Re: SWFA Super Sniper 5-20X50HD
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PDXGS</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any tips on where you got your P51 resolution chart? I'd like to print out a few of my own for testing the relative resolution of my scopes without having to make my own chart? </div></div>
Here you go:
http://accurateshooter.net/targets/usaf1951.pdf
Here are some thoughts on the reticle as it seems to have generated quite a few questions. Keep in mind the below is simply my opinion, reticle preferences are highly personal. No reticle in the world will be liked by everybody, nearly everybody has some idea of something they’d like to change on any given reticle.
For me the primary question is will the reticle get the job done? That can’t be answered without what job and under what conditions? Those may be different for different users. A scope like this should have a reticle that answers “yes” for a large range of jobs and conditions. It should be fast to pick up on low powers, easy to use for holdoffs medium or high powers and not cover the target too much at long range.
I feel the reticle does well at covering those bases. It’s really a pleasure to use, simple, clean and uncluttered, easy to see on all powers yet still pretty thin on high power. The thicknesses seem to be a good compromise for low power visibility, all around usability and long range precision. If you’ve ever used a mildot you should transition over to this easily with no training required. Of course that can be said for quite a few reticles which is where personal preference comes in.
I like hash reticles as much as the next guy and generally prefer them to dot reticles for most of the time. For bench-type shooting on paper with the scope cranked all the way up they’re hard to beat. But when I’m not doing that, I have noticed some advantages to dot type reticles over the years, at least to my eye.
Generally they’re easier to see and use on lower powers for a given line thickness. To make lines as visible on low powers they need to be thick enough they may look excessively thick on higher powers.
My brain sort of processes the difference between a full mil and a half mil a little more automatically with dots instead of having to identify the correct hash. If I’m doing hold offs on medium power at medium ranges and time is an issue the dots just seem a bit faster to me.
Of course the biggest disadvantage to most of them is that they cover more of the target than you’d like at long range. Hollowing them out solves that problem.
The dot in the center allows you to still use them as a precise aiming point. It also gives you a direct reticle measurement of 0.1 mils for ranging. The diamonds are 0.2 mils wide, the hash marks on the ends are .2 mils apart. So you can very easily measure anything directly to the 0.1 mil with the in-betweens being 0.05 mil. It’s a nice, simple way to do it without making a portion of the reticle look like a pincushion.
The diamonds work just like dots, after a couple minutes you won’t even notice their shape anymore. The biggest difference between them and dots (or circles that are hollow) is that they are easier to see on low power because they can be “taller” without taking up more space on the reticle with a larger diameter (staying 0.2 mils wide). They also seem to help a little to my eye at least with vertical and horizontal alignment when holding both elevation and windage.
On the bottom post—I don’t miss it. It’s very natural and fast to use, just like an upside down 4a. Very familiar for users of the MP-8, P4, P4f, etc. The problem with a bottom post is with 5 mils of space on three sides and 10 on the bottom, the “duplex” you get at low power has a lopsided opening. I’d rather do without than have it lopsided. It got added back to the MP-8 for the IOR 3-18 and I always felt it was unnecessary. Just my opinion.
Those are my thoughts. Of course everybody isn’t going to like it (or any other reticle), but as I said the important thing is if it will get the job done. For pretty much any use I can think of, this one will.
