Rifle Scopes S&B LRR-MIL reticle thoughts?

SBGreen0369

SBGreen0369

Trophy Husband
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 18, 2018
1,845
526
SC
#1
Fellow Hide and Seekers,

Recently picked up a Schmidt & Bender 5-25x56 PMII w/ the new LRR-Mil reticle. Anyone used one of these bad boys yet?

The small center dot is a HUGE plus for me, and the simplicity of the reticle really allows you to focus while behind the glass. I like the Horus reticles in some applications but I’m not much of a PRS guy and I prefer to dial EVERY adjustment rather than hold over.

Just wanted to throw the topic out there. Feel free to chime in with any useful insight.

Scott
DD9A84AA-363B-48CD-BB9C-2676DBE34C86.jpeg
DD9A84AA-363B-48CD-BB9C-2676DBE34C86.jpeg
FA09339B-17ED-423C-9F8F-01BD116133E5.jpeg
887E6908-F73F-4BFB-BF05-E5BD95C4CE45.jpeg
BDD24DB2-D370-4777-9900-694861F50942.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaiqueWhisperer
#3
I was intrigued when this was announced last year... I think I’m going to get the MSR2 reticle instead. What do you plan on mounting it on?
I know I really like the PMII I have now... What are your thoughts about the reticle.
 
#4
@ldunnmobile
I’ll get a photo to you shortly.

@big4x42u
I have a PMII TreMoR3 that’s amazing. Optical clarity is about the best there is. I was a NF guy for a long time before making a change to Schmidt & Bender. The only thing I think NF does better than Schmidt is illumination. Apparently Schmidt had an answer for that in the new LRR-MIL though. The illumination is so crisp and clear that it’s visible on the range in broad daylight.

I think the advantage of that tiny center dot will prove itself beyond the 1000yd mark.
 
#5
Despite being made and marketed as an ELR reticle, I think it's a piss poor choice for ELR.

For shooting such as PRS/NRL, it doesn't make much sense either as you can't hold under.

For known range bench rest type stuff it may make sense due to it's nice open tiny center dot. Otherwise, I think it's a poor reticle design.
 
#6
kthomas said:
Despite being made and marketed as an ELR reticle, I think it's a piss poor choice for ELR.

For shooting such as PRS/NRL, it doesn't make much sense either as you can't hold under.

For known range bench rest type stuff it may make sense due to it's nice open tiny center dot. Otherwise, I think it's a poor reticle design.
Click to expand...

Can't hold under? Are we looking at the same reticle?? I see three useful mils up top. At what point would you need to hold under any more than that (or even close to it) in a normal PRS match?

And why do you feel it's a poor ELR design?

I have no dog in this fight, FYI. I don't own one and had no hand in designing it, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts...
 
#8
I like the reticle and have been thinking about getting one for my newest 300NM build. I'm hesitant to pull the trigger on one because a.) I prefer the DT turrets to the MTC, and, b.) that center dot looks REALLY small and I'm concerned it won't be visible under 10x. OP - can you address the center dot concern? That being said, I think it's a very well thought-out reticle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BallisticPrimate and gconnoyer
#10
Basher said:
Can't hold under? Are we looking at the same reticle?? I see three useful mils up top. At what point would you need to hold under any more than that (or even close to it) in a normal PRS match?

And why do you feel it's a poor ELR design?

I have no dog in this fight, FYI. I don't own one and had no hand in designing it, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts...
Click to expand...

For some reason I missed the vertical subtensions above the windeage axis. The original design of the LRR reticle did not have that, so my brain must've defaulted to the original version. That is my mistake.

For true ELR work, you will be making out your elevation on your scope. This requires you to hold over in the reticle, and you will more than likely be needed to hold a lot of windeage in that case as well. Besides dialing (which has it's own limitations and I personally recommend against dialing windeage) you have no real precise way to hold for the wind. A Christmas tree type reticle is more adept for this work. I personally use an AMR reticle for my .300NM.

It's pretty difficult to accurately hold for the wind if the target is off in dead space on the reticle. I had this issue with my 6.5 creedmoor shooting to 2,200 yards with a SKMR-3 reticle. I hit on the 7th shot, but would have most likely hit it a lot sooner if I had a more precise way of accounting for wind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basher
#11
The fact that it only has 0.5 mils for vertical subtensions throughout most of the range of the vertical axis is not the most desirable feature either. Again, it makes it harder to be precise on really long shots were you have a lot of holdover.

The AMR reticle, which has 0.2 mil subtensions throughout the entire range of windeage and vertical, along with the Christmas tree design, is why I chose that reticle for ELR work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basher
#12
kthomas said:
For some reason I missed the vertical subtensions above the windeage axis. The original design of the LRR reticle did not have that, so my brain must've defaulted to the original version. That is my mistake.

For true ELR work, you will be making out your elevation on your scope. This requires you to hold over in the reticle, and you will more than likely be needed to hold a lot of windeage in that case as well. Besides dialing (which has it's own limitations and I personally recommend against dialing windeage) you have no real precise way to hold for the wind. A Christmas tree type reticle is more adept for this work. I personally use an AMR reticle for my .300NM.

It's pretty difficult to accurately hold for the wind if the target is off in dead space on the reticle. I had this issue with my 6.5 creedmoor shooting to 2,200 yards with a SKMR-3 reticle. I hit on the 7th shot, but would have most likely hit it a lot sooner if I had a more precise way of accounting for wind.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I wasn't aware of any earlier design without the upper mil portion. And thanks for sharing your thoughts. Having not dabbled in ELR, none of those issues had crossed my mind. For what I'd generally be shooting, it would be a fine reticle if I were to get one. Another optic purchase of this level is a ways off for me yet, so it's not a factor right now, but I can definitely see your concerns with it for ELR. Thanks!
 
#13
Basher said:
Gotcha. I wasn't aware of any earlier design without the upper mil portion. And thanks for sharing your thoughts. Having not dabbled in ELR, none of those issues had crossed my mind. For what I'd generally be shooting, it would be a fine reticle if I were to get one. Another optic purchase of this level is a ways off for me yet, so it's not a factor right now, but I can definitely see your concerns with it for ELR. Thanks!
Click to expand...

No problem. Reticles are subjective, and I can see how certain shooters would like this reticle. Reminds me somewhat of an MSR, with a nice open center.

I just find it interesting that it is advertised for the long range/ELR crowd. To me, it seems like the designers have no experience with ELR, nor had any feedback from ELR shooters.
 
#14
kthomas said:
The fact that it only has 0.5 mils for vertical subtensions throughout most of the range of the vertical axis is not the most desirable feature either. Again, it makes it harder to be precise on really long shots were you have a lot of holdover.

The AMR reticle, which has 0.2 mil subtensions throughout the entire range of windeage and vertical, along with the Christmas tree design, is why I chose that reticle for ELR work.
Click to expand...
Unless I am.looking at that reticle way wrong, and the numbers lie, those look like .1MIL subtensions to me. Which is better than any other reticle I can think of. I thought they were .2 until I looked again.
 
#18
Gents, sorry for the lag in response time. I did my best to get some decent photos of the reticle at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25x. The glass is clear as can be. The center dot is nearly invisible (which I like) and I don’t think it shows well in the photos. Full disclosure.... I AM NOT A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER!

5x
4A00FCFC-B4F1-4EE3-BC05-CCBBF821162D.jpeg


10x
3FF0AEDD-D3DD-4FD0-9368-D847FCBC812A.jpeg


15x
9B14D58C-76E0-49D5-8D96-C08E32737602.jpeg


20x
CD44EC08-2226-4C74-97B3-42B5BC55C846.jpeg


25x
FAEA5BC5-507C-4483-8FCE-F0AE2A1F48D0.jpeg


And here’s 15x with the illumination maxed out:
2C7F2263-16C1-49D7-9E75-AD01224B7344.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike4837, Arkansas and gconnoyer
#20
I'm sure its similar to the ACOG, MSR, or anything that is a quick ranging military reticle.

I would bet at each line marked with *X is the yardage at which the width of the shoulders of the average man would fit it.
 
#21
I’m really liking this reticle. I will be getting one for my vudoo as a dedicated nrl22 and prs 22 optic. I typically don’t hold a lot of wind until past 150-200 or so. So a wind tree isn’t a big deal.

Also has parralax that can focus close enough for the matches you need to shoot playing cards and toothpicks.

How many total mils are you seeing in travel in the turrets, 26?
 
#22
#26
Dthomas3523 said:
I’m considering it for my vudoo. Looks nice for very small targets and also not bad for 300+ .22 matches.
Click to expand...
I thought about it but but but bit to pricey for my 22 i got to many precision rifles i can use it on lol
So, to be fair the shorter k525i will be my dedicated v22 scope :)i just mounted it actually and it looks more proportioned than pm2 lol
20180726_144316.jpg
 
#28
Not a fan of the big ranging area to clutter up the field of view. If I'm going to have stuff going on below the horizontal, I want a tree. Maybe some folks still range with reticles, but that's pretty outdated IMHO. But maybe there are shooting disciplines where that's still a thing?

I do like the dot, but there's no much else to like IMHO. I prefer the Mil-C, MR4, SKMR, SKMR3, EBR-7B, and others before it, but I wouldn't turn down an S&B LRR-Mil if it showed up for free. I also wouldn't spend more on it than I'd spend on an ATACR Mil-C or Minox ZP5 MR4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bjay
#30
patriot07 said:
Not a fan of the big ranging area to clutter up the field of view. If I'm going to have stuff going on below the horizontal, I want a tree. Maybe some folks still range with reticles, but that's pretty outdated IMHO. But maybe there are shooting disciplines where that's still a thing?

I do like the dot, but there's no much else to like IMHO. I prefer the Mil-C, MR4, SKMR, SKMR3, EBR-7B, and others before it, but I wouldn't turn down an S&B LRR-Mil if it showed up for free. I also wouldn't spend more on it than I'd spend on an ATACR Mil-C or Minox ZP5 MR4.
Click to expand...

I have an MR4 and it’s awesome.

Gonna take a leap of faith and give this LRR reticle a shot.

I have zero use for the ranging box, but I like having .1, .2, and .5 mil clearly visible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basher
#31
Mine arrived last week, and I really like the center of the reticle at lot.

It's been one complaint of mine with some of the other reticles, where the center has less. One of the reasons I like a center dot now vs a center crosshair with say, just a .75 gap. The .1 of the LRR is really nice.

They try to cross over with the Ranging Stuff because Europe still reticle ranges and places a lot of weight on it. We don't we stopped reticle ranging a while ago and use it only as a last resort.

But at first blush I really like this reticle
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basher, Dthomas3523 and bjay
#32
I like it enough to where I’m seriously considering paying the massive premium to get my pmii reticle swapped... anyone know if they do a mil discount...?
 
#33
jeffl838 said:
I like it enough to where I’m seriously considering paying the massive premium to get my pmii reticle swapped... anyone know if they do a mil discount...?
Click to expand...

I’m not sure on the mil/le discount, but depending on what model/reticle you have, it may be cheaper to sell and buy a new 5-25 with the LRR.
 
#34
It seems to be geared to a ‘ dial everything ‘ doctrine of shooting . The centre is nice to hold squared
up on a small target , with some wind change/ hold ability . The change in line size is good for staying
focused in the centre too , some reticles are epically distracting in this regard .
 
#35
Clearlight said:
It seems to be geared to a ‘ dial everything ‘ doctrine of shooting . The centre is nice to hold squared
up on a small target , with some wind change/ hold ability . The change in line size is good for staying
focused in the centre too , some reticles are epically distracting in this regard .
Click to expand...

This is what I’m hoping for. The main purpose I’m planning on using it for is precision .22.

Mine should be here this week. I may run it in a centerfire match this weekend as the more I look at the reticle, the more I like it.
 
#37
Clearlight said:
It seems to be geared to a ‘ dial everything ‘ doctrine of shooting . The centre is nice to hold squared
up on a small target , with some wind change/ hold ability . The change in line size is good for staying
focused in the centre too , some reticles are epically distracting in this regard .
Click to expand...
I disagree. The sub tensions on the first mil tell me they designed the reticle with holdovers in mind and more convenient mil ranging. Reticles like the p4lf don’t subtend at all on the first mil and fuck you for precise holdovers if the hold is under a mil.
 
#38
jeffl838 said:
I disagree. The sub tensions on the first mil tell me they designed the reticle with holdovers in mind and more convenient mil ranging. Reticles like the p4lf don’t subtend at all on the first mil and fuck you for precise holdovers if the hold is under a mil.
Click to expand...

I think what he’s getting at is they put a lot of focus on the center of the reticle. Enough so even the illumination of the reticle is designed around the center.

Seems like a lot of work to draw your focus to the center of the reticle.

Most reticles designed for holding try to avoid having your eye focus on a certain point, as that would distract you from the hold.

I think the very fine .1 measurements are just part of the logic “we’re making the center very precise, we should make the rest of the reticle as precise as well.”

The reticle seems to be deasigned to primarily dial as much as possible with the utility of precise elevation holds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gconnoyer
#39
Also, if it were made for a lot of holding for elevation and wind, the ranging grid would not be in the lower portion of the reticle where you would be holding.
 
#42
beenjammin said:
Now why the heck not? Just to force us to buy new scopes? Seems like it shouldn’t be harder then any other mil based reticle
Click to expand...

Don't know and things may be different today. That comment was made when the reticle was first announced almost two years ago. I am hoping they would reconsider as I would definitely upgrade my 5-25
 
#43
Ok
beenjammin said:
Now why the heck not? Just to force us to buy new scopes? Seems like it shouldn’t be harder then any other mil based reticle
Click to expand...

I called S&B and asked what was up I. This reticle. Apparently it has something different in the erector that allows the daylight visible illumination and this is why they are not retrofittable. So I said “what about the guys that don’t care about illumination. We just want the reticle”. And was told that they didn’t consider that and we should email Schmidt and Bender in Germany and voice that. I for one couldn’t care less about daylight visible illumination and felt this was kind of a let down reason for not allowing this reticle to be swapped.

In my opinion it should be offered just with the notice that it won’t have daylight visible illuminaion in older PMII scopes.

daylight visible illumination..... why? Use the reticle? For 99% of us how important is this? I’m honesty asking?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gconnoyer
#44
beenjammin said:
Ok


I called S&B and asked what was up I. This reticle. Apparently it has something different in the erector that allows the daylight visible illumination and this is why they are not retrofittable. So I said “what about the guys that don’t care about illumination. We just want the reticle”. And was told that they didn’t consider that and we should email Schmidt and Bender in Germany and voice that. I for one couldn’t care less about daylight visible illumination and felt this was kind of a let down reason for not allowing this reticle to be swapped.

In my opinion it should be offered just with the notice that it won’t have daylight visible illuminaion in older PMII scopes.

daylight visible illumination..... why? Use the reticle? For 99% of us how important is this? I’m honesty asking?
Click to expand...

Pardon my ignorance but does that mean the reticle won't have any illumination capabilities or does it mean that the illumination won't be bright enough to be visible in daylight
 
#45
beenjammin said:
Ok


I called S&B and asked what was up I. This reticle. Apparently it has something different in the erector that allows the daylight visible illumination and this is why they are not retrofittable. So I said “what about the guys that don’t care about illumination. We just want the reticle”. And was told that they didn’t consider that and we should email Schmidt and Bender in Germany and voice that. I for one couldn’t care less about daylight visible illumination and felt this was kind of a let down reason for not allowing this reticle to be swapped.

In my opinion it should be offered just with the notice that it won’t have daylight visible illuminaion in older PMII scopes.

daylight visible illumination..... why? Use the reticle? For 99% of us how important is this? I’m honesty asking?
Click to expand...

Likely the main reason will be the company isn’t comfortable putting something in an optic that was designed to work one way and they are basically “rigging it up to work” a different way.

Somehow or another people would find a way to complain or critics would say there were half assing it to let a part be put into something it wasn’t designed for.
 
#46
Dthomas3523 said:
Likely the main reason will be the company isn’t comfortable putting something in an optic that was designed to work one way and they are basically “rigging it up to work” a different way.

Somehow or another people would find a way to complain or critics would say there were half assing it to let a part be put into something it wasn’t designed for.
Click to expand...

Or they wanna make us just buy a new scope. The market has not exactly been S&B friendly lately. Too many players in the game now with better reticles and equal quality glass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: winniethepooh
#47
beenjammin said:
Or they wanna make us just buy a new scope. The market has not exactly been S&B friendly lately. Too many players in the game now with better reticles and equal quality glass.
Click to expand...

People complain about their illumination not being daylight bright. They make a reticle that is daylight bright, but it isn’t backwards comparable. People complain about that.

Always going to be something about a product people are not happy with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gconnoyer
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
SOLD S&B 5-25 PMII DT CW P3 Price Drop
Replies
0
Views
183
IronOperator87
I
Rpatton73
Optics OPTICS For Sale... US Optics, NF, S&B, Meopta, Leupold, March, Zeiss, Alcan and more.
Replies
50
Views
3K
Rpatton73
Rpatton73
jonthomps
Optics S&B 5-25x56 LRR reticle - PRICE DROP
Replies
30
Views
2K
jonthomps
jonthomps
Rpatton73
Optics ***UPDATED LIST*** OPTICS For Sale... US Optics, NF, S&B, Meopta, Zeiss, ATN, Leupold, BORS, March, Zeiss, Elcan and more.
Replies
0
Views
378
Rpatton73
Rpatton73
kevad68
SOLD *Price Drop 8/6* Schmidt & Bender PMII PANTONE 5-25x56 H59 Reticle FFP Mil/Mil
Replies
4
Views
605
giveemshell2
G
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts