I'm looking for opionions on the TMR reticle. The primary use is going to be shooting small groups at 100 yds. I looking for a scope to put on my FN PBR with a Krieger barrel in .308. I'm wanting this scope to be all purpose and the last scope I buy for this rifle. I have not yet started shooting over 200 yds, but once I get this set up and some good dies I plan on joining a 1000 yard range. I will also likely take it out varmit hunting. I haven't settle on Leupold, but I am considering it.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes TMR reticle opinions
- Thread starter Dontmiss0311
- Start date
Re: TMR reticle opinions
Which specific Leupold scope were you looking at? 3.5-10, 4.5-14? FFP? M5 turrets?
The TMR is a good reticle, but I feel that there are many others that may or may not be better.
I was never impressed much with my Leupold when I had it. Maybe times have changed now but regardless my money would be happier spent on say a Nightforce MLR reticle/ mil turrets which is probably close to the same price range +/-.
Lots of good or "better" scopes out now in the $1500 - $2000 price range.
Now sure the Leupold would probably serve you well, but I'm just saying to explore your options a little more as there are many.
Then if you still feel like you want to go with the Leupold then go for it.
Which specific Leupold scope were you looking at? 3.5-10, 4.5-14? FFP? M5 turrets?
The TMR is a good reticle, but I feel that there are many others that may or may not be better.
I was never impressed much with my Leupold when I had it. Maybe times have changed now but regardless my money would be happier spent on say a Nightforce MLR reticle/ mil turrets which is probably close to the same price range +/-.
Lots of good or "better" scopes out now in the $1500 - $2000 price range.
Now sure the Leupold would probably serve you well, but I'm just saying to explore your options a little more as there are many.
Then if you still feel like you want to go with the Leupold then go for it.
Re: TMR reticle opinions
I'm mostly curios about the open center in the TMR reticle and the sight picture when trying to shoot for group size. I definetly haven't settled on Leupold and I am strongly considering Nightforce. I want a scope with max power in the 20 range, tactical style turrets, illuminated range finding reticle(hunting and low light shooting). My price range is around the $1,500 but not much more. I've been researching a lot on here and have seen Nightforce seems to be favorite. I won't be buying this scope any time soon. My only hang up on a Nightforce is that I have never looked through one.
I'm mostly curios about the open center in the TMR reticle and the sight picture when trying to shoot for group size. I definetly haven't settled on Leupold and I am strongly considering Nightforce. I want a scope with max power in the 20 range, tactical style turrets, illuminated range finding reticle(hunting and low light shooting). My price range is around the $1,500 but not much more. I've been researching a lot on here and have seen Nightforce seems to be favorite. I won't be buying this scope any time soon. My only hang up on a Nightforce is that I have never looked through one.
Re: TMR reticle opinions
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dontmiss0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm mostly curios about the open center in the TMR reticle and the sight picture when trying to shoot for group size. I definetly haven't settled on Leupold and I am strongly considering Nightforce.</div></div>
The TMR's open center aperature sucks for precision shot placement because there is no <span style="font-style: italic">exact</span> aiming point. The best you can do is to place the aperature over what you perceive as the target center and fire. Can good groups be shot with a TMR-equipped scope? Yes, but the TMR's lack of a "+" at the center makes it less precise than a reticle with a fine intersection. Theres' just no way of achieving the exact same POA every time, especially as distance and deflection increases.
The downside to reticles with very fine intersections is that while it is best for the finest aiming point they are more easily lost in shadow and background.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dontmiss0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I want a scope with max power in the 20 range, tactical style turrets, illuminated range finding reticle(hunting and low light shooting). My price range is around the $1,500 but not much more. I've been researching a lot on here and have seen Nightforce seems to be favorite. I won't be buying this scope any time soon. My only hang up on a Nightforce is that I have never looked through one. </div></div>
A second focal plane NightForce with a fine reticle would be your best option for your <span style="font-style: italic">"primary use is going to be shooting small groups at 100 yds"</span>, but could be unforgiving in low light hunting. A second-hand F1 could work as a compromise (reticle too thick for precision but great for hunting in low light) but current F1s' are only 3-15X magnification. The F1 is currently not illuminated either. Cherry condition used F1s' sell between $1,900.00 and $2,000.00 here.
Very importantly, NightForce has matching reticle and turret adjustment options. For SFP should look at a 5.5-22X 50mm NXS with Zero Stop and High-Speed Turrets. Depending upon configuration some are around $1,700.00 but others are about $1,800.00 (new).
The glass on NightForce scopes is very good. Not close to Schmidt Bender, Premier, Zeiss, IOR, or the right USO, but very good.
Keith
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dontmiss0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm mostly curios about the open center in the TMR reticle and the sight picture when trying to shoot for group size. I definetly haven't settled on Leupold and I am strongly considering Nightforce.</div></div>
The TMR's open center aperature sucks for precision shot placement because there is no <span style="font-style: italic">exact</span> aiming point. The best you can do is to place the aperature over what you perceive as the target center and fire. Can good groups be shot with a TMR-equipped scope? Yes, but the TMR's lack of a "+" at the center makes it less precise than a reticle with a fine intersection. Theres' just no way of achieving the exact same POA every time, especially as distance and deflection increases.
The downside to reticles with very fine intersections is that while it is best for the finest aiming point they are more easily lost in shadow and background.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dontmiss0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I want a scope with max power in the 20 range, tactical style turrets, illuminated range finding reticle(hunting and low light shooting). My price range is around the $1,500 but not much more. I've been researching a lot on here and have seen Nightforce seems to be favorite. I won't be buying this scope any time soon. My only hang up on a Nightforce is that I have never looked through one. </div></div>
A second focal plane NightForce with a fine reticle would be your best option for your <span style="font-style: italic">"primary use is going to be shooting small groups at 100 yds"</span>, but could be unforgiving in low light hunting. A second-hand F1 could work as a compromise (reticle too thick for precision but great for hunting in low light) but current F1s' are only 3-15X magnification. The F1 is currently not illuminated either. Cherry condition used F1s' sell between $1,900.00 and $2,000.00 here.
Very importantly, NightForce has matching reticle and turret adjustment options. For SFP should look at a 5.5-22X 50mm NXS with Zero Stop and High-Speed Turrets. Depending upon configuration some are around $1,700.00 but others are about $1,800.00 (new).
The glass on NightForce scopes is very good. Not close to Schmidt Bender, Premier, Zeiss, IOR, or the right USO, but very good.
Keith
Re: TMR reticle opinions
I beg to differ, the new Leupold's are much better with the M5 turrets and the new glass. They land in your price range and the TMR reticle can be just as accurate with practice. You have a small gap where you can see your POA or you can have a stadia line covering it and you cant see it anyway. I think you need to get behind a few before you make a purchase. See what YOU like and run with it. Practice makes perfect.
I beg to differ, the new Leupold's are much better with the M5 turrets and the new glass. They land in your price range and the TMR reticle can be just as accurate with practice. You have a small gap where you can see your POA or you can have a stadia line covering it and you cant see it anyway. I think you need to get behind a few before you make a purchase. See what YOU like and run with it. Practice makes perfect.
Re: TMR reticle opinions
I found the TMR reticle to be outstanding for shooting small groups, especially at 100 yards. The opening in the center is tiny, and it allows you to see your exact aiming point.
I've tried many reticles (including a P4F on my current primary rifle), but the TMR is probably my favorite that I've ever used.
I found the TMR reticle to be outstanding for shooting small groups, especially at 100 yards. The opening in the center is tiny, and it allows you to see your exact aiming point.
I've tried many reticles (including a P4F on my current primary rifle), but the TMR is probably my favorite that I've ever used.
Re: TMR reticle opinions
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The F1 is currently not illuminated either. </div></div>
I'm pretty sure all NFs are illuminated.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aries64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The F1 is currently not illuminated either. </div></div>
I'm pretty sure all NFs are illuminated.
Re: TMR reticle opinions
I really like the TMR reticle. I've put nearly 2000 rounds down range behind one. The opening in the center of the reticle is 0.1 mil (my scope is FFP). So, that translates into 0.36" at 100 or close to the diameter of a bullet .308 bullet hole. Pretty small in my opinion.
Although, I will say on lower power the reticle can get lost in a cluttered back ground. I had a decent Whitetail come up behind me last November, I heard him, lowered my power down to 4, twisted around (awkward position). When I brought the rifle up I had to make a significant conscious effort to pickup my crosshair in the clutter of the brushy background. I made a good hit (he was only 40 yards)but I remember thinking to myself, that was the most trouble I've had picking up crosshairs in good light.
Hope this helps,
Craig P. in MO
I really like the TMR reticle. I've put nearly 2000 rounds down range behind one. The opening in the center of the reticle is 0.1 mil (my scope is FFP). So, that translates into 0.36" at 100 or close to the diameter of a bullet .308 bullet hole. Pretty small in my opinion.
Although, I will say on lower power the reticle can get lost in a cluttered back ground. I had a decent Whitetail come up behind me last November, I heard him, lowered my power down to 4, twisted around (awkward position). When I brought the rifle up I had to make a significant conscious effort to pickup my crosshair in the clutter of the brushy background. I made a good hit (he was only 40 yards)but I remember thinking to myself, that was the most trouble I've had picking up crosshairs in good light.
Hope this helps,
Craig P. in MO
Re: TMR reticle opinions
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Merc8541</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I beg to differ, the new Leupold's are much better with the M5 turrets and the new glass. They land in your price range and the TMR reticle can be just as accurate with practice. You have a small gap where you can see your POA or you can have a stadia line covering it and you cant see it anyway. I think you need to get behind a few before you make a purchase. See what YOU like and run with it. Practice makes perfect. </div></div>
While the glass may be better, the reticle still sucks for precision. Can you "quarter" a .308 hole and then stack more .308s' on top of the original hole using a TMR with an open center? No, because you don't have the exact POA that you have with a reticle with a very fine intersection to aim with. The rifle, ammo, environmental conditions, and shooter ability should be the limiting factors to accurate bullet placement, not the reticle and scope.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Merc8541</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I beg to differ, the new Leupold's are much better with the M5 turrets and the new glass. They land in your price range and the TMR reticle can be just as accurate with practice. You have a small gap where you can see your POA or you can have a stadia line covering it and you cant see it anyway. I think you need to get behind a few before you make a purchase. See what YOU like and run with it. Practice makes perfect. </div></div>
While the glass may be better, the reticle still sucks for precision. Can you "quarter" a .308 hole and then stack more .308s' on top of the original hole using a TMR with an open center? No, because you don't have the exact POA that you have with a reticle with a very fine intersection to aim with. The rifle, ammo, environmental conditions, and shooter ability should be the limiting factors to accurate bullet placement, not the reticle and scope.
Re: TMR reticle opinions
Respectable groups are certainly possible with the TMR, especially if the target's size is purposely matched to the opening in the reticle, thus reducing the dependency of the eye finding the exact center.
But as much as my eyes like reticles such as the TMR and IOR's MP-8, my groups tend to be a little smaller when using reticles with a fine intersection.
Respectable groups are certainly possible with the TMR, especially if the target's size is purposely matched to the opening in the reticle, thus reducing the dependency of the eye finding the exact center.
But as much as my eyes like reticles such as the TMR and IOR's MP-8, my groups tend to be a little smaller when using reticles with a fine intersection.
Re: TMR reticle opinions
Saying a reticle "sucks for precision" is opinion and not fact, so take it as such.
Truth be told, I've never worried about quartering a .308 hole either (probably couldn't if I tried), and probably most shooters don't and can't.
I find the TMR to be my favorite reticle to date, but I've only ever used Mil-dot and the new SS reticle (which is kind of thick).
I have one of the new Leupold's with the big M5 Locking turret and it is a fantastic scope. Will definitely buy another one when funds allow.
Saying a reticle "sucks for precision" is opinion and not fact, so take it as such.
Truth be told, I've never worried about quartering a .308 hole either (probably couldn't if I tried), and probably most shooters don't and can't.
I find the TMR to be my favorite reticle to date, but I've only ever used Mil-dot and the new SS reticle (which is kind of thick).
I have one of the new Leupold's with the big M5 Locking turret and it is a fantastic scope. Will definitely buy another one when funds allow.
Re: TMR reticle opinions
I love the TMR and the open center has very little impact on your ability to place shots from a practical standpoint. If all you do is sit on a bench all day and shoot for itty bitty groups, buy a 36 power scope and enter some bench rest comps.
I can typically hold 1/3 MOA at 100yds from a comfortable position on bipods. I've never had a hard time shooting that with the TMR open center. There are certainly other options out there and better scopes, but the TMR is a good option as well. Really comes down to personal preference and ability.
I love the TMR and the open center has very little impact on your ability to place shots from a practical standpoint. If all you do is sit on a bench all day and shoot for itty bitty groups, buy a 36 power scope and enter some bench rest comps.
I can typically hold 1/3 MOA at 100yds from a comfortable position on bipods. I've never had a hard time shooting that with the TMR open center. There are certainly other options out there and better scopes, but the TMR is a good option as well. Really comes down to personal preference and ability.
Re: TMR reticle opinions
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 18Echo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Saying a reticle "sucks for precision" is opinion and not fact, so take it as such.</div></div>
No dude. It is a <span style="font-weight: bold">fact</span> that that the current TMR has an open center. It is also a <span style="font-weight: bold">fact</span> that the open center "aperature" does not allow a POA as precise as a fine intersection. Whether the target is a big or small, circle or square, a fine intersection allows <span style="font-style: italic">precise</span> POA. You don't have that with the TMR's aperature. The best a shooter can do is to hold the TMR's aperature over what he or she perceives as the center of the target. While a shooter may be very comfortable with this method, he or she is still approximating the center, and the farther away the target is the more difficult this becomes.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 18Echo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Truth be told, I've never worried about quartering a .308 hole either (probably couldn't if I tried)</div></div>
Its' impossible for anyone to quarter a target with a reticle with an open center such as the TMR with an open center so theres' no point in trying.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 18Echo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...and probably most shooters don't and can't.</div></div>
Really, what is the basis of your assumption here? Your <span style="font-style: italic">assumption</span> IS an <span style="font-style: italic">opinion</span>.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 18Echo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I find the TMR to be my favorite reticle to date, but I've only ever used Mil-dot and the new SS reticle (which is kind of thick).</div></div>
I like the TMR except for the open center, so I see it as useful for shooting larger targets (MOA+ size). The line widths of standard Mildot reticles in most scopes tend to be on the thick side for precision shooting, but pin-point accuracy wasn't what the Mildot was designed for to begin with. It was designed for range estimation and shooting people.
Your opinion of reticles with intersections might change if you were exposed to a greater variety of reticle designs or "the right reticle", because subtensions can make all the difference in the world. My favorite scope has been the Gen 2 XR-equipped PMII 5-25X for several years now, and a certain precision rifle builder I know just acquired his own after playing with the PMII 5-25X Gen 2 XR on my Tac Ops X-Ray 51.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 18Echo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have one of the new Leupold's with the big M5 Locking turret and it is a fantastic scope. Will definitely buy another one when funds allow. </div></div>
I played with the Mark 4 6.5-20X 50s' with the M5 LTs' at SHOT in January. Leupold is finally has a nice matched reticle and turret system. I wish them well and hope to see them continue to introduce more FFP scopes. For now I still prefer my PMIIs'.
Keith
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 18Echo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Saying a reticle "sucks for precision" is opinion and not fact, so take it as such.</div></div>
No dude. It is a <span style="font-weight: bold">fact</span> that that the current TMR has an open center. It is also a <span style="font-weight: bold">fact</span> that the open center "aperature" does not allow a POA as precise as a fine intersection. Whether the target is a big or small, circle or square, a fine intersection allows <span style="font-style: italic">precise</span> POA. You don't have that with the TMR's aperature. The best a shooter can do is to hold the TMR's aperature over what he or she perceives as the center of the target. While a shooter may be very comfortable with this method, he or she is still approximating the center, and the farther away the target is the more difficult this becomes.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 18Echo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Truth be told, I've never worried about quartering a .308 hole either (probably couldn't if I tried)</div></div>
Its' impossible for anyone to quarter a target with a reticle with an open center such as the TMR with an open center so theres' no point in trying.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 18Echo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...and probably most shooters don't and can't.</div></div>
Really, what is the basis of your assumption here? Your <span style="font-style: italic">assumption</span> IS an <span style="font-style: italic">opinion</span>.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 18Echo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I find the TMR to be my favorite reticle to date, but I've only ever used Mil-dot and the new SS reticle (which is kind of thick).</div></div>
I like the TMR except for the open center, so I see it as useful for shooting larger targets (MOA+ size). The line widths of standard Mildot reticles in most scopes tend to be on the thick side for precision shooting, but pin-point accuracy wasn't what the Mildot was designed for to begin with. It was designed for range estimation and shooting people.
Your opinion of reticles with intersections might change if you were exposed to a greater variety of reticle designs or "the right reticle", because subtensions can make all the difference in the world. My favorite scope has been the Gen 2 XR-equipped PMII 5-25X for several years now, and a certain precision rifle builder I know just acquired his own after playing with the PMII 5-25X Gen 2 XR on my Tac Ops X-Ray 51.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 18Echo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have one of the new Leupold's with the big M5 Locking turret and it is a fantastic scope. Will definitely buy another one when funds allow. </div></div>
I played with the Mark 4 6.5-20X 50s' with the M5 LTs' at SHOT in January. Leupold is finally has a nice matched reticle and turret system. I wish them well and hope to see them continue to introduce more FFP scopes. For now I still prefer my PMIIs'.
Keith
Re: TMR reticle opinions
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: craigp40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love the TMR and the open center has very little impact on your ability to place shots from a practical standpoint.</div></div>
In the original post that started this thread, <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Dontmis0311</span></span> was looking for opinions on the TMR reticle, and stated that <span style="font-style: italic">"The primary use is going to be shooting small groups at 100 yds."</span> That might not be "practical shooting", but that was <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Dontmis0311</span></span>'s stated main use and what prompted my <span style="font-style: italic">"The TMR's open center aperature sucks for precision shot placement because there is no exact aiming point"</span> statement.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: craigp40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If all you do is sit on a bench all day and shoot for itty bitty groups, buy a 36 power scope and enter some bench rest comps.</div></div>
I don't shoot from the bench or use a rest, nor do I have any interest in Bench Rest shooting or competition. I just appreciate the precision and accuracy achievable from a tactical rifle on a bipod. I shoot mainly prone using a bipod and sometimes I use a Red Tac Rear Bag. I sometimes shoot paper, but when shooting steel I shoot for the center of the ear, nose/snout, or tail of steel silhouettes at the 500 and 600 yard lines, as those are the most distant steel targets at my local range. There are other inanimate objects much further out.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: craigp40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can typically hold 1/3 MOA at 100yds from a comfortable position on bipods. I've never had a hard time shooting that with the TMR open center.</div></div>
I'm not limiting the range to 100 yards - the only time I shoot at 100 yards is when I'm testing ammo and/or checking zero. What about longer distances such as 600, 700, 800, and beyond? The more distant the targets are the greater the amount of aiming deflection from center you're going to have. And thats' before the trigger is even pulled and the bullet is subjected to wind and gravity.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: craigp40</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> There are certainly other options out there and better scopes, but the TMR is a good option as well. Really comes down to personal preference and ability. </div></div>
I never said the TMR is a poor reticle or that it wasn't good for certain applications. I actually like it, but the open center is a weak link for precision aiming. Having and shooting a rifle with <span style="font-style: italic">extreme</span> pin-point accuracy I demand a scope and reticle that allow me to see where I'm aiming as best as conditions allow. Then the rest is up to me, the wind, and physics.
Keith
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: craigp40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love the TMR and the open center has very little impact on your ability to place shots from a practical standpoint.</div></div>
In the original post that started this thread, <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Dontmis0311</span></span> was looking for opinions on the TMR reticle, and stated that <span style="font-style: italic">"The primary use is going to be shooting small groups at 100 yds."</span> That might not be "practical shooting", but that was <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">Dontmis0311</span></span>'s stated main use and what prompted my <span style="font-style: italic">"The TMR's open center aperature sucks for precision shot placement because there is no exact aiming point"</span> statement.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: craigp40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If all you do is sit on a bench all day and shoot for itty bitty groups, buy a 36 power scope and enter some bench rest comps.</div></div>
I don't shoot from the bench or use a rest, nor do I have any interest in Bench Rest shooting or competition. I just appreciate the precision and accuracy achievable from a tactical rifle on a bipod. I shoot mainly prone using a bipod and sometimes I use a Red Tac Rear Bag. I sometimes shoot paper, but when shooting steel I shoot for the center of the ear, nose/snout, or tail of steel silhouettes at the 500 and 600 yard lines, as those are the most distant steel targets at my local range. There are other inanimate objects much further out.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: craigp40</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can typically hold 1/3 MOA at 100yds from a comfortable position on bipods. I've never had a hard time shooting that with the TMR open center.</div></div>
I'm not limiting the range to 100 yards - the only time I shoot at 100 yards is when I'm testing ammo and/or checking zero. What about longer distances such as 600, 700, 800, and beyond? The more distant the targets are the greater the amount of aiming deflection from center you're going to have. And thats' before the trigger is even pulled and the bullet is subjected to wind and gravity.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: craigp40</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> There are certainly other options out there and better scopes, but the TMR is a good option as well. Really comes down to personal preference and ability. </div></div>
I never said the TMR is a poor reticle or that it wasn't good for certain applications. I actually like it, but the open center is a weak link for precision aiming. Having and shooting a rifle with <span style="font-style: italic">extreme</span> pin-point accuracy I demand a scope and reticle that allow me to see where I'm aiming as best as conditions allow. Then the rest is up to me, the wind, and physics.
Keith
Re: TMR reticle opinions
It's ok, but I'd rather have an MLR I think. When I first started to use the TMR, I found myself shifting focus real quick from the reticle to the target, then back to the reticle. Kinda had to 'imagine' a crosshair in there.
It isn't really a big deal, you can train yourself to do anything...you just gotta go shoot through one and see how you like it before dropping considerable cash on something you might not like...
I know couple guys that shoot ragged holes all day with the M110 (TMR equipped), that's why I say it's prolly more about how you deal with it in your head and apply the fundamentals.
As a GP reticle, I would take the NF MLR over any others, save the uber-savvy S&B MSR reticle.
It's ok, but I'd rather have an MLR I think. When I first started to use the TMR, I found myself shifting focus real quick from the reticle to the target, then back to the reticle. Kinda had to 'imagine' a crosshair in there.
It isn't really a big deal, you can train yourself to do anything...you just gotta go shoot through one and see how you like it before dropping considerable cash on something you might not like...
I know couple guys that shoot ragged holes all day with the M110 (TMR equipped), that's why I say it's prolly more about how you deal with it in your head and apply the fundamentals.
As a GP reticle, I would take the NF MLR over any others, save the uber-savvy S&B MSR reticle.
Re: TMR reticle opinions
The TMR are very nice I feel I can be very effective with it. The Leupold Mark4 M5 are great scopes and the new Locking turret one is even nicer.
<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CuygTsi7Lpo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The TMR are very nice I feel I can be very effective with it. The Leupold Mark4 M5 are great scopes and the new Locking turret one is even nicer.
<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CuygTsi7Lpo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Re: TMR reticle opinions
I have a 3.5-10x40 M3 with TMR reticle and is a SFP. I have this on my 700 SPS-T. My wife has a 700 VTR with same scope but MD reticle. I've had 2 Mark 2 3-9x40 with MD, and a MK4 3-9x36 with MD. I prefer the TMR Reticle over a MD because the tick marks allow for a little easier milling of targets IMO. The half ticks make for an easier milling as you don't have to guess (at least for a half mil).
The open center for me is no problem. Two weeks ago for grins and giggles I shot a shaving cream can at 340. The opening allowed me to put the hole on the can and pull the trigger.
I'm building a MEGA MA-Ten and am looking at getting either the 3.5-10 or the 4.5-14 with M3 Turrets, TMR Reticle and most likely FFP. I love the TMR personally. It is mil based, has 1/2 mil ticks, and the opening is nice.
And honestly if you buy one and don't like it you could always sell or trade it down the road.
I have a 3.5-10x40 M3 with TMR reticle and is a SFP. I have this on my 700 SPS-T. My wife has a 700 VTR with same scope but MD reticle. I've had 2 Mark 2 3-9x40 with MD, and a MK4 3-9x36 with MD. I prefer the TMR Reticle over a MD because the tick marks allow for a little easier milling of targets IMO. The half ticks make for an easier milling as you don't have to guess (at least for a half mil).
The open center for me is no problem. Two weeks ago for grins and giggles I shot a shaving cream can at 340. The opening allowed me to put the hole on the can and pull the trigger.
I'm building a MEGA MA-Ten and am looking at getting either the 3.5-10 or the 4.5-14 with M3 Turrets, TMR Reticle and most likely FFP. I love the TMR personally. It is mil based, has 1/2 mil ticks, and the opening is nice.
And honestly if you buy one and don't like it you could always sell or trade it down the road.
Re: TMR reticle opinions
"I just appreciate the precision and accuracy achievable from a tactical rifle on a bipod. I shoot mainly prone using a bipod......"
That pretty much sums up what this rifle is for. I will shoot it in some informal benchrest matches, but the rifle is mostly for my own appreciation. I said I will mostly be shooting it at 100yds because unfortunately that is what I am limited to now. I have one place I can shoot out to 200yds. After I get this rifle running I will likely join a 1,000 yard rage in my area. My budget is kind of limited, so I was looking for a good all purpose scope.
I guess I will just have to find someone in my area that has a Leupold with the TMR and look through it at a range. I've handled one but only indoors. I looked at several other reticles, and know I defintely do not want a fine cross hair target scope, but I didn't want a retictle that is too thick. Again, I haven't settled on Leupold...I just found the open center of the TMR an interesting concept.
Thanks guys.
"I just appreciate the precision and accuracy achievable from a tactical rifle on a bipod. I shoot mainly prone using a bipod......"
That pretty much sums up what this rifle is for. I will shoot it in some informal benchrest matches, but the rifle is mostly for my own appreciation. I said I will mostly be shooting it at 100yds because unfortunately that is what I am limited to now. I have one place I can shoot out to 200yds. After I get this rifle running I will likely join a 1,000 yard rage in my area. My budget is kind of limited, so I was looking for a good all purpose scope.
I guess I will just have to find someone in my area that has a Leupold with the TMR and look through it at a range. I've handled one but only indoors. I looked at several other reticles, and know I defintely do not want a fine cross hair target scope, but I didn't want a retictle that is too thick. Again, I haven't settled on Leupold...I just found the open center of the TMR an interesting concept.
Thanks guys.
Re: TMR reticle opinions
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dontmiss0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm looking for opionions on the TMR reticle. The primary use is going to be shooting small groups at 100 yds. </div></div>
FWIW
Just shot a .3" 5 shot group today while using the 3.5-10x40 tmr leupold on a 308 at 100y. Had no probelms seeing my 1/2" dot behind the reticle...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dontmiss0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm looking for opionions on the TMR reticle. The primary use is going to be shooting small groups at 100 yds. </div></div>
FWIW
Just shot a .3" 5 shot group today while using the 3.5-10x40 tmr leupold on a 308 at 100y. Had no probelms seeing my 1/2" dot behind the reticle...
Re: TMR reticle opinions
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dontmiss0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm looking for opionions on the TMR reticle. The primary use is going to be shooting small groups at 100 yds. I looking for a scope to put on my FN PBR with a Krieger barrel in .308. I'm wanting this scope to be all purpose and the last scope I buy for this rifle. I have not yet started shooting over 200 yds, but once I get this set up and some good dies I plan on joining a 1000 yard range. I will also likely take it out varmit hunting. I haven't settle on Leupold, but I am considering it.</div></div>
this started life as a pbr xp
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dontmiss0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm looking for opionions on the TMR reticle. The primary use is going to be shooting small groups at 100 yds. I looking for a scope to put on my FN PBR with a Krieger barrel in .308. I'm wanting this scope to be all purpose and the last scope I buy for this rifle. I have not yet started shooting over 200 yds, but once I get this set up and some good dies I plan on joining a 1000 yard range. I will also likely take it out varmit hunting. I haven't settle on Leupold, but I am considering it.</div></div>
this started life as a pbr xp
Re: TMR reticle opinions
I shoot the TRM reticle, on a 6.5X25X50 Mark4. I like it.
I like the fact that it has hash marks, with the 1/2 mil. marks 2! It also has the 1/4 Mil. hash marks, for better ranging.
But, I went to Nightforce...So, now I use the MLR reticle.
The MLR is the almost the same. but, the center is closed. and it does not have the 1/4 hash at the end of all 4 corners. It only has them at the top, and right.
So, if you like the TRM, but want a better scope....GO Nightforce with MLR!
LOBO 151
I shoot the TRM reticle, on a 6.5X25X50 Mark4. I like it.
I like the fact that it has hash marks, with the 1/2 mil. marks 2! It also has the 1/4 Mil. hash marks, for better ranging.
But, I went to Nightforce...So, now I use the MLR reticle.
The MLR is the almost the same. but, the center is closed. and it does not have the 1/4 hash at the end of all 4 corners. It only has them at the top, and right.
So, if you like the TRM, but want a better scope....GO Nightforce with MLR!
LOBO 151
1
1kHIT
Guest
Re: TMR reticle opinions
I've never tried to 'quarter a .308 hole' at 100 yards. I shoot 1/2 MOA with a Leupold 8.5-25x50mm scope on my TRG-22. Yes, it's different than shooting a target dot, or a fine cross-hair on other BR style rifles. That being said, the OP did clearly state he wanted a scope for shooting tiny groups at 100 yards. The TMR reticle can do that, but as with anything, it's more about the shooter than the rifle/equipment. As such, if I was ONLY going for small groups at 100 yards, I'd look at a different reticle, IMO. Hope this helps.
I've never tried to 'quarter a .308 hole' at 100 yards. I shoot 1/2 MOA with a Leupold 8.5-25x50mm scope on my TRG-22. Yes, it's different than shooting a target dot, or a fine cross-hair on other BR style rifles. That being said, the OP did clearly state he wanted a scope for shooting tiny groups at 100 yards. The TMR reticle can do that, but as with anything, it's more about the shooter than the rifle/equipment. As such, if I was ONLY going for small groups at 100 yards, I'd look at a different reticle, IMO. Hope this helps.
Similar threads
