We're going to update it to 100 yards since that's more the standard for rifle scopes.Is the FOV measured at 1000yards? Or the standard 100 yards?
The official site says 1000yds
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We're going to update it to 100 yards since that's more the standard for rifle scopes.Is the FOV measured at 1000yards? Or the standard 100 yards?
The official site says 1000yds
That would be great, I just ask that you not follow the same route as the XTR III and make us wait 2+ years for illuminationIllumination I can't say. It's out there is all I know right now.
That's strange, yes, I see you've updated all the FOV numbers, but when I first purchased my DMR II I grabbed the numbers then and they showed:DMR3's essentially the same, but with a bunch of changes to improve optics and then the obvious parallax and outside changes like the lever. I just looked at the build/spec sheets with the product manager on the old DMR models vs the DMR3 and the FOV are identical. Not sure where the difference is coming from that you're seeing. If you can share that I can look into it and see if there's a misprint somewhere.
25.3' @ 3.5x and 5.1' @ 21x |
Here you go.From the 0.04 dot, what are ret subtensions out to 2 mil windage? Looks almost like 0.25 mil?
Yeah, they must have been rounded down at some point. After we dug through the specs we're putting the exact spec again on DMR3 and it'll reflect on the site tomorrow. It'll be this as taken direct from the spec/build sheet:That would be great, I just ask that you not follow the same route as the XTR III and make us wait 2+ years for illumination
That's strange, yes, I see you've updated all the FOV numbers, but when I first purchased my DMR II I grabbed the numbers then and they showed:
25.3' @ 3.5x and 5.1' @ 21x
But according to what is posted on the site currently they are exactly the same.
Field of View (ft.@100yards) | 25.5 ft. @ 3.5x - 5.1 ft. @ 21X |
---|
No.any plans for just regular crosshair reticle?
any plans for just regular crosshair reticle?
Brilliant, good to know.Yeah, they must have been rounded down at some point. After we dug through the specs we're putting the exact spec again on DMR3 and it'll reflect on the site tomorrow. It'll be this as taken direct from the spec/build sheet:
Field of View (ft.@100yards) 25.5 ft. @ 3.5x - 5.1 ft. @ 21X
Here you go.
*NOTE - The thick bar on the bottom milling marks is only applicable to the DMR3, it's not on the XRS3. On the DMR3 it's only visible around 3.5-5.5x, or at 30MIL down.
View attachment 7664069
It's still a G reticle which isn't a .2 grid reticle and we wanted to build off what people liked with the G3 reticle but give them .25 inside 1 for a little more refinement.You had me until the .25 line spacing. What was the rationale for that?
You had me until the .25 line spacing. What was the rationale for that?
G2, then G3, and now G4P - Yeah, developed alongside GA Precision. We've got some stuff coming with George talking about it. Hopefully it's ready to publish very soon. I'll share it here when it's good to go.What's a G reticle? GAP?
You would have gotten one more degree of refinement if you used .2 line spacing vs .25 right? I just don't get it. Any useful division of .2 is still a whole number, or at least a number in the tenths place. Turrets are in whole numbers or tenths, ballistic calculators same thing.
Ill just leave it at that, I don't want to derail your thread.
I really never understood the adoration for .2 line spacing and find it unnecessary busyness. You want .2? It’s just to the left/right of the hash mark. It’s a rare situation indeed, if ever, that .2 is more useful than .25.What's a G reticle? GAP?
You would have gotten one more degree of refinement if you used .2 line spacing vs .25 right? I just don't get it. Any useful division of .2 is still a whole number, or at least a number in the tenths place. Turrets are in whole numbers or tenths, ballistic calculators same thing.
Ill just leave it at that, I don't want to derail your thread.
I spent a lot of time with the original msr reticle. I never had a problem breaking it up into quarters, or holding over into space. Its like you said, I've just grown to prefer the .2 divisions. They are very easy to divide, and match the turrets and ballistic programs.I really never understood the adoration for .2 line spacing and find it unnecessary busyness. You want .2? It’s just to the left/right of the hash mark. It’s a rare situation indeed, if ever, that .2 is more useful than .25.
But reticles truly are a very personal thing, so I can understand you wanting what you may be used to using.
If you multiply the FOV by the Magnification (as taken from the specs) then divide by the magnification you want to compare you will be very close.Can you tell us FOV @ 30X and/or 25X to be able to compare to some more scopes?
Curious to see what this reticle looks like in the DMR3, the double .05mil should make it nicely visible at lower magnification.Here you go.
*NOTE - The thick bar on the bottom milling marks is only applicable to the DMR3, it's not on the XRS3. On the DMR3 it's only visible around 3.5-5.5x, or at 30MIL down.
View attachment 7664069
Will be in for an XRS3...
...but also interested in a lightweight 2-12 if your counting heads
(and another thanks! for the mil discount program)
The VX6 2-12 with Firedot fits that bill.If they double up an SMRS2 1-6.5 type it could be a 2-13. Nice eyebox and field of view. Sfp, 18oz, exposed low pro elevation and capped windage, and most importantly a Stryker/Credo/G2 nuclear bright dot.
I've looked at those. Capped elevation but that's not the end of the world. I seriously considered the 1-6 also but people go back and fourth on if the illumination is daylight bright with some insisting they are and others saying it depends on model and even color of the dot or when it was made.The VX6 2-12 with Firedot fits that bill.
The world needs a good FFP 2-12.
The VX6hd has the ZL2 elevation turret and some of the non HD have a ZL turret too.I've looked at those. Capped elevation but that's not the end of the world. I seriously considered the 1-6 also but people go back and fourth on if the illumination is daylight bright with some insisting they are and others saying it depends on model and even color of the dot or when it was made.
Ffp would be great but doesn't that usually mean more weight, tighter eyebox, and much more expensive to illuminate? I'd also prefer a LOW scope. I have several and always feel like I've gotten my moneys worth while Leopold reviews are love them or hate them.
I have a razor lht 3-15-50 and the eyebox is good enough that indoors where you can see the dot its surprisingly easy to use both eyes open but the illumination washes out. Daylight bright dots seem to be trickling down into much cheaper scopes these days and I'm hoping to see it coming out in some higher magnification options. My understanding is its not expensive to do on a wire reticle.
Meh…I can’t understand why scope companies just don’t roll them out with illumination. FFP models in particular.
I’ve been wanting to upgrade my XTRII. The XTRIII comes out, no illumination. These new Bushnells come out, no illumination. Both scopes look awesome otherwise, but my XTRII is illuminated and I don’t want to give that up!
It’s almost like scope companies have been infiltrated by animal rightists and aren’t including illumination because there are those of us that like to smack fur early in the morning and late in the evening (that oughta give the conspiracy theorists something to chew on over the weekend).
Admittedly, I don’t have much trouble with my 6x SWFA on my AR, but dang it, I want illumination!
Oh well, I bought a boat a couple weeks ago, being poor, it’ll be Black Friday before I fret a scope again. Maybe somebody at Bushnell or Burris will get their crap together in the meantime.
Rant off.......
I can’t understand why scope companies just don’t roll them out with illumination. FFP models in particular.
I’ve been wanting to upgrade my XTRII. The XTRIII comes out, no illumination. These new Bushnells come out, no illumination. Both scopes look awesome otherwise, but my XTRII is illuminated and I don’t want to give that up!
It’s almost like scope companies have been infiltrated by animal rightists and aren’t including illumination because there are those of us that like to smack fur early in the morning and late in the evening (that oughta give the conspiracy theorists something to chew on over the weekend).
Admittedly, I don’t have much trouble with my 6x SWFA on my AR, but dang it, I want illumination!
Oh well, I bought a boat a couple weeks ago, being poor, it’ll be Black Friday before I fret a scope again. Maybe somebody at Bushnell or Burris will get their crap together in the meantime.
Rant off.......
If you were confused about illumination wait until you here about reticle offerings. I don't understand the marketing behind only offering a Mil optic. Especially considering that Bushnell is hoping (I'm assuming) to compete with the Vortex razor gen 2 and Leupold's Mk5 directly. Both of the aforementioned optics offer a pretty wide variety of Mil and MOA reticles. Obviously I don't think their goal is compete with the ATACR or the S&B series optics, or at least it isn't priced that way, so why split your targeted market into 2 parts knowing that customers will go elsewhere in an already saturated market. Maybe someone can enlighten me.I can’t understand why scope companies just don’t roll them out with illumination. FFP models in particular.
I’ve been wanting to upgrade my XTRII. The XTRIII comes out, no illumination. These new Bushnells come out, no illumination. Both scopes look awesome otherwise, but my XTRII is illuminated and I don’t want to give that up!
It’s almost like scope companies have been infiltrated by animal rightists and aren’t including illumination because there are those of us that like to smack fur early in the morning and late in the evening (that oughta give the conspiracy theorists something to chew on over the weekend).
Admittedly, I don’t have much trouble with my 6x SWFA on my AR, but dang it, I want illumination!
Oh well, I bought a boat a couple weeks ago, being poor, it’ll be Black Friday before I fret a scope again. Maybe somebody at Bushnell or Burris will get their crap together in the meantime.
Rant off.......
Probably because %80 of the people that use this type of optic uses mils.If you were confused about illumination wait until you here about reticle offerings. I don't understand the marketing behind only offering a Mil optic. Especially considering that Bushnell is hoping (I'm assuming) to compete with the Vortex razor gen 2 and Leupold's Mk5 directly. Both of the aforementioned optics offer a pretty wide variety of Mil and MOA reticles. Obviously I don't think their goal is compete with the ATACR or the S&B series optics, or at least it isn't priced that way, so why split your targeted market into 2 parts knowing that customers will go elsewhere in an already saturated market. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
Probably because %80 of the people that use this type of optic uses mils.
Maybe they are trying to convince everyone that MOA and IPHY are gay and people should stop using them.If you were confused about illumination wait until you here about reticle offerings. I don't understand the marketing behind only offering a Mil optic. Especially considering that Bushnell is hoping (I'm assuming) to compete with the Vortex razor gen 2 and Leupold's Mk5 directly. Both of the aforementioned optics offer a pretty wide variety of Mil and MOA reticles. Obviously I don't think their goal is compete with the ATACR or the S&B series optics, or at least it isn't priced that way, so why split your targeted market into 2 parts knowing that customers will go elsewhere in an already saturated market. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
i was being conservative.I'd bet 80% is low, too.
You probably were being conservative, but it's still a business and every dollar that doesn't come in goes out to another one of your competitiors.Probably because %80 of the people that use this type of optic uses mils.
Wasn't aware that Bushnell could afford to forfeit 5% of its potential customers lol. Maybe I haven't checked Vistas fin stmts for the quarter.You probably were being conservative, but it's still a business and every dollar that doesn't come in goes out to another one of your competitiors.
Vista owns a bunch of ammo companies. I'm sure they are doing ok.Wasn't aware that Bushnell could afford to forfeit 5% of its potential customers lol. Maybe I haven't checked Vistas fin stmts for the quarter.
They lost money in '19 and '20. Wasn't talking about their overall condition but upon review their optic sales is only a piece inside less than 26% of total rev so I guess what they do is comparable insignificant when looking at the overall company.Vista owns a bunch of ammo companies. I'm sure they are doing ok.
I'd rather not say . . .
YesHere's a dumb question: can you see a non illuminated reticle with an nvd? I've never used one.
What are the costs associated with manufacturing a MOA reticle optic alongside a MIL optic?
If costs > revenue potential, there’s no value to do so.
It’d be interesting to see how many Razor IIs are sold in MOA vs. MIL; seeing the frequent blowouts of MOA-based tactical optics by various vendors tells me the demand in the civilian market just doesn’t exis
Well I wasn't just talking about MOA exclusively either, conversation was a bit sidetracked. The G reticle made its return without the Horus and Tremor options that were available on the older series. Would be interesting to see the breakdown on those as well. I know the G series is in house so there are certain incentives involved, but the other 2 are popular as well in the Mil field.What are the costs associated with manufacturing a MOA reticle optic alongside a MIL optic?
If costs > revenue potential, there’s no value to do so.
It’d be interesting to see how many Razor IIs are sold in MOA vs. MIL; seeing the frequent blowouts of MOA-based tactical optics by various vendors tells me the demand in the civilian market just doesn’t exist.
I agree, also would like to see the Mk5 breakdown.What are the costs associated with manufacturing a MOA reticle optic alongside a MIL optic?
If costs > revenue potential, there’s no value to do so.
It’d be interesting to see how many Razor IIs are sold in MOA vs. MIL; seeing the frequent blowouts of MOA-based tactical optics by various vendors tells me the demand in the civilian market just doesn’t exist.
What are the costs associated with manufacturing a MOA reticle optic alongside a MIL optic?
If costs > revenue potential, there’s no value to do so.
It’d be interesting to see how many Razor IIs are sold in MOA vs. MIL; seeing the frequent blowouts of MOA-based tactical optics by various vendors tells me the demand in the civilian market just doesn’t exist.
You're totally on the correct path there on how it gets decided whether or not to make something. Agreed that it would be interesting. The sales differences on the Nitro & Forge models, which were basically all available in FFP and SFP and with two different reticles for each, were very low on MOA vs MIL. We really did consider making an MOA version of the Match Pro, but ultimately decided against it.What are the costs associated with manufacturing a MOA reticle optic alongside a MIL optic?
If costs > revenue potential, there’s no value to do so.
It’d be interesting to see how many Razor IIs are sold in MOA vs. MIL; seeing the frequent blowouts of MOA-based tactical optics by various vendors tells me the demand in the civilian market just doesn’t exist.
The G3 outsold the H59 and Tremor by a huge factor. Not denying that they're very well-known and popular reticles. For us the G3 is what people were mostly buying. People wanted a floating dot though, among other things, so that's why the G4P is here.Well I wasn't just talking about MOA exclusively either, conversation was a bit sidetracked. The G reticle made its return without the Horus and Tremor options that were available on the older series. Would be interesting to see the breakdown on those as well. I know the G series is in house so there are certain incentives involved, but the other 2 are popular as well in the Mil field.
I appreciate the feedback. I understand this is a Bushy celebration conversation and most of the people here are excited about the new products. I like the XRS3 specs and still may purchase one when they come out. Wasn't and still am not trying to discourage anyone from buying or piss off the VSTO team, was just curious about what y'all saw that led you in that direction and what your potential customers were thinking about it. Not many glaring changes besides reticle offerings made to the new line outside of upgrades to materials and coatings (no locking turrets on this vs old gen 2 for example). Appreciate the feedbackYou're totally on the correct path there on how it gets decided whether or not to make something. Agreed that it would be interesting. The sales differences on the Nitro & Forge models, which were basically all available in FFP and SFP and with two different reticles for each, were very on MOA vs MIL. We really did consider making an MOA version of the Match Pro, but ultimately decided against it.
The G3 outsold the H59 and Tremor by a huge factor. Not denying that they're very well-known and popular reticles. For us the G3 is what people were mostly buying. People wanted a floating dot though, among other things, so that's why the G4P is here.