFP offers full light gathering and all the power you could possibly need (just in case) while maintaining a full sized reticle. While dialing out to max power is rarely useful and most often detrimental in a timed competition where acquiring multiple targets is the name of the game; it's often practical when shooting a single beast so you don't have to do any math in your head about the hold. It's also easy to use 1/2 power and 1/2 the hold...

Bottom line is that with the close or middlin' shots I take I feel I gain more hunting with SFP than with FFP... Just my opinion and preference.