Rifle Scopes Reticle's with Half Mil Hash's vs .2 Mil Hash's

[MountainHunter]

My current match rifle has an LRHS 3-12 sitting on it. Looking to upgrade to something with a bit more magnification (18-21 on the top end).

I haven't settled on a scope but I'm looking at anything from a DMR2 to a Kahles 3.5-18.

I was originally thinking something along the lines of a G3 reticle but after shooting a buddies rifle yesterday with an H59 reticle I started thinking about the benefits of having .2 mil hash marks for windage.

With my current scope having a G2H reticle and half mil hash marks, it occurred to me that my brain is thinking in whole, half and quarter mils when it comes to windage. For elevation I dial to the closest .1 mil but then go back to thinking in halves and quarters for wind. With my buddies scope I went right to .4 mils at 660 yards (he told me his wind hold) and adjusted from there in .1 mils as I took the distance out a bit further.

I'm guessing that changing my way of thinking may benefit me when guessing wind and adjusting for it when under time in a match.

Bottomline, do you guys prefer a reticle with .2 mil wind hash's and are there any other scopes/reticles worth considering with that option?

 

[lead ƒarmer]

After having owned and used a scope with .2 wind holds, I could never go back to anything else. I love having that fine detail when shooting little targets at distance. I really like the AMG, it has half mil marks on the bottom of the horizontal reticle, and .2 mil marks on the top.

 

[Mordamer]

I have scopes with both 1/2 mil hashes and .2 mil hashes. I use them interchangeably with no preference one way or the other. I think too much is made of this tiny issue. Can you not tell where .7 mils is on a reticle with only half mil hashes? I believe I can find a .7 mil hold just as quickly with both fine and coarse hash marks. In fact, I shot for a number of years with just a regular mil dot reticle and I though it was pretty easy back then to hold in between dots for whatever my windage or elevation was. Of all the important details that go into making a hit at long range, reticle hash mark deviations are very low on my list of importance. I know that reticle selections have exploded in the last few years and there is lots of talk about which one to pick. I just thought I would offer my differing perspective. I use a nightforce scope with Mil-R reticle quite often and have had great success employing it both competitively and while hunting.

My main requirement for a reticle is that there are hash marks and that they match the turret units of angle.

 

[PBWalsh]

Well I see where some people might agonize over it. As a gun community we agonize over the smallest details. I think thats what makes the industry so excellent though as we have so many excellent manufacturers competting daily with each other.

Plus when you drop 3k on an optic, you become picky.

I had an optic with .2 mil hashes (Athlon Mil based reticle) and it was ok. Now rocking .5 mil hashes and feel just fine with it (SS Mil-Quad). Personally I prefer cleaner reticles and let the computer in my head divide the space between lines.

I think we as a community (myself included) place a bit too much effort in improving hardware and not improving and exploiting the excellent software God gave us.

Bottom line: save your money, buy a reliable system and train with it. Reticles are so subjective, just pick whatever works with your eyes and shoot it until its engrained in your head.

 

[patriot07]

After having an SWFA and testing an AMG, I won't be buying another scope with .5 mil wind holds. The AMG reticle is really use-able, but far too busy.

The perfect reticle IMHO would be an MR4 if it had tiny hash marks at .5 mils on the top of the horizontal stadia (opposite the .2 marks on the bottom).

 

[steve123]

.2's for me, H59 or Athlon reticles and no line numbers obscuring any wind holds.

 

[idahoorion]

Mountainhunter, I have the scope you have now, also had a ERS, as will as I have a Steiner, all .5 mil reticles, but my match gun is a Kahles 6-24 Skmr 3 and I believe the .2 marks make more hits for me. also love the top parallax but I shoot left

ymmv
Idahoorion

 

[Chris@InterstateGuns]

I thought .2 had been the standard for a long time? .2 for me.

 

[SubOptimal]

Somebody is gonna come out with a vernier scale so you dweebs can fuss down to the 100th of a mil and have a reticle to which you cannot hold.

 

[lancetkenyon]

I have 3 of each .2MIL and .5MIL subtension reticles in scopes on my big game hunting rifles. I love the .2MIL holds for very refined long range shooting. But....that does not mean I cannot hit distant targets with the .5MIL subtended scopes. Last fall, I took two coyotes @ 1365 yards with a Premier 5-25 set on 17x w. the Gen 2XR reticle. The wind hold according to my data was 2.2MILs. Both 1st round hits on the coyotes.

I think the ability to call correct wind and holds is more important to hitting your target than finer subtensions.

 

[MountainHunter]

For those that don't see the benefit of the .2 mil hash marks, I'll tell you about a stage from last weekend that I think I may have benefited from having .2 mil marks instead of my .5 mil marks.

My partner and I were shooting an RTC match and when we shot the KYL stage, we had a 25 mph wind at 90* from our left. The rack was at about 550 and the reset target was about 20 yards closer. The topography was such that we were getting .1-.2 more wind at the rack than we were at the reset. We had trouble getting hits on the rack but we were getting 1st round hits everytime we'd go back to the reset with a 1.5 mil hold. But back at the rack we were holding between 1.6-1.7 mils. My issue was after getting a hit on the rack being able to repeat the hold on the next target (which was obviously smaller).

For a hunting rifle or shooting targets that are 2 MOA or larger I can see how .5 mil marks are fine but my question is concerning match situations with small targets and short time frames.

 

[SubOptimal]

Do you really mean to tell me you cannot descern the difference of .1 mil between the stadia .5 mils apart? You do know you can utilize the space between the lines, right?

 

[Dthomas3523]

My logic is, why “think” or “know” you can find the .8 mil hold between the .5 and 1 mil hashmarks when you can get a reticle that will tell you exactly where it is? I already have to move into position for a shot and make a wind call while shooting......why not take something off the table that I can control, such as the reticle subtensions?

Our eyes are all different, so go with whatever feels more comfortable, as mostly all reticles will get the job done. But for me, I prefer to take as much guess work out of it as possible, so that I can focus on he things I can’t make any easier.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Do you really mean to tell me you cannot descern the difference of .1 mil between the stadia .5 mils apart? You do know you can utilize the space between the lines, right?

No, but I bet you he’s more accurately discerning that .1 when there is a 1 and a 1.2 than a 1 and a 1.5........

Take a 50 yd KYL target with a 1/4” hanger and a 8 mph crosswind in a 22 match and you need to hold .3 mil.

I’ll take the .2 marks.

 

[Chris@InterstateGuns]

I'm a .2 fan for movers. I find it's much easier to have that point of reference. Can I still do it with .5 holds .....yeah...... but if the tech is there why not use it?

 

[SubOptimal]

Well, .3 mil is just a hair off center of a .5 mil space so I wouldn't expect to have much problem. I would also expect that nobody is calling wind down range to within .1 mil anyway.

 

[MountainHunter]

Do you really mean to tell me you cannot descern the difference of .1 mil between the stadia .5 mils apart? You do know you can utilize the space between the lines, right?

Well, .3 mil is just a hair off center of a .5 mil space so I wouldn't expect to have much problem. I would also expect that nobody is calling wind down range to within .1 mil anyway.

You're clearly here just to stir up shit but I'm confident that every guy on here that's actually trying to place well at matches is calling wind to the closest .1 mil.

Not sure what all of us dweebs are on snipers hide for if not to agonize over all the minutia.

 

[SubOptimal]

Not really meaning to stir up shit. I just don't understand the need for this particular bit of minutia. I read analog gauges as part of my making a living, Simple rulers as well. I find it easy to interpolate readings between markings. Apparently others do not and good for them. I don't do matches, too old for all the running around and I prefer simple reticles, clearly marked.

 

[Dthomas3523]

....... I don't do matches.........

This always seems to be a common response. Not that you “have” to shoot matches to be competent with your rifle, but most people will never experience the finer aspects of shooting without those stages in matches.


Unless you’re independently putting yourself on timers and making strings of shots within that time period at several distances........you might want to try it out before you say you can make all your holds or corrections no problem.

Find a fairly straightforward PRS stage off a tank trap or anywhere you have 2 min or less to get into 3 different positions with 2 different distances, and target sizes small enough it’s not just point and shoot.

I think you’ll have a different respect for a more minute breakdown in the reticle.

 

[Dthomas3523]

For those that don't see the benefit of the .2 mil hash marks, I'll tell you about a stage from last weekend that I think I may have benefited from having .2 mil marks instead of my .5 mil marks.

My partner and I were shooting an RTC match and when we shot the KYL stage, we had a 25 mph wind at 90* from our left. The rack was at about 550 and the reset target was about 20 yards closer. The topography was such that we were getting .1-.2 more wind at the rack than we were at the reset. We had trouble getting hits on the rack but we were getting 1st round hits everytime we'd go back to the reset with a 1.5 mil hold. But back at the rack we were holding between 1.6-1.7 mils. My issue was after getting a hit on the rack being able to repeat the hold on the next target (which was obviously smaller).

For a hunting rifle or shooting targets that are 2 MOA or larger I can see how .5 mil marks are fine but my question is concerning match situations with small targets and short time frames.

This is where it shines. Being able to have a consistent hold from one shot to the next.

A lot of missed shots are likely attributed to wind changes when in fact someone thought they were holding .3 each time and one shot they were holding .3 and the next was closer to .4 or .2.

Combine that with the wind actually picking up on you as the trigger is breaking, the difference in that .1 may result in a miss instead of a hit on the edge.

 

[patriot07]

This is where it shines. Being able to have a consistent hold from one shot to the next.

A lot of missed shots are likely attributed to wind changes when in fact someone thought they were holding .3 each time and one shot they were holding .3 and the next was closer to .4 or .2.

Combine that with the wind actually picking up on you as the trigger is breaking, the difference in that .1 may result in a miss instead of a hit on the edge.

Couldn't agree more. I love my SWFA 5-20 HD, but I do wish it had .2 mil holds. Holding .3 or .8 on the center of the target when you pulled the trigger instead of something .05 to .1 mils away is nearly impossible to claim you're able to do consistently with absolute certainty. Generally you're aiming at the center of a piece of steel (which is a point you're fabricating in your head) and trying to center an imaginary point on your reticle on the imaginary point on the steel. It's just asking a lot of your brain to make those line up with any level of accuracy. I've had good luck with my SWFA and it's a great scope, but when targets get really small, it would be easier if I had .2 mil wind hold marks.

As has been said though, the real task is accurately calling the wind to .1 mils. However, if you miss, at least you know for sure where you were holding when you pulled the trigger, which is DThomas's point above.

 

[morganlamprecht]

i ran .5's for about 2 yrs and my main match rifle a gen 2 razor with ebr2c...i hit plenty targets

switched to a minox mr4 with the .2s and instantly felt better once the targets got small enough...like mentioned above...if the target is large enough to bracket the .5 mil gap, its no big deal...but start shooting targets only .1-.2 wide....idk about any one else, but i can measure 2" faster and better with a marked ruler than just a 5" stick...this past weekend shooting a 66% ipsc at 1520, the .2 hashes bracketed the ipsc perfectly for easy wind hold reference

i still have a gen 2, but i also picked up an AMG with the ebr7b....for the .2s

 

[steve123]

In my case there is no way in the world I would have won the AZPRC long range steel match points series twice, holding over and off BTW, in other words rarely dialing turrets, without having those .2's in the H59. The finer detail in the reticle made measured corrections fast and acute. Plus when at my peak back then, by practicing a lot, I had gotten proficient enough to be able to bracket the .1's successfully fairly often.

One kind of funny thing that happened is we had a 9" diamond at 909Y for our coldbore shot and we were to shoot at it again once more. This time I did dial elevation but held exactly .3 mil left. Connected on the CB and the next shot too! The guy spotting kiddingly said, well Steve that wasn't a very good group you got, lol.

 

[FourT6and2]

Not really meaning to stir up shit. I just don't understand the need for this particular bit of minutia.

Then STFU already.

I bet you're the kind of person who says they don't like a book or movie because you don't "get it." Failing to understand something is not a valid justification for disliking it or hating it. Before you can have a valid opinion on something, you must first understand it.

0.2 mil stadia have their place. Some prefer it, some don't. The reticles on my rifles are all 0.5 mil stadia. I make do, but I would certainly prefer 0.2, but my scopes don't come in that fine of a gradation unfortunately. My wind calls and adjustments are definitely more accuracte and precise when using scopes with 0.2. If you don't understand why that is, then stop arguing about it and go get some actual hands-on experience.

 

[SubOptimal]

Who says I don't have experience. You? Do you know me? Do you know the equipment I have and my work experience? I thought not. I simply find .2 mil stadia to be overly complex to my eyes. My experience comes from quite a few years of both shooting and measuring stuff. I can easily discern the differences between .1 mil holds using .5 mil stadia and find it both faster and easier to do so. On the gripping hand, I suppose it doesn't matter much so long as the calls are the same from spotter to shooter. If spotter and shooter are the same entity, it won't matter a bit.

 

[MountainHunter]

Who says I don't have experience. You? Do you know me? Do you know the equipment I have and my work experience? I thought not. I simply find .2 mil stadia to be overly complex to my eyes. My experience comes from quite a few years of both shooting and measuring stuff. I can easily discern the differences between .1 mil holds using .5 mil stadia and find it both faster and easier to do so. On the gripping hand, I suppose it doesn't matter much so long as the calls are the same from spotter to shooter. If spotter and shooter are the same entity, it won't matter a bit.

The discussion has been based on match conditions from the beginning, you said you don’t shoot matches. You came into the thread with a shit attitude towards a discipline you know nothing about.

Nothing wrong with not shooting matches, but I do and I’d like to shoot better in them which is why I asked the question to those with more experience than me.

 

[SubOptimal]

As far as I can tell, this is an open forum and all opinions can be freely expressed without attack on a personal level.
I don't have a shit attitude, I have plenty of time shooting matches in other disciplines than PRS. If you think wind holds with .2 mil reticle stadia are superior for you, or others have told you so and you choose to believe them, why that's fine with me. I have used the width of a sight blade to make minor compensations for an erroneous wind call when shooting in other disciplines. It is all about making the most of what you have to work with. I'm a bit old fashioned in my thinking as I started shooting for sport a little less than 70 years ago. It may or may not be a little longer than you have been on this earth.

 

[MountainHunter]

Hahaha that's about twice as long as I've been on this earth! And no reason to take it as a personal attack, I'm just saying you were acting like a dick coming right out with the dweeb comment instead of giving the thoughtful responses you've given in your last two post. Hell I can be a dick sometimes too.

I'd be interested to hear your take on the subject if you were to do as Dthomas3523 suggested and run some stages. See if the time constraints, positioning and wind changed your mind.

Back on the different reticles, when looking at the Horus reticles on my computer screen I thought they were way to busy for me but after putting rounds down range with the H59 I was sold on them and quickly got over my preconceived notions about them being to busy.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Who says I don't have experience. You? Do you know me? Do you know the equipment I have and my work experience? I thought not. I simply find .2 mil stadia to be overly complex to my eyes. My experience comes from quite a few years of both shooting and measuring stuff. I can easily discern the differences between .1 mil holds using .5 mil stadia and find it both faster and easier to do so. On the gripping hand, I suppose it doesn't matter much so long as the calls are the same from spotter to shooter. If spotter and shooter are the same entity, it won't matter a bit.

Which reticle with .2 mil have you either owned or used for a substantial amount of time?

Often times we try things out briefly and because we are currently faster at our old way, we don’t give something new a long enough try to adapt and become better. I know I have been guilty if this.

Especially being from a mil/le background, we are very much set in our ways as a community and resist change because it’s “gaming,” while we should be taking the practical uses from the “gamers” and employing them in our field craft.

That old saying 1 step back and 2 steps forward is true in many things.

 

[lennyo3034]

I'm a .2 fan for movers. I find it's much easier to have that point of reference. Can I still do it with .5 holds .....yeah...... but if the tech is there why not use it?

I'm actually the opposite for movers. I tend to use lower magnification than most to begin with. For mover stages I drop it even further (usually around 5-6X). At those magnification ranges .2 mil holds are too close together to distinguish for me, so I prefer .5 holds for movers.

 

[SubOptimal]

OK. The dweeb thing was out of line and I apologize for it.
I'm too old and feeble now to go running around with a 13lb rifle and banging away at targets.
I am, however no stranger to time constraints and uncomfortable positions. Try the early IHMSA thing, it is only 5 rounds in 2 minutes but with an open sighted handgun, lying on you back and trying not to shoot yourself in the leg while trying to hit a life sized ram at 200 meters, Yeah, you had 2 minutes to get off 5 shots but you had to pretty much break position after every shot just to reload. Actually, the rams were pretty easy, that turkey at 150 could be a bitch. Also, a clang that didn't knock the target over was counted as a miss and on some of them, with some cartridges, a dead center hit would not knock the target over, just slide the feet back. All depending on how the targets were set and the caliber you were shooting. 308 wasn't really a problem but the 7 TCU (a 7mm bullet in a 5.56 case) would sometimes just leave a ram laughing at you. The things weighed 40 lbs and, as I recall had 2x4" feet. 139g bullets out of 10" bbl didn't really have much oomph.
I also shot a bunch of trap and skeet with 50 mph movers at 27 yards for the trap targets. You have maybe 3 seconds to mount the gun, establish a target path and a lead length and pop that little 4" sucker out of the air. In the International trap, it has a boundary that makes it illegal to shoot. Also, you have no idea when or where the target will appear or its trajectory when it does.
Sporting Clays are similar.
So yeah, I know a little about time constraints.

 

[morganlamprecht]

so did your pistol or your shogun have a reticle with .2 holds? both?

 

[Dthomas3523]

so did your pistol or your shogun have a reticle with .2 holds? both?

Hey now......all those examples directly relate to having 90 seconds to shoot 9 positional shots at 600/800 yds with a 15 mph full wind.