Reticle thickness at 35x

[Wilfong9]

This is probably the appropriate place for this question..

Just received my first FFP scope, mk5 5-25 w/ PR-MOA1 reticle or something like that. The day before I recieved it Leupold released the new 7-35 model.

At 25x times zoom on the 5-25 model the reticle is as thick as I would consider useable. (Insert colorful joke here) as popular as the Nightforce 7-35 is I considered trading of for that. But my assumption would be the reticle would only be that much thicker at 35x zoom then 25x, correct? Do they use the same thickness, in MOA, reticle for all models?

Thanks in advance

 

[ShtrRdy]

You would have to compare reticle dimensions. There is no standard that is followed by the manufacturers.

 

[Rocketvapor]

I have a cheaper Athlon Aeros BTR FFP 8-34X56 ATMR. The center lines are 0.14 MOA thick.
That's about 0.88" thick @ 600 yds . The X ring of a F-Class 600yd target is 3" in diameter (7.07sq. in).
The crosshairs cover about 72% of the X ring but it is still quite visible and you can still move around in the X-ring.
Sounds like a lot but it's about eye-of-a-deer

Find the reticle data for your scope, here's mine

 

[308pirate]

At 25x times zoom on the 5-25 model the reticle is as thick as I would consider useable.

Useable against what size of target?

Reticle thickness is constant relative to target width/diameter in first focal plane scopes. You did know that, right?

 

[Rocketvapor]

Useable against what size of target?

Reticle thickness is constant relative to target width/diameter in first focal plane scopes. You did know that, right?

It's a Perception thing. Zoom in and the brain thinks the reticle is thicker when it ain't.

 

[308pirate]

It's a Perception thing. Zoom in and the brain thinks the reticle is thicker when it ain't.

How can it, when it sees the relative sizes of the two remain the same?

 

[Rocketvapor]

Zoom out on a FFP scope and the reticle appears thin. Some often complain about too thin.
Zoomed out you can scan and see barns, cars, trees, but the reticle is hard to see.
Zoom way in and now you can see just how thick your reticle really is (or isn't).
Sure, the relative size betwen a target feature and the reticle remain the same, but now you see just how thick and worthless the lines are
Get used to a FFP scope and that issue is a non-issue.
I don't have a problem with the 0.14MOA lines @34X on mine.
Got to watch my math

 

[308pirate]

Ya I see what you mean. I just don't notice because I'm too used to them.

Problem is the OP evidently doesn't understand how FFPs work.

 

[Rocketvapor]

You can understand 2FP and FFP, you just have to get used to it.
AND
How did you guys let him have a pass on MOA?

 

[308pirate]

How did you guys let him have a pass on MOA?

Believe it or not I don't care about that.

 

[Spblademaker]

How did you guys let him have a pass on MOA?

Go sit in the corner, mister.

 

[Wilfong9]

I do understand ffp and understand that the reticle is now compared to in moa thickness. That was the point of the question. Is .14 moa or .05 moa to thick when you are trying to shoot a 4” target at 600yds.

Thank you all for all the constructive feedback.

 

[Wilfong9]

I think in inches and I noticed the reticle is defined in MOA. That was why I went with tho MOA scope. I originally had the mk5 CCH on order when they released the PR1 a day after. I figured I’d catch grief on that but wasn’t ready to start thinking in meters yet. I do a lot of paper shooting and can’t even estimate 10 centimeters

 

[Spblademaker]

...there it goes....

 

[supercorndogs]

Damn, you would think someone doing it completely wrong, and thinking in linear measurements, could figure for them selves if .05 or .16 MOA were less than 4 inches at 600y.

No one here gives cares if people use MOA or MIL. No one who understands them anyway. The rub always comes in getting a person to understand, it is an angular measurement, and linear measurements, besides distance to target are completely irrelevant. MOA is not inches, MILs is not meters, neither is metric. Both will have the proper measuring device etched into the image

 

[Rocketvapor]

Did I do that?

Most of what I've read is the reticle I have (in my MOA scope) is too thick for most F-Class shooters. I like it, it's easy to see.
My targets have their own reticle made right into them.
I think around 0.1MOA thick or less is what most target scope users like. A lot depends on the color/lighting/contrast of the target.
A thin reticle will get lost in the shade, a thicker one covers a higher percentage of a small target.
You said: "At 25x times zoom on the 5-25 model the reticle is as thick as I would consider usable. "
How thick is that reticle? compared to the one you want? What do the experts use?
Does it have a full cross through the center, floating dot, a busy horse's head reticle?

Another thing to consider is the brightness and contrast @ 25X compared to 35X. I've heard people compared the "Glass" of a 16X scope to the "Glass" of a 35X scope. Duh, the image of a distant barn will look better @ 16X. Also think about the reduced exit pupil @ the higher 35X.
I don't play in the deep end of the scope pool (mine cost $300) but I suggest looking through the scope you plan on getting (or a good return policy) to make sure you will be satisfied with the image at full power.

 

[Milo 2.5]

I bought a NF 7-35 in MOAR right before the mil c came out. At 1K, on 35 power, crosshair on a 5" square plate, there is visible plate in all four quadrants surrounding the crosshair, at 1100 also. First off, you really do not need 35 power at 1K, after 1200 yards, unless you are throwing lead at prairie dogs, targets are going to be significantly larger than 5".
Looking back after playing with the mil c reticle, I'll take the Moar any day, the hash marks extending above the horizontal plane ate my lunch spotting shots.

 

[Rocketvapor]

"First off, you really do not need 35 power at 1K "
Tell that to the 5-50, 6-60 or 8-80 scope guys.
It depends on what type of target you are shooting at and the environment.

 

[Milo 2.5]

"First off, you really do not need 35 power at 1K "
Tell that to the 5-50, 6-60 or 8-80 scope guys.
It depends on what type of target you are shooting at and the environment.

I

Oh thanks, most of the discussions on this forum are not about f class, or paper target shooting, thought it was a safe comment.
How many 80 power scopes have a hashed reticle, I've never looked into one?

 

[Rocketvapor]

Not dissing you but the OP sounds like a paper shooter.
The 8-80 has many reticle options.
You and I have actually stated how much their reticle covers @ range.

 

[Milo 2.5]

Not dissing you but the OP sounds like a paper shooter.
The 8-80 has many reticle options.
You and I have actually stated how much their reticle covers @ range.

Right, most paper shooters would never entertain shooting a FFP scope, fine target dots, or thin crosshairs rule that world.

 

[308pirate]

Is .14 moa or .05 moa to thick when you are trying to shoot a 4” target at 600yds.

So you think in inches and that's why you got an MOA scope but you seriously don't know how to figure that out?

If you want to learn, follow along and reply.

Let's start with what is the definition of a minute of angle. It's actually called minute of arc, but I'll let that slide.

 

[308pirate]

PS, while I know how to use the metric system I never use it when figuring out my dope in milliradians. Absolutely not necessary to use metric when developing dope in mils. Anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn't understand what radians are.

 

[Rocketvapor]

The 2 mile guys seem to like 25 to 35X, FFP and 2FP, Mil and MOA.
Go figure.

Nobody seems to be winning long range with those ridiculous high power $6000 scopes,
my $300 scope ain't got a chance

Let's see,
A MIL is one 1/6283 of a circle, an MOA is 1/21600 of a circle.
values a little more applicable to shooting are;
0.1 MIL is 1/62832 of a circle and 1/4 MOA is 1/86400 of a circle.
One mil is about 3.4366 MOA, one MOA is about 0.2909 MIL.
Also be aware that some cheaper MOA scope turrets are calibrated closer to a 1 inch per MOA istead of the 1.047 inch per MOA.
Notice that the metric system was not used, just the same circle math that disproves the Flat Earth theories

 

[308pirate]

Come on, people learn by asking questions or are shown how to. Hard to call someone stupid who has not been taught.

You're right that was uncalled for. I'll delete it and I'll ask you to do the same to make it go away.

 

[Rocketvapor]

If they would just standardize barn sizes that they paint the "See Rock City" signs on like DOT has done with the "Exit 1 Mile" signs, then I could practice my MIL Vs MOA long range techniques.
Target Size,
That's what I'm talking about

See what happens when some fool (?) mentions MIL Vs MOA in a thread about scopes and reticle thickness?

 

[Milo 2.5]

The 2 mile guys seem to like 25 to 35X, FFP and 2FP, Mil and MOA.
Go figure.

Nobody seems to be winning long range with those ridiculous high power $6000 scopes,
my $300 scope ain't got a chance

Let's see,
A MIL is one 1/6283 of a circle, an MOA is 1/21600 of a circle.
values a little more applicable to shooting are;
0.1 MIL is 1/62832 of a circle and 1/4 MOA is 1/86400 of a circle.
One mil is about 3.4366 MOA, one MOA is about 0.2909 MIL.
Also be aware that some cheaper MOA scope turrets are calibrated closer to a 1 inch per MOA istead of the 1.047 inch per MOA.
Notice that the metric system was not used, just the same circle math that disproves the Flat Earth theories

Knock off trying to validate yourself. 2 mile guys may need scope travel that 80 power will never offer. Make no fucking mistake, even if a 2 mile shooter is shooting at 25 power, there is someone directly behind him on some high power glass spotting and coaching him.

 

[Rocketvapor]

I'm not trying to validate myself. The longest I have ever shot was 600 yards.
I mentioned the higher power scopes that are way out of my budget.

Cheap guy gonna go hide now.

 

[Milo 2.5]

I'm not trying to validate myself. The longest I have ever shot was 600 yards.
I mentioned the higher power scopes that are way out of my budget.

Cheap guy gonna go hide now.

Crap, did not mean that, we all started with cheap scopes, run what you have, learn as you go. Sorry if I went too far.