Reticle psychology

[Matno]

Can anyone explain the psychology behind how people perceive reticle thickness? I can understand that some people have a hard time seeing a fine FFP reticle at low magnification, but I frequently see complaints that the crosshairs or center dot are too thick, and I just don't get it. Whenever I see that I look up the reticle subtensions, and the thickness is typically between 0.1 and 0.2 MOA (or ~0.05mil). That usually translates to 1-1.5" thick on a 1000 yard target. I have a hard time understanding how that can obscure the target (I mean, that's barely the size of a prairie dog's head at 1000 yards), but clearly it bothers some people. I think it's all in their head, but can anyone explain this?

 

[granite wagon]

I have no scientific or psychological answer..

I started YEARS ago w/ a weaver that had a fine line reticle -- I think it fixed 16 power??
a Leupy vxIII target that had fine duplex for a few years
a Zeiss ( cant remember the model ) had fine duplex
a couple Leupy mk4 w/ tmr
a couple NF nxs with mlr
My first purchase of a front focal scope was NF atacr 7-35 w/ mil-r and it did seem a wee thick but didnt cause me issue
I have a NF atacr 4-16 w/ mil-r ( thicker than mil-r in 7-35 ) and if it was anything other than a hunting scope I would be looking a thinner reticle..
I have an athlon cronus with aplr and it is just about the perfect line thickness for my taste

I have no point other than for me its just a personal preference ..

 

[Alpine 338]

Perception

People think they are shooting a 100-yard paper target at 1000-yards, but in reality the only time they shoot paper is during zero, or a dot drill.

Reticles are a personal preference, what I like or dislike, the other guy will always have his opinion or preferences.

I personally don't like any of the newer NF reticle designs. And the original MSR reticle is my favorite.