Rifle Scopes SWFA 1-4X SS

[bachelorjack]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

FFP and turrets look good.

BDC reticle is a damn fail. Throw a Horus in there and lose the turrets. Or a Mil that matches the turrets. Or do whatever the multiple scoop ice cream cone thing is and fail HARD.

I'd rather have thicker GERMAN #4 POSTS. The posts need to be thicker to make this faster. The illumination won't cut it using that technology. An illuminated center dot is important. An illuminated bdc tree on a scope with turrets is insulting.

 

[cyrekzz]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

I don't know... i like the reticle - looks interesting for sure

 

[bachelorjack]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cyrekzz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know... i like the reticle - looks interesting for sure </div></div>

But of course <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 11pt">YOU</span></span></span> do....

 

[Red_SC]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rancid Coolaid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So, the suggestion for the reticle is to keep the center aiming point and move to a mil scale on the vertical or on vertical and horizontal?

The rationale, as I understand it, for the multiple aiming points is that they align with 5.56 NATO ball, so one has the option of dialing in or holding over. </div></div>


Whenever you're running the scope on 1x, the reticle needs to be big and bold enough to instantly center your eye. The other reticles do that with the thick circular part, kind of like an Eotech. Having a mil scale that can be used for holdovers on 4x would be better than a BDC that might or might not match your round, but the primary problem for me is the 1x speed. Notice the difference:

I'm glad we're seeing more mil turrets, but I don't think they're useful in this application. Use the mils to holdover out to as far as 4x is useful, you won't be dialing elevation and especially not windage in the short to mid range shooting this scope was designed for.

 

[_Shay_]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

Now all we need is a SS 4-16 mil/mil in SFP and FFP.

 

[Kyshooter]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

Ok, how is this going to compete with the Vortex PST 1-4 at a 50% higher price.
The PST already has a Mil/Mil reticle, with matching knobs and a zero stop function.

Maybe the SWFA will have a place, time will tell.

 

[Rancid Coolaid]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

The reticle is a work in progress.

The plan, as I understand it now, is to move the heavy posts in at 3,6,and 9 o'clock such that a non-illuminated 1X shot is easier to see, the aiming point should be better defined by this.

"Catering to the ignorant" is one way of saying grunts and LE who might need to use it without significant training in mil ranging and scope doping.

The intended purpose of the scope, as it has been explained to me, is to provide Soldiers, Marines, and law enforcement with a scope requiring minimal input (and training) and maximum effect on target. The aiming points are calibrated for 62-gr. ball at 2800FPS, but the mil drops will be specified, so it will work with just about anything.

I definitely understand the request of either BDC or target turrets, but again, the purpose is to give all shooters as many options as possible, rather than restrict how one can best use the optic.

A good 1-4X is needed in the sand, this scope is designed to fill that roll. This is not being built for the pro shooter only, but for the Marines on the ground that need a good combat optic they can mount, zero, and go.

I have not yet seen the PST (but want to), where these 2 will shake out will be interesting to see. I can say this, the scope is solid, well thought out, and the glass is quite good.

The reticle is still being worked out, input is appreciated, but please understand the purpose of the scope: to facilitate rapid and accurate shots by personnel not highly trained in combat optics. (If you are highly trained, so much the better, you will be more readily able to enjoy the scope and its many fine features.)

 

[Red_SC]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

What about something more like this, or something similar with the circles it currently has? I thickened the outer part up some and added the circle.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rancid Coolaid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The intended purpose of the scope, as it has been explained to me, is to provide Soldiers, Marines, and law enforcement with a scope requiring minimal input (and training) and maximum effect on target. The aiming points are calibrated for 62-gr. ball at 2800FPS, but the mil drops will be specified, so it will work with just about anything.
</div></div>

That's a great goal, and it would work great for soldiers using one barrel length. Unfortunately it messes up anyone with a different barrel length, bullet weight, or caliber. There may be some, but I don't know of any LEO's in my area using 62 gr ammo.

 

[Bacarrat]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

62gr at 2800FPS? is this calibrated for a really short SBR? I always thought the 62gr SS109s were moving over 3k fps in a M4. But no, I am not too fond of BDCs.

I would love to check out this scope though. If it's going to be like the whole SS lineup, this should be a winner.

 

[cyrekzz]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BachelorJack</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cyrekzz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know... i like the reticle - looks interesting for sure </div></div>

But of course <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 11pt">YOU</span></span></span> do.... </div></div>

haha! why do you say that?

 

[glock24]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rancid Coolaid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"Catering to the ignorant" is one way of saying grunts and LE who might need to use it without significant training in mil ranging and scope doping.

The intended purpose of the scope, as it has been explained to me, is to provide Soldiers, Marines, and law enforcement with a scope requiring minimal input (and training) and maximum effect on target. The aiming points are calibrated for 62-gr. ball at 2800FPS, but the mil drops will be specified, so it will work with just about anything.

</div></div>

I think you (SWFA) are underestimating your customer base. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that these <span style="font-style: italic">grunts</span>, as you call them, have all been running a tape measure since they were 12 years old. Running a tape measure while helping their dads build the new deck, or the new corn crib. And they all know where the 1/8", 3/16", and 3/4" marks are on that tape measure.

That said, I'm also quite sure a <span style="font-style: italic">minimal input </span>program would go very well if it consisted of simply matching the correct mil-scale tape measure line to a specific distance. <span style="font-style: italic">If you want to shoot 200 meters, put the target here. If you want to shoot 300 meters. Put the target there . . . </span>

It certainly seems better than saying, "this BDC reticle is kinda like your tape measure, but it is only accurate with eight foot, pine 2x4s. Yes, it will be off if you try and use it with anything else, but it'll be close enough because you're not an elitist like those guys on Sniper's Hide.

What about having both? A mil-scale down the 6 o'clock crosshair, and hightlighted BDC lines just to the left and right of that 6 'clock line. The best of both worlds?

 

[Commander Shepard]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

I'd like to put this on my DPMS LR308 carbine, but not with the BDC.

 

[Sespe]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

What about having both? A mil-scale down the 6 o'clock crosshair, and hightlighted BDC lines just to the left and right of that 6 'clock line. The best of both worlds?
</div></div>

Ooh, I like that idea!

 

[Rancid Coolaid]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rancid Coolaid</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"Catering to the ignorant" is one way of saying grunts and LE who might need to use it without significant training in mil ranging and scope doping.

The intended purpose of the scope, as it has been explained to me, is to provide Soldiers, Marines, and law enforcement with a scope requiring minimal input (and training) and maximum effect on target. The aiming points are calibrated for 62-gr. ball at 2800FPS, but the mil drops will be specified, so it will work with just about anything.

</div></div>

I think you (SWFA) are underestimating your customer base. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that these <span style="font-style: italic">grunts</span>, as you call them, have all been running a tape measure since they were 12 years old. Running a tape measure while helping their dads build the new deck, or the new corn crib. And they all know where the 1/8", 3/16", and 3/4" marks are on that tape measure.

That said, I'm also quite sure a <span style="font-style: italic">minimal input </span>program would go very well if it consisted of simply matching the correct mil-scale tape measure line to a specific distance. <span style="font-style: italic">If you want to shoot 200 meters, put the target here. If you want to shoot 300 meters. Put the target there . . . </span>

It certainly seems better than saying, "this BDC reticle is kinda like your tape measure, but it is only accurate with eight foot, pine 2x4s. Yes, it will be off if you try and use it with anything else, but it'll be close enough because you're not an elitist like those guys on Sniper's Hide.

What about having both? A mil-scale down the 6 o'clock crosshair, and hightlighted BDC lines just to the left and right of that 6 'clock line. The best of both worlds?





</div></div>


In no certain order:

1. I do not work for SWFA, I am a happy customer with a few optics, some experience, and a computer.

2. I am a Marine, when I talk about "grunts", it ain't "them", it is "us." I want this scope right because I know it will end up in the hands of my fellow Devil Dogs, and I don't want broke-dick gear going out to defend our nation and her interests.

3. You lose me a bit on the tape measure thing, it ain't like someone else's tape measure is shooting back while you are figuring out 1/16th. This is combat optic for a BZO'ed weapon.

4. As I've said, the reticle is a work in progress, what they decide to do in the end is up to SWFA, I am simply soliciting input. Too much crap in the reticle is a problem, in my opinion. I kinda like it as is, so long as I know what the marks subtend. Yes, I think a mil scale on the vertical might be an improvement, but I think the purpose of the circles is well defined and serves that purpose well.

 

[Mumbles]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

Glock24, you don't know a lot of grunts do you?

I realize it is no more complicated than running a tape measure, but I promise you, the average grunt is not interested.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

That reticle is horrible. The only FFP reticle that I've use and liked was the Horus 1x. Talon. It doesn't have to be as busy as he Horus, but the dimensions on the horus were perfect. If I was home I would post a picture of the reticle. Outer Ghost Ring with Mil Lines for holdovers.

 

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

A BDC reticle for 5.56mm ball is simply catering to the ignorant. In other words, the folks who are afraid to learn the universal mil-scale reticle system.
</div></div>

I have a Short Dot with a CQB reticle and I have to agree with the above. A simple MIL based reticle allows you to do more, more easily. The issue isn't the elevation - we all know our 300 yrd dope is gonna be somewhere around 1.2 MILs (77 grn). The issue is the hold off. Some goofy reticle based BDC means instead of learning a standard system and learning how to fractionalize a standard, you need to learn a proprietary BDC, confirm it is what they say it is, and then learn to fractionalize, in this case a good sized circle.

SWFA is on to something, they need a simple MIL based reticle that is maybe just a touch thinner than a CQB, a daylight visible (bright sunshine against a tan / washed out background) 4 MOA dot, locking turrets or at least locking windage, mark the elevation turret for 55's and 77's above the actual MIL dope and call it good. They will sell a boat load of them.

Good luck

 

[Mumbles]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">they need a simple MIL based reticle that is maybe just a touch thinner than a CQB, a daylight visible (bright sunshine against a tan / washed out background) 4 MOA dot, locking turrets or at least locking windage, mark the elevation turret for 55's and 77's above the actual MIL dope and call it good. They will sell a boat load of them.
</div></div>

That's what I'd like to see most too, I think that would be the ideal setup for a scope like this. That Vortex posted earlier looks pretty close to ideal too.

Generally speaking I have no use for BDC reticles, but I see the benefit when equipping large groups of people who may not all be at the same level of training and experience. This particular example of BDC reticle is pretty, and looks like a lot of thought went into it, but it doesn't look like anything I'd ever want to actually use. It's too fine, too busy, and too hard to see, especially at 1x. It needs heavy duplex posts <span style="font-style: italic">or</span> a heavy outer ring, <span style="font-style: italic">or</span> a 4 MOA dot. If it must have a BDC reticle (for my own personal use, I'd prefer something mil-scale), it needs to lose the external turrets (regardless the windage turret should be capped or locking), and if it's going to be an FFP BDC, it needs to be a much simpler design (or have some kind of major aiming point to focus on at 1x)

 

[GreatGonzo]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

In a 1-4x, I would prefer a standard mildot. Very few encounters would have you using this scope for super precision engagement of targets. Mildots would allow you to hold over for longer shots, and give you some ability to range targets in a pinch. Having a large circle surrounding the dots like the vortex and some S&B's that I've seen would make this very useful at 1x and the mildots would work pretty well at 4x.

 

[M25BeastShooter]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

Funny we use the 60/62gr Fed and Win loads (a Fed Agent) and I think this scope would fill a great need of the mid to short range duty rifle. The officer who enters a house to execute a search warrant in the morning and then covering an operation in rural area and can use the same sight/rifle.

Oh by the way most duty officers need it simple but effective and most will not notice a 1-2 MOA difference in impact out to 150-200 yards which by the way is a hell of alot furter than 90% of these officers would ever dare shoot. The illuminated reticle for low light and the magnification for increased threat ID/observation is what sells this scope.

 

[SWFA]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

Thanks for all the comments, keep 'em coming.

The reticle is by no means the finished product; it was merely a starting point. The scope was being delayed due to reticle development. We needed to start testing the mechanics and optical system. This particular reticle had already been made (with some errors) so we stuck that reticle in there to get the show on the road. It allows us to get a real world feel for some of the subtentions and illumination across the entire power range and illumination level. It has 5, 1/4 mil dots on the 12, 3 and 9 o'clock post. The circles subtend 10 inches at specific yardages. Similar to the Kahles V2 reticle that used a large funnel that subtends human shoulder width at specific yardages this reticle uses the head instead.

The concept is to keep it simple. It the head fits shoot, it does not matter what power you are on. On 1x for CQB the mil dots and center circle come together to form an aiming point.

It has 5 mils on the reticle in three directions for calling the shot and dialing corrections on the .10 mil turrets.

These two scopes are prototypes and are merely vehicles to test as many aspects and features as we can at one time. The hard part is done. As far as having multiple versions with different reticles and exposed or capped turrets, that's the easy part.

We know that you cannot design one scope that everyone likes. This project started due to the large number of soldiers buying their own gear and not understanding how to use it to its full capabilities. They would shy away from a more technical scope and end up with a lesser quality optic because they felt more comfortable using it. There is a large portion of the market that are afraid of mil scale reticles and for whatever reason have no desire to learn them. A caliber specific BDC type reticle ala ACOG is very effective and user friendly. The "Headshot" reticle allows the user to easily and quickly determine range and shoot without making any adjustments or conversions.

Like I mentioned before making another reticle is no problem, y'all tell us what you want it to be and we'll knock it out.

This scope like the 3-9x42 SS and new 10x42 HD SS are being made in a different factory than the original "Super Snipers" 10x42, 16x42 and 20x42. They are considerably higher quality both mechanically and optically.

 

[Commander Shepard]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SWFA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Like I mentioned before making another reticle is no problem, y'all tell us what you want it to be and we'll knock it out.
</div></div>

Put a mil-based reticle in it and I'll buy one as soon as its available. Capped 0.1mrad turrets would be nice but are not a must personally.

 

[Basher]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

I agree with the BDC comments. I think the idea (in theory) is excellent, but in application it's only going to work for those who have a firearm that matches the specific parameters that the BDC is designed for. Personally, I wouldn't be interested in it, primarily because my firearms don't match what the military uses. I have either 16" or 20" AR's, and I genearlly shoot either XM193 (55gr) or 75gr BTHP. I realize the BDC might be "close" when I use it in a 16" rifle with 55gr pills, but as my high school chemistry teacher was fond of saying, "Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and bad breath."

If multiple reticles were offered, then that would be great. Have a mil-scale based reticle for those who wanted it, and then a BDC for everybody else.

Aside from my complaints with the reticle not matching the ballistics from rifles that don't fit the BDC's parameters, my other complaint is that it just looks very busy. Circles, dots, little cross hairs, etc. Skim it down so it's not so busy and it would speed up training and use, I think.

 

[enkry]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

I like the Vortex PST 1-4 reticle. That way you can use it like a Mil-dot / MLR reticle and when dialed down you have a circle that can be used as CQB

 

[Mumbles]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

To everyone knocking the BDC reticle. I agree, for a reasonably intelligent and competent shooter, it offers very little benefit, if any at all. I personally have no use for them. But...

The level of ignorance surrounding the TA01 and TA11 ACOGs in the Army is astounding. I've lost track of how many soldiers (11Bs no less) I've educated (or tried to educate, some folks you just can't reach). And that's about as simple as an optic can get. Maybe Marine grunts are different, and are all waiting to release their inner sniper and start expertly employing mil-holds, but I kind of doubt it. Some people need simple, not trying to be elitist or condescending, but if you have no interest in shooting outside of work, simple might be the way to go for you.

While I personally am not likely to buy an optic with a BDC reticle, I can see the market for them.

 

[zunrj5]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

Well said.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mumbles</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To everyone knocking the BDC reticle. I agree, for a reasonably intelligent and competent shooter, it offers very little benefit, if any at all. I personally have no use for them. But...

The level of ignorance surrounding the TA01 and TA11 ACOGs in the Army is astounding. I've lost track of how many soldiers (11Bs no less) I've educated (or tried to educate, some folks you just can't reach). And that's about as simple as an optic can get. Maybe Marine grunts are different, and are all waiting to release their inner sniper and start expertly employing mil-holds, but I kind of doubt it. Some people need simple, not trying to be elitist or condescending, but if you have no interest in shooting outside of work, simple might be the way to go for you.

While I personally am not likely to buy an optic with a BDC reticle, I can see the market for them.</div></div>

 

[Switchblade]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

After reading and thinking about all this I finally think I have something worthwhile to say. It is on the M855 based ballistic reticle. I HAVE an M855 ballistic based reticle in my USO SN4. It is the JPJ1. I love it. It rocks.
SWFA's M855 based ballistic reticle will rock. It will be solid.
BUT if you do not reload or cannot get M855 ballistic equivelent ammunition as a civilian or in the civilian arena, then the reticle is likened to a boar tit.
I do not mean to demean anyone's reticle. It is a fact of life. These two aforementioned reticles are for M4/M4gery type carbines firing M855(equivelant) ammunition. If you cannot get this ammunition then your reticle is no good except for using the center dot/cross for a CQB type aiming point.

To fully exploit my M4gery and it's SN4 with JPJ1 reticle I MUST use M855 or LOAD 62grbtfmj's to the exact same ballistic performance for it to work.

If this is a combat only optic and it will only be used with M855 then there is nothing wrong with it. If it is to be sold on the civilian market where M855 is darned tough to find, then there may be a bit of a problem with it's simplicity, or in the case of no M855 it's boar tit utility.

This is one small point to consider that I think is based on one man's(mine) experience with M855 based reticles and the availability of M855 on the civilian shelves.

 

[J-Hon]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

Will be some tough competition at the $750 pricepoint, specifically the Triji offerings.

I really dig the turrets, but perhaps more of a speed/3gun influence would do serve you well? Single turn/fast turret, SUPER bright reticle with a mil setup (not a BDC) overlayed in the back that doesn't illuminate. Crazy generous eyebox.

I dunno... when I think carbines with low powered variables, I think a red dot with the ability to make 400yd shots if needed. Not a high powered optic that can kinda/sorta/sometimes be used as a red dot.

 

[SWFA]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.....BUT if you do not reload or cannot get M855 ballistic equivelent ammunition as a civilian or in the civilian arena, then the reticle is likened to a <span style="font-weight: bold">boar tit</span>.

.....If it is to be sold on the civilian market where M855 is darned tough to find, then there may be a bit of a problem with it's simplicity, or in the case of no M855 it's <span style="font-weight: bold">boar tit </span>utility.</div></div>

We might have a new name for it, the BT reticle. I can already envision a cool logo to accompany it.

 

[SWFA]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J-Hon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">......I dunno... when I think carbines with low powered variables, I think a red dot with the ability to make 400yd shots if needed. Not a high powered optic that can kinda/sorta/sometimes be used as a red dot.
</div></div>

Very good point.

 

[Commander Shepard]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

Also consider that M855 might not be the only 5.56mm ammunition used by the troops:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_SOST_ammo_021510w/

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/02/17/usmc-adopt-new-5-56mm-mk318-mod-0-ammunition/

 

[cyrekzz]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

I still have a horus reticle and i like it... but i wouldn't mind trying the mil dot system too. As far as the scope goes... from the outside it looks good. I think the burris xtr 14 1-4x i was looking at has the 223 bdc and side parallax adj. Is parallax adj really needed for this power of scope?

 

[paraman1]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

The Burris XTR 1-4 does not have a parallax adjustment . The knob on the side is the brightness selector for the reticle .

Personally I think you are better served using a Mil-Dot or MRAD style reticle on an AR-15 . The first reason is that you have range finding capabilities when using your AR as a spotter . The second reason is that it can be adapted to any cartridge and velocity for use as a BDC reticle .

If your going to put a BDC reticle in for use with .223/5.56 you can lose the 200 yard hashmark since you can hardly see the darn thing in most scopes I have seen and frankly its not needed if you use a 50 yard zero on an AR . I would go so far as recommending to the end user that they use a 50 yard zero and adjust the reticle accordingly .

Another gripe I have about several of the low powered scopes I have used with a circle around the reticle is that the circle has very thin lines and are generally on the small side . Make the circle thicker/brighter and the dot/cross/center of the reticle thicker/brighter so you can actually see it so its actually useful at closer ranges .

The reticle also needs to be visible without the illumination so that when the battery dies you can still use the optic .

If you want input from guys who are using these on the civilian side you need to be hitting up guys like Dave Neth , Bennie Cooley , Travis Gibson and other hotshot 3-gun competitors as most of the 3-gun shooters feel like they are running a compromise as far as optics go .

Thats just my .02

 

[gunnut284]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

I don't want FFP on a 1-4x optic and want capped or at least locking turrets. FFP makes the reticle too small on 1x and I don't plan on dialing turrets on CQB/mid range carbine. I want a simple reticle that draws my eye to the center but also gives me points of reference for hold over at longer ranges (500-600 yds is enough). A heavy duplex with tic marks on the bottom "wire" (etched of course) would be good. A +/- 10MOA circle around the center would be good to help draw the eye to the center. The one Red_SC has above would be great with the addition of more tic marks on the bottom.

 

[cyrekzz]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

yep no parallax... which really wouldn't make sense on these powered scopes, would it? (had to look at the "technotes of the JPG" on the burris site). I think a fixed reticle would be better unless the illuminated circle was big so that when at 1x it would just look like a red dot - or black circle with no illum.

 

[enkry]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

basically we want the new USO C2 reticle in this optic!!!!!!!

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

Something like this:

Here is the Horus Reticle:

 

[glock24]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something like this:
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f376/paulosantos/1x4Reticle2-1.jpg

Here is the Horus Reticle:
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f376/paulosantos/100_0995.jpg
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f376/paulosantos/100_0994.jpg </div></div>

YES, YES, YES!

The below Swarovksi reticle has potential too, if it had a mil-scale;

 

[glock24]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

The USO C2 reticle (for conversation's sake)

 

[Switchblade]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

I think the reticle HAS to be 1D10T proof. It also has to work with any 5.56 ammunition from 55gr to 62gr since this is what seems to be most commonly available. BAllisticly based reticles are great but limit the shooter to only that particular round.
If the reticle is not point and shoot fore all rounds, then certain skills MUST be used to correct for range outside of the zeroed range for the center DOT. With this in mind, a very easy to use reticle that will work for CQB or one that will work for range to 500M.
A reticle that has ranging brackets/lines etc. to find range of target to say 500M or 600M is good when the operator has the skill set to manipulate the erectors to adjust the scope. This requires a known zero, and kown come ups for each given range or fraction of range.
If a reticle has only a simple circle and dot then the dot is zeroed and maybe the circle has a known range at it's 12 and 6 positions. The problem of making a reticle that is ballistically compatible with only one round makes it useless for all but part of it for all other rounds.
I take my SN4's JPJ1 as example. If I do not fire M855 I can zero it for one point. The rest of the points in the reticle cannot be used as they are not able to work with a lower/higher trajectory travel. If I shoot and zero M855 it works so freaking well it's heaven to shoot at all ranges I can 'range' with it. Simply point and shoot.
A 1-4 x scope is great for CQB. It is also excellent for perimeter defence out to 500 or so meters. The biggest problem is making a reticle that offers the civilian market a solid use while making it's military use functional. MAybe the solution is to market one scope and reticle to those who have solid sources of M855/SS109, and a differnt reticle to the markey that does not have access to that particular round.
For those of you who do not understand this, own a scope that is set up for only one round then go try to find your ammo in a place where it is either unavailable or not found. Now you have a really nice CQB scope but cannot use the ranging solutions it offers. Just my experience


Chris, BT would do a disservice to whatever you come up with as we know your solution will have the ability to use multiple rounds. Boar Tit for those of you who do not get it, well, like tits on a ...yeah, thought so

 

[Rancid Coolaid]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

The reticle is growing on me.

 

[6mmFan]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

Big +1 for the Horus or the USO C2 with the big rings. Ring thickness on the C2 should be thicker. Ideally the bottom tangent of the ring should subtend roughly 1000 yards. Solid ring- circle within circle concept. Any ballistic reticle should be set up for the 77 grain SMK at 2800 fps. Why? If you are going to be reaching out there you will probably be using this bullet anyway. If not - well then you probably dont need this type of a reticle.

 

[Switchblade]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

For a smaller 1-4x scope, I loved the Circle Chevron in my original SN4 that went to OEF VII. It had range brackets and the chevron was the aiming point which once I ranged I merely had to run the dope to get from 100M to 450M in a quick second.
The JPJ1 kicks ass...when I have M855 or equal to shoot. Zero it, range it and you are already on your aiming point. Simple wind adjustment and bang...when M855 is in it.
The 'perfect' reticle would be the one that works for all rounds, or, a basic Circle dot or Circle Chevron or Circle Triangle in the center with ranging media underneat to right or left. Ranging media directly below the circle works too.
I think once someone learns what 1/2 MOA does on a scope and practices wiht it, learns it's movements and ranges, it's an easy thing and almost 1D10T proof.
Why 1/2 MOA movement? It's a 1-4x, meant for CQB or PErimeter work, 1/2MOA is precision enough for this type of scope and 1/4 MOA movement would detract from quick use.
I wonder how one would work on an M14 or a 17" FAL

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

If the illumination truly is daytime visible like the S&B Short dot, then the Outer Ghost Ring is not needed at all. Matter of fact, the outer ghost ring will just block too much of the target on 1x with the outer ghost ring. That is the one regret when I got the Swarovski 1x6. I should have not bought the one with the outer ghost ring.

 

[Rancid Coolaid]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

Shot the scope extensively today. It needs a few tweaks, but is a great design, great scope. Can't wait to see the finished product.

For its intended purpose, I think this scope does quite nicely.

More to come.

A few pics.

 

[Sapper524]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J.Boyette</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SWFA needs to drop the BDC part of the reticle.

that all by its self would stop my from buying this.

Just do a tick mark Mil-Dot that matches the turrets.

Why have a .1 Mil adjusted and a BDC reticle????????????????????

John </div></div>

+1 ... kills me when they do that ... like putting MOA turrents on a Mildot scope ... seriously, whats the point

 

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the illumination truly is daytime visible like the S&B Short dot, then the Outer Ghost Ring is not needed at all. Matter of fact, the outer ghost ring will just block too much of the target on 1x with the outer ghost ring. That is the one regret when I got the Swarovski 1x6. I should have not bought the one with the outer ghost ring.

</div></div>

How do you shoot hold offs with this?

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the illumination truly is daytime visible like the S&B Short dot, then the Outer Ghost Ring is not needed at all. Matter of fact, the outer ghost ring will just block too much of the target on 1x with the outer ghost ring. That is the one regret when I got the Swarovski 1x6. I should have not bought the one with the outer ghost ring.

</div></div>

How do you shoot hold offs with this? </div></div>

The same way you would with any other Mil Based Reticle. The first line below the dot is 1Mil, etc.

 

[Basher]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the illumination truly is daytime visible like the S&B Short dot, then the Outer Ghost Ring is not needed at all. Matter of fact, the outer ghost ring will just block too much of the target on 1x with the outer ghost ring. That is the one regret when I got the Swarovski 1x6. I should have not bought the one with the outer ghost ring.

</div></div>

How do you shoot hold offs with this? </div></div>

The same way you would with any other Mil Based Reticle. The first line below the dot is 1Mil, etc. </div></div>

Pretty sure he meant windage. From what I can tell, that would have 1mil from the dot to the first mark, and 5mils from the dot to the second mark, with nothing inbetween.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: SWFA 1-4X SS

I fixed the reticle. I initially took the Mils out because I thouhgt it was too cluttered.