Thinking out loud, a reticle for the OEM crew

[Jack Master]

Plot didn't come out super clean, but here's a first go at it.

View attachment 7594513

Not trying to be a dick here - but this is the reticle we are trying to avoid. Lines above, lines through, lots of numbers, busy(er) tree. We want simple, straight forward for new shooters. If I have to re-adjust my eyes when looking at a reticle to understand it, its too much stuff. I think the lines above and through make me do this. If you have had a couple years behind fist focal plane reticles this reticle becomes easier. Think day 1 shooters and get them to intuitively understand the reticle and be able to see thier misses. Just my 2 cents

 

[MarinePMI]

JMHO, but I think the circle would be helpful as a cross over scope, when hunting on lower mag.

I think the lower cost scopes would do well to also allow a bit of cross over. Since most getting into this sport (generally) are trying to have gear that is dual purpose. But that's just my thought...

 

[DJL2]

I like the circle. I'll say this - I am in the market for a new optic and if any one of several brands I looked at used this instead of the current options they offer, they would have my money in hand already. That's everything from entry level to high(ish) end German stuff...

It grinds my gears to no end that optics makers seem to think everyone who isn't in the market for competition optic wants some crappy BDC variant or a standard #4.

 

[Lowlight]

I would almost want to built one with the circle because I think on a 25x it will work

especially consider with illumination, don't illuminate the circle, but do the dot...

For me it's the point or circle the box is okay but boring

 

[Jack Master]

I just printed these three options on 20x and asked 8 people in my office which one they would choose. None of them have much gun experience and every single one of them picked the circle. They said "it shows me where to start right when I look at it"

P.S. I might get in trouble for asking around at work

 

[Lowlight]

Draws the Eye to the Center

Our brains like defined aiming points, they don't like grids and overly busy reticles because it will begin searching for a focus point

It's Science ... just not covid science

 

[Leftie]

Today it only takes a few loud voices to ruin something

so rather than have it, better to just remove it

I'd really not like for that to be the case here - the reticles that @Jack Master showed look great, and for an entry-level optic, would likely see a lot of use, especially as a capable FFP option for new and relatively experienced shooters alike. Having one of these on a hunting gun would be a great thing. I get the "not wanting to have a few loud voices ruin something", but, if it's your product and you stand behind the design intent and the context, let people get angry, especially if the product works and you can justify its existence.

There's a certain song that goes "It's alright now, I've learned my lesson well; you can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself". Perhaps that's applicable here?

It grinds my gears to no end that optics makers seem to think everyone who isn't in the market for competition optic wants some crappy BDC variant or a standard #4.

I totally agree here; why on earth optics makers still think that BDC is preferable is totally beyond me. I forsee this changing in the next 5-10 years though as more people begin to understand just how magically useful and adaptable angular units of measure-based reticles are (go figure). I mean, technically BDC values are angular subtensions as well... but how many of us actually go to the trouble of figuring out the differences in MIL/MOA on a BDC reticle?

Of the three reticle choices, I think that the circle and point designs are the most applicable, with the circle likely being the best for newer shooters... Sounds like @Jack Master conducted a test with a limited sample from the applicable user group... and the circle is preferred by all; that is a statistically significant event, in that 8/8 = 1, which equals 100% of the respondent group. That is pretty convincing evidence that the circle is the right design, at least so far...

 

[Lowlight]

Scope companies are no different from gun shop employees

they don't use their own products and don't know how we operate to being with

so just because they offer something like a BDC doesn't mean anything than regurgitation of the same old way of thinking,

A BDC can work, it just needs to be remodeled and the education around them have to change. You can make it work, I get students all the time especially in Ak with the Huskemaw scopes and systems. I just rezero them and work the problem my way and guys can do everything everyone else does, and we just remap the reticle while giving them the ability to use the turrets correctly. The biggest problem is the distance, you have to work the zeros at range.

 

[opeagle]

Leave the circle please. The small center dot without the circle or a fair amount of open space around it gets lost at low power. Many people use a scope at lower power. Personally I’ve commented that many of today’s reticles do not work well at lower power. Now, do not twist that and claim I said they don’t work at lower power. They do, just not as well due to the FFP issues and the compromises the manufacturers have to make. Ila made a solid point in noting roughly what power the reticles posted represent. One should learn from that.

The idea was to have a fairly simple, but useful reticle. Something that a new shooter can use relatively quickly and learn without getting lost or frustrated.

But then again, what isn’t good about this? Tell me what shot either in competition or otherwise that you would not be able to make with this reticle over another one?

We know that in today’s world there’s a lot of good enough scopes mechanically and glass wise. The main interface, the reticle should appeal to the shooter to their uses. Some people still use a reticle to range targets, some people think that’s useless and don’t. I don’t care what you do, but the reticle needs to be capable.

My hat is off to Frank, Jack and Ila. Ignore the people with no useful commentary and drive on with those who actually bothered to read the thread and understand what your attempting to accomplish.

 

[Longshot231]

Personally I’ve commented that many of today’s reticles do not work well at lower power. Now, do not twist that and claim I said they don’t work at lower power. They do, just not as well due to the FFP issues and the compromises the manufacturers have to make. Ila made a solid point in noting roughly what power the reticles posted represent. One should learn from that.

You are correct that many reticles don't work well at a lower magnification. So to my eyes, it would not matter what the center portion is; cross-hair, circle or dot. It's just darn hard to see it to begin with.

The work around the low power settings for me was to spend the extra money on scopes with illuminated reticles. I carry extra batteries with me and if I need a low power magnification, I switch on the light. Problem solved.

 

[Jack Master]

And to address the ranging elements - @MK20 @rydah @Eustice

I understand you all want a better ranging feature in the reticle. Keeping the purpose of the reticle in mind is important. We are trying to make this an simple OEM and first day shooter reticle. We don't want to clutter up the simplicity of the reticle with these elements. As an entry level reticle, not many of those shooters are milling targets anyways. I hope the Milling bars from 3-4 mills above the reticle will suffice for a basic need. Is this enough for a day 1 or 2 shooter? Thanks

 

[Lowlight]

Reticle ranging is a legacy skill

and most comps are doing reticle ranging because of the cheating aspect, after the second shooter everyone knows the range.

Mixing it in the reticle at 3-4 Mils is easy, and just as effective. Nobody is speeding through a reticle ranging exercise without practice and nobody is practicing it much.

We do a single reticle ranging exercise in our MHSA class, its total comic relief, in a good way, but it's bad, and the AK reticle ranging was even funnier

Our drill was, a blind stage, team ranging (2) and 2 minutes, 632 yard target, I have video of a husband and wife team fighting for 6 minutes, you laugh for 12 .

 

[TurboTrout]

For a small floating dot, would it be illuminated? I could see it getting lost easily on some targets

 

[LRCampos]

I really liked the reticle with the circle!

In a FFP scope at lower magnification (like 2.5 or 3X), it helps a lot, specially if it is iluminated.
At my work, we do use our scopes at low mag in mostly urban environment for "fast" shots. Having the time, we dial up the mag.
So a not busy reticle, that draws the eyes quickly to the center is a plus.

I would buy a scope with this reticle (and a bunch for the Team).

 

[NewsShooter]

I like the circle, seems like a good option for hunters and new shooters. Once of the reasons I like the G2H reticle for hunting. Nice big circle if you're at min magnification, not too thick when shooting paper, though that isn't what it was designed to do.

 

[Secant]

Not trying to be a dick here - but this is the reticle we are trying to avoid. Lines above, lines through, lots of numbers, busy(er) tree. We want simple, straight forward for new shooters. If I have to re-adjust my eyes when looking at a reticle to understand it, its too much stuff. I think the lines above and through make me do this. If you have had a couple years behind fist focal plane reticles this reticle becomes easier. Think day 1 shooters and get them to intuitively understand the reticle and be able to see thier misses. Just my 2 cents

In my mind, "beginner" is also likely a cross over. While there are a lot of brand new shooters, I think there are way more hunters and rifle owners that have some sort of SFP duplex on their current bolt guns. From this, I think it's more of a question of how to transition somebody that has familiarity with a SFP optic over to a FFP optic. Like I said, plot didn't come out so well, but here was the general thought process:

• Bold outer lines (0.4 mil thick) that start at 6 mil from center. This helps bracket when using low magnifications. For reference, outer bold line of my SKMR3 are 0.3 mil thick, gen 2 mildot are 0.75 mil thick. I think having the bold outer lines on top as well as right and left are important for newer shooters, which are also presumably new to using a FFP reticle, but as I mentioned likely have hunted with or used SFP optics. The typical complaint is that "I cant' see the reticle". An open top and/or moving the outer bold lines to 10+ mils out from the center will make it more difficult on the newer shooter IMO.
• Inner reticle is 0.043 thick, which is the thickness of the Mil-XT reticle I had in the 4-16 ATACR. The SKMR3 and EBR-7C that I have are in the 0.035 mil thick range. Similar to the above comment, I think having being little thicker on the inside portions of the reticle would help for a cross-over design and help newer shooters pick-up the center on low mag. In my mind, this type of scope has a max mag of 15x - 18x (maybe 20x)
• The center floating dot is 0.043 mil. A larger center dot may be a better option. Personally, I think any additional box, circle, quadrant, etc. will be too busy/distracting and also covers up the area that is most important.
• Having uniform heights for 0.2 mil subtensions will likely require the shooter to count. Whereas varying heights are more intuitive to jump to the correct hold (for me). This has always been the case for me, even as a new shooter.
• I think dots for the tree instead of lines helps to make the reticle appear less cluttered. I just went with the dimensions that Vortex uses in their EBR-7 series (0.06 mil for 2/10 and 0.09 mil for whole mil). The Vortex tree blends into the background in my Gen 2 Razor, which I like. The 0.2 mil dots could get removed in exchange for 0.5 mil dots.
• Numbers are easy to remove and I could go either way.

 

[Chickentoast]

Box 25x
View attachment 7594515

Point 25x​

View attachment 7594516


In the end the center circle is a fine aiming point on lower magnifications, its a 0.2 reference at higher magnifications. No one likes it because its not what you are used to seeing. You might have though different on Day 1.

How about Point, but with small dots added where the corners of the Box would be? I would personally prefer thinner lines as well, but understand that would not have the widest appeal. Just another data point for consideration. I'm probably not buying cheap scopes anymore, but wish I had this option when I was buying them.

 

[jLorenzo]

If this is peoples idea of perfect we have no hope LOL

wow ...

Hell of a lot better than a standard mil dot, in a 400$ scope its better than the Vortex. The dots are too many and too hard to differentiate from one another. The verticle stadia numbers are on the edges of the wind mils as apposed to right next to the verticle stadia where you would hold for .1-.4 right. The chevron has an ifinitely small tip to aim with, very precise. It all goes south with the dots for me though, I agree. Almost perfect probably isnt the right description. I do like the ranging brackets for 5'10" tall or 18" across though.

 

[koshkin]

I don't like your reticle you have design flourishes which waste time and distract

we can drop the circle too many crying

Ted Drop the circle

I would not necessarily drop the circle until you figure out what the OEM can pull off in terms of line thicknesses. The circle should work pretty well if you do not have to make the lines significantly thicker.

ILya

 

[260284]

Would you shoot this reticle? let us know what you think.

So after talking with frank and having a quick design meeting this is where we ended up. We added 2 small wind dots at the 1 mil holdover. This tree will handle most centerfire cartridge wind calls up to 20ish mph winds but still keep the reticle cleared up around the center aiming point.

We also kept the center circle. It draws the eye to it quickly as well as gives a defined 0.2 aiming cross to the right and the left of the center dot. It will also make the reticle easier to use on lower powers.

This reticle design is intended for newer shooters. We need something simple without the bells, whistles, and whizzbangs. I think we are getting there.

View attachment 7594459
View attachment 7594458

Make the circle and the dot daylight visible with illumination and that would be a great FFP hunting scope.

 

[smrkovsky]

I drew this up about a year ago just for fun. A simple tree could be added if desired. SH-1 non-tree version and SH-2 with the tree.

 

[Eustice]

And to address the ranging elements - @MK20 @rydah @Eustice

I understand you all want a better ranging feature in the reticle. Keeping the purpose of the reticle in mind is important. We are trying to make this an simple OEM and first day shooter reticle. We don't want to clutter up the simplicity of the reticle with these elements. As an entry level reticle, not many of those shooters are milling targets anyways. I hope the Milling bars from 3-4 mills above the reticle will suffice for a basic need. Is this enough for a day 1 or 2 shooter? Thanks

Having mil 3 and 4 above the horizontal be marked out in alternating .1 mil and then your far left and far right mils on the horizontal be like that would do the same thing as the inverted T on the Mil-R reticle. It gives you somewhere that has very fine marks. That’s a good idea to still be able to perform Mil ranging but not cluttering the scope. I like your idea on that.

 

[Baron23]

This reticle design is intended for newer shooters.

Well, that would include me...sort of.

In any case, I like the circle and agree with some others that I would like this for a gun used both for hunting as targets.

@lowlight - I saw where you were about to throw in the towel on the circle and urge you not to. There will always be clamoring by some people for something/anything different than what you decide upon. Doesn't mean you need to actually change the design and then end up with a different bunch clamoring for change back to the way it was....or something totally different, right?

Can't please everybody and if you try then you just end up chasing your own tail.

Cheers

 

[Jack Master]

I think the Circle might be an "option" by each OEM. Some might want it, some might leave it out.

 

[Lowlight]

Lots of people understand how to manipulate the system today, especially when it comes to online discussions

you get into the Big situation, where it's just "I don't get it" on repeat and it spoils a lot of good meals

I think the circle will work, sure the ability to cut the reticle will be a factor, but honestly I don't think much of that one, I have seen some pretty thin lines lately. The S&B LRR is mega thin, I need illumination to see it on anything but 25x

 

[Guns&WhiteWater]

I like the circle. I like simple and something I can hunt with as well. This has it. Nice work.

 

[Dairyboy]

I personally really like the circle and would have this reticle in my scopes if I could. As a crossover reticle that can be used for both hunting and target it's a big advantage at lower power to have that circle.

 

[Meety Peety]

Circle version to entry level OEM
Non circle version to ZCO
Everyone wins

 

[jl937]

That circle center is very visually appealing to me. I think it does a great job of drawing the eye to center on mid/low powers as shown while still leaving the center uncluttered feeling at max power.

Currently shooting the koshkin designed Meopta MRAD reticle and I love its simplicity. This concept here shares a lot of the same traits and are exactly what I typically look for in a functional reticle. I'd buy this design in a heartbeat for a crossover hunting rifle

 

[Jack Master]

Lots of people understand how to manipulate the system today, especially when it comes to online discussions

you get into the Big situation, where it's just "I don't get it" on repeat and it spoils a lot of good meals

I think the circle will work, sure the ability to cut the reticle will be a factor, but honestly I don't think much of that one, I have seen some pretty thin lines lately. The S&B LRR is mega thin, I need illumination to see it on anything but 25x

If we can get the thinner lines would be great. I wonder how thinner or thicker lines effect manufacturing costs?

 

[Lowlight]

from my memory with USO and doing reticles with them, it was a standard rate to start

if people remember for a flat rate USO would make your custom reticle

I can't remember the number between $1500 and $2500 if memory serves me right today Ilya would know there are only like two companies doing reticles for most people

 

[FUNCTIONAL]

I like the direction but I still think it's too busy. A merge between the one with the circle and a DMR2/3 would be ideal. The market is flooded with bushy trees, a more simplified tree would do well.

Decided to add more to this.

I think the circle with .25 mil hash marks on the main stadia and only carry the .25mil horizontal on the tree portion every 2 mils. On the odd mills do either every full mil or half mill marks. Maybe carry down only 8 mils instead of 10. Even on a 6.5 that should be damn close to hold everything to 1k with a 100yrd zero.

 

[Esoteric Junkie]

from my memory with USO and doing reticles with them, it was a standard rate to start

if people remember for a flat rate USO would make your custom reticle

I can't remember the number between $1500 and $2500 if memory serves me right today Ilya would know there are only like two companies doing reticles for most people

Frank,
IMT and POG are the go to companies for premium glass etched reticles. Keep the circle.

EJ

 

[nksmfamjp]

@jackmaster....love your reticle. It is checking a lot of boxes.

wish it had one thing. Wish it had a 1 mil diameter, 0.15 mil thick segmented circle around the center aiming for. Purpose is for shots when you move hunting. Basically, when the 5-25x gets turned to 5x and you might shoot 0-200 yards sitting, standing, how do you aim without the circle in the center since the reticle will disappear and light reticles are generally a pain in the ass.

keep the circle you have.

 

[CubCouper]

Relative SH newbie here, but this thread has piqued me out of lurking. I've got many years of hardcore Benchrest under my belt so I been through the Leupold Comps, Marches, and Nightforce (old and new) BR stuff. I just shot my first PRS matches a few months ago. and went to my prairie dog rifles for a scope. I've used a Leupold B&C on hunting rifles for years, but just started acquiring some Christmas tree reticles. They are definitely a godsend on the prairie dog towns when poking 200-800 yards with a 20VT. I primarily do all holdovers/no dialing (a habit from the shortrange BR game where aimpoint and impact are seldom related).

First couple matches I've used a Vortex Diamondback Tactical 6-24x FFP EBR-2C from a varminter. I have an MOA-brain but but they also have an MRAD model. Street price is around $450 -- which is half of what it costs to step up even a little. Given the technical level of discussion here, is there anything about that scope/reticle that falls significantly short?

https://vortexoptics.com/media/wysiwyg/sub_dbk-tactical_6-24x50ffp_ebr-2c_moa-t.jpg

 

[Ridgeraider]

Relative SH newbie here, but this thread has piqued me out of lurking. I've got many years of hardcore Benchrest under my belt so I been through the Leupold Comps, Marches, and Nightforce (old and new) BR stuff. I just shot my first PRS matches a few months ago. and went to my prairie dog rifles for a scope. I've used a Leupold B&C on hunting rifles for years, but just started acquiring some Christmas tree reticles. They are definitely a godsend on the prairie dog towns when poking 200-800 yards with a 20VT. I primarily do all holdovers/no dialing (a habit from the shortrange BR game where aimpoint and impact are seldom related).

First couple matches I've used a Vortex Diamondback Tactical 6-24x FFP EBR-2C from a varminter. I have an MOA-brain but but they also have an MRAD model. Street price is around $450 -- which is half of what it costs to step up even a little. Given the technical level of discussion here, is there anything about that scope/reticle that falls significantly short?

https://vortexoptics.com/media/wysiwyg/sub_dbk-tactical_6-24x50ffp_ebr-2c_moa-t.jpg

6-24 diamondback tacticle ruger precision rimfire combined makes NRL22 base class based on MSRP $1050 limit

 

[TreyMeTrey]

I like the reticle in Primary Arms GLX-6-24x50.. If ya cant shoot with that simple one ya need to get a Sing Shot and sell your guns.

So, after looking that the Riton, Arken, et al, recently I really dislike some of the reticles they use.

I get asked by the OEMs all the time about a SH reticle and normally the thinking is, nah, I don’t want my stuff in low cost scopes, but then after mulling over it for a few days I was thinking, what if, we helped them early and they didn’t have to sweat a reticle

I am thinking a simplistic hold over, well laid out, I have a plan, but not overly complec, no trying to reinvent the wheel.

I know what it should like like, do you think they it would be something along with a minor fee, no Horus $400, more like $50 and call it good

If you think about it further, when IOR used Scott to design a reticle on here it‘s all those years ago, it’s still used today, this site did a floating dot before any other scope outside the few benchrest versions with a dot.

the

 

[TreyMeTrey]

not in m

Relative SH newbie here, but this thread has piqued me out of lurking. I've got many years of hardcore Benchrest under my belt so I been through the Leupold Comps, Marches, and Nightforce (old and new) BR stuff. I just shot my first PRS matches a few months ago. and went to my prairie dog rifles for a scope. I've used a Leupold B&C on hunting rifles for years, but just started acquiring some Christmas tree reticles. They are definitely a godsend on the prairie dog towns when poking 200-800 yards with a 20VT. I primarily do all holdovers/no dialing (a habit from the shortrange BR game where aimpoint and impact are seldom related).

First couple matches I've used a Vortex Diamondback Tactical 6-24x FFP EBR-2C from a varminter. I have an MOA-brain but but they also have an MRAD model. Street price is around $450 -- which is half of what it costs to step up even a little. Given the technical level of discussion here, is there anything about that scope/reticle that falls significantly short?

https://vortexoptics.com/media/wysiwyg/sub_dbk-tactical_6-24x50ffp_ebr-2c_moa-t.jpg

Not short in my mind.It hit the mark..I have two..A MOA & a MRAD on two different AR's.. They work well.I got my MOA 6-24x50 on EBAY for $329. The other was $399.

 

[Familydude]

Another vote for the circle.

 

[Eostech]

I understand you all want a better ranging feature in the reticle. Keeping the purpose of the reticle in mind is important. We are trying to make this an simple OEM and first day shooter reticle. We don't want to clutter up the simplicity of the reticle with these elements.

I think if you what a basic ranging function it needs to fit the target scopes.
The 1/10 mils finish 8 mils out from the optical center, now are all cheaper scopes even going to have this much FOV around 25 power?
Secondly being cheaper, image quality could be an issue the further out from the optical center you go so putting fine detail out there could just be a waste of time if there is any sort of optical aberration.

Maybe move it closer in and also simplify one side of the 1/10 mils to 1/2 and 1/4.

I would almost want to built one with the circle because I think on a 25x it will work

especially consider with illumination, don't illuminate the circle, but do the dot...

The circle is neat if it can be pulled off.
Though I will say that when I first saw it my first thought was illuminating the circle because it naturally draws the eye, depending on how bright it was it could be pretty versatile at lower power.

 

[iceng]

What a roller coaster of opinions.

Circle. Definately circle. New shooters will love it, and weirdly for a cheaper rifle setup I'd use it. Put it in a strike eagle or an Arken, and I'm there.

Seriously. Place the little circle over the thing you want to hit, squeeze the button stick part, hang on. New shooters and even some seasoned shooters will use this.

 

[smarcus]

I like the circle and think overall it's a fantastic reticle design. I would run it no problem and choose it over most other offerings in the market today.

 

[Recon Marine]

Would you shoot this reticle? let us know what you think.

So after talking with frank and having a quick design meeting this is where we ended up. We added 2 small wind dots at the 1 mil holdover. This tree will handle most centerfire cartridge wind calls up to 20ish mph winds but still keep the reticle cleared up around the center aiming point.

We also kept the center circle. It draws the eye to it quickly as well as gives a defined 0.2 aiming cross to the right and the left of the center dot. It will also make the reticle easier to use on lower powers.

This reticle design is intended for newer shooters. We need something simple without the bells, whistles, and whizzbangs. I think we are getting there.

View attachment 7594459
View attachment 7594458

Yes

 

[Pvt.Donut]

I've seen this pop up a couple times. Why does everyone ask for daylight bright illumination? I've never had an instance where I felt the need for a bright red reticle during daylight. Only reason I can think of is if you're shooting at pitch black paper target. Someone explain their reasoning? Since this reticle has a floating dot I think you'll be limited to LED illumination, otherwise Fiber Optic would be the best option but seriously limits reticle design.

Agree with Eostech, move the ranging portion closer to center, it's typically used on max power and when it's on the edge of the FOV it makes it tough to measure.

Also, having had mixed reticles I personally prefer to use the same measurements throughout the reticle. Either 0.2 or 0.5 markings. My new SKMR 4 has 0.2, 0.5, and for some reason has them both mixed in the center to create a hybrid cluster fuck or hashmarks that just isn't helpful under stress. Knowing each line is a single measurement should help cut down confusion and lower the learning curve. Or maybe I have spaghetti brains.

 

[Lowlight]

I run illum in the day more than at night

depends on a host of factors not any single one, and some Reticles benefit from it more than others

but the majority of my illumination use is daylight

 

[Jack Master]

I think if you what a basic ranging function it needs to fit the target scopes.
The 1/10 mils finish 8 mils out from the optical center, now are all cheaper scopes even going to have this much FOV around 25 power?
Secondly being cheaper, image quality could be an issue the further out from the optical center you go so putting fine detail out there could just be a waste of time if there is any sort of optical aberration.

Maybe move it closer in and also simplify one side of the 1/10 mils to 1/2 and 1/4.


View attachment 7595095




The circle is neat if it can be pulled off.
Though I will say that when I first saw it my first thought was illuminating the circle because it naturally draws the eye, depending on how bright it was it could be pretty versatile at lower power.

I understand what you want and why you want it there.
Here are my questions (Honest Questions)
1. Who is actively using a milling for ranging? I mean seriously using it, not "double checking" but is the primary ranging system.
2. Since the the proliferation of laser rangefinders in the last 20 years, why wouldn't you use a rangefinder? What forced you into milling? (okay maybe a battery failure but this is once in a blue moon and you have to range at the edge of the glass.) 2 is 1 and 1 is none. Have extra batteries.
3. Do you range mil things as an active use? Or is it an exercise to be an exercise and practice a legacy skill that is no longer used?
4. For a brand new shooter (imagine your 3rd best friend's wife's sister) on thier first day of shooting, does this complicate the reticle for them?

The ease of this reticle is a massive draw for new shooters. The symmetry. The optical balance. The easy repeating patterns. Its not meant to be for the guy that has used a milling reticle for 5 or 10 years.

Again, I understand why YOU want it, but do the majority of modern day shooters use it? Not all reticles NEED to be military grade.
Its important to ask this questions and to honestly answer them.

Its like cutting off the ends of a ham to cook it in the oven. Your Great grandmother did it so your grandmother did it, so your mom did it, so you do it because its about a "better flavor". But the only reason it was done in the first place was to fit the dam ham in the tiny pans and ovens in 1910. We have big ovens and pans now and no longer need to cut the ends of the ham off.

I'm open to moving it. I just need a really good reason to move it that relates to new shooters on a basic level.

 

[Lowlight]

The vertical milling section is what they are asking for at the 3-4 mil mark

it’s centered, low, and gives you the access you want it’s in the exact spot the arrow is pointing just on the upper vertical

 

[Alpine 338]

Even for an experienced user, a simple christmas tree reticle without a cluttered view is desperately needed.

Cheers to you for your effort!

 

[Va_Gentleman]

I think a reticle that goes 3 Mils above horizontal is nice and I really like an applicable Ranging System like what is on the Zero Compromise line that allows to quickly range shoulder length. Xmas Tree is okay as long as it starts narrow (not as much need at closer ranges) but pushes out wide in the higher MILs.

Just my thoughts... I love the floating dot, or open area.. don't like floating T...

 

[danatkins]

So where do I send my scope to have this reticle put in it. I like my simple burris scr reticle but man that reticle is a dream.