Rifle Scopes TReMoR3 Reticle is voodoo and Todd Hodnett is a witch doctor. Discuss.

As for the shooting technique, DA TTP, and doctrine, I 100% agree. And this is one of the reasons I supported Blackwater getting into so much shit with the Department of State over not clearing foreign nationals (even western Europeans) when conducting training classes. Blackwater put $$$ ahead of security. I don't even like the idea of certain foreign nationals participating in local matches (some may call me xenophobic but I don't give a shit). However, Jacob is not teaching anyone to shoot in that video. His shooting position videos are more useful to the other side. If anyone thinks that there is a shortage of Imams with the knowledge of 13th century Islamic math who already know all this without that video is fooling themselves. The knowledge is thin air without technique. I have known more than a few middle easterners who can do that math much faster in their head than it can be punched into a calculator. But their ability to apply it physically is zero. This manifested in the fact that we don't see many hadjis (et al) at Camp Perry, I don't remember any or have seen any in a single training camp of any kind, and anything manufactured by hadjis tends to look stone aged.

My point is that the notion of these concepts as something rare or scared is pure ignorance on the part of people for whom this is a novel topic. Which is exactly how some people came to think of the Tremor 3 as voodoo and T.H. as a with doctor.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bender
As if we were not shooting through holes since WWI ... these guys know more about shooting though holes in burnt out building than we do, because they have more burnt out buildings than we do.

The point is not to go out and teach it, the point is someone who never served, who tried to make things he did seem like magic was telling people it was top secret. He uses a really bad formula to teach this and his contention is that he invented 4... we all know 2+2 =4 and he claims that information as his own. Meanwhile we have 1+3, 4=0, 5-1 all equally 4 ...

Matches have loophole stages in them all the time, we did one with not only a loophole but a defilade... Core does a great stage that is a defilade shot with the target behind the berm, did a video of that too ... more top secret stuff ?

This is not about teaching "Math", Ballistics., or loophole shots too our enemies, total BS... You can buy ColdBore from Patagonia Ballistics (Argentina) for $100 and it has a Line of Sight Calculator, FFS from Lex Talus has a Loophole calculator ... and honestly getting behind a hole and shooting through it not magic, which any insurgent video they shoot through shit constantly.

Again, WWI doctrine ...

The drama around it is manufactured by 1 GUY who sold that drama to the military to protect his turf as it was a main part of his training to them. If your mechanical offset is 2" and you shoot out of a 4" hole you just threw away all the math.

Completely stupid to think we are teaching something to our enemies as they already know this.

The comments attacking me on FB regarding my initial posts here are comical too ...
 
WWI German Snipers

0c2555fbf4cebcbdf197aa8d543b8baf.jpg

Look at this technique and ask yourself where have you seen this position before

98-9.jpg

I know when I went to Sniper School we watched WW 2 German Sniper Training Films, which are now on YouTube

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VEjwxXD0q_A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So please spare us our enemies don't know how to shoot through a hole line.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Milf Dots
Thread is already derailed so might as well carry on. You mentioned those Magpul videos and I thought of this: One of the best spoofs out there. 1:16 in specifically made me laugh many years ago - and today as well.



hahahaha, yeah that's an oldie but goodie. I laughed so fucking hard the first time he put that out when he fell in the hole. "HOLE!!" LOL
 
Just dial to the nearest .5 mil or full mil and hold the rest. Then you can still use the wind dots extremely precisely. So if its 1.7 mils to hit target, dial .2 and hold 1.5.

This won't work. The wind dots are only accurate at the elevation they correspond to. Dialing the elevation (or slightly less) then holding wind at a wind dot closer to the horizontal stadia will give you less wind correction than you need to hit the target at its actual distance/elevation. The dots are arranged like a Christmas tree reticle.
 
WWI German Snipers



Look at this technique and ask yourself where have you seen this position before



I know when I went to Sniper School we watched WW 2 German Sniper Training Films, which are now on YouTube

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VEjwxXD0q_A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So please spare us our enemies don't know how to shoot through a hole line.

I wasn't insinuating that they don't, many certainly do. The point was that there's no reason to help someone get better at it. If that means leaving it off of a training DVD so be it.

That isn't to say the originator should falsely claim something of classified or act too cool for school. I have no affinity to TH or his reticle but I won't fault him for not teaching loopholes.
 
I wasn't insinuating that they don't, many certainly do. The point was that there's no reason to help someone get better at it. If that means leaving it off of a training DVD so be it.

That isn't to say the originator should falsely claim something of classified or act too cool for school. I have no affinity to TH or his reticle but I won't fault him for not teaching loopholes.

So it should remain super snipery secret squirrel stuff?

We must prevent the general public from aquiring this technology that requires basic math... smfh:rolleyes:
 
The problem is his reasoning, nobody is putting "Loophole" shooting a curriculum unless it is a military class, but he specifically made it sound like a classified information (sold it as such) and the fact is, in a lot of matches you will find a "Loophole" type stage because it's easy to set up, trips a lot of shooters up, and is a fun stage. Most use cardboard "walls" with loopholes in them so you can see who misses the holes. And a lot of people miss the hole because they are not taught Mechanical offset.... yet go to any AR15 class and you are taught Mechanical Offset because we all know if you hold the nose you hit the chin... sight over bore height. So why is it okay to teach this stuff to a AR15 shooter but not a precision rifle one? If a guy asks in a class you can easily answer it without giving away secrets. And let's be realistic here, if you have a guy in the class located in TX do you think he heading to Iraq to teach it ? More BS.

Promoting Voodoo is the problem and not correcting the perception of the same. There is No Voodoo when it comes to shooting. None of us in 2017 invented this shit, we may have refined it, but we did not invent it.

Ya, no reason to include it in a DVD but to go on TV and call it Top Secret is BS... if I showed you "HIS" formula for calculating it, you would be like "WTF" it's stupid ...
3-maths-formula-on-chalkboard-setsiri-silapasuwanchai.jpg

Answer, - Hold the Reticle at the Top of the Hole

 
So it should remain super snipery secret squirrel stuff?

We must prevent the general public from aquiring this technology that requires basic math... smfh:rolleyes:

I don't know if it's a low post count or what, but nothing I'm suggesting here seems that controversial. as for hodnett and his reticle, I don't care. The loophole discussion is apparently linked to his personality and his business, I can't help that.

Its my personal opinion that loopholes, despite being an old concept, is better left to mil and law enforcement. I think the same about urban hide sites and many other ttps.
 
I don't know if it's a low post count or what, but nothing I'm suggesting here seems that controversial. as for hodnett and his reticle, I don't care. The loophole discussion is apparently linked to his personality and his business, I can't help that.

Its my personal opinion that loopholes, despite being an old concept, is better left to mil and law enforcement. I think the same about urban hide sites and many other ttps.

The whole point lowlight is making is:
1. Shooting loopholes is NOT proprietary. Anyone can do it. On that note,
2. How does someone defend their home from an outside intruder when LE is an hour away, and mil is an act of Congress away.

There is no need what so ever to restrict teaching this to people.
Added: What you are saying is highly controversial. Dumbing down the shooting community is not acceptable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Milf Dots
It's how things are marketed is LowLight's point.

Here is an example of from a company that hasn't suckled on the tit of creative shock marketing:

Straight from the Lex Talus website (Blaine Fields - Field Firing Solutions).

"As a matter of corporate philosophy, we do not believe in two tier product development, i.e., a military, police or other "official" product and a second, less capable, product for "civilian" use. Whatever is available for individual use by a citizen in the military should be available to all citizens as far as we are concerned. This, in our opinion, is fundamental to any concept of limited government that should form the basis of free republics in general, but is certainly applicable to the American republic and culture in particular. Having said that, you will notice that there is a product listed on the Ashbury International website (Ashbury is the U.S. distributor for certain specific versions of the software), the Delta Vm, that is described as a "militarized" version of the software. The software is identical to the Delta V in terms of its tools, features and capabilities. The sole differences are that the Delta Vm has provision for rangefinder interfaces to equipment that is not available commercially and would be of little use to the non-military user. Second, the software comes with pre-configured bullet and rifle profiles that reflect the current equipment being used by the U.S. military. (These files are easily reproduced by the non-military user since none of the information contained in the profiles is restricted; it is all public information.)


Outside of the pure ingenuity of his software and stellar customer service for virtually a 1-man team, this statement highlighted above was the biggest thing that won over my strong support many years ago.

As far as information spreading, it's out there regardless. I wonder where they learned how to construct all of those IED's? We sure don't teach that in any class that is available to civilians but they appear to be somewhat proficient at that. If a group needs information, it will receive information. Especially when money and promises are attached.
 
The whole point lowlight is making is:
1. Shooting loopholes is NOT proprietary. Anyone can do it. On that note,
2. How does someone defend their home from an outside intruder when LE is an hour away, and mil is an act of Congress away.

There is no need what so ever to restrict teaching this to people.
Added: What you are saying is highly controversial. Dumbing down the shooting community is not acceptable.

This really isn't the end of the world either way, but it's on the edge of being a tactic more than a marksmanship drill. The closer something gets to a ttp, the more reasonable it is to restrict access to that information even if it's not classified but rather only sensitive.

red blooded Americans can benefit from a lot of firearms training. Unfortunately, these days our enemies use our openness and digital media production on firearms training against us. It's happened, and their access to that info isn't helping the war fighters.

No one would expect seal platoons or odas to publish their team sop books, because even if a technique is out there, confirming who is using it and how to do it matters a lot to the effectiveness and survivability of those groups.

Part of this classification controversy is likely created by the military itself. Realize that if big army treated it as totally unclassified, not fouo, some Joe would have been teaching it to Iraqis or afghanis without a second thought and likely expending the rounds actually training on it.
 
I don't know if it's a low post count or what, but nothing I'm suggesting here seems that controversial. as for hodnett and his reticle, I don't care. The loophole discussion is apparently linked to his personality and his business, I can't help that.

Its my personal opinion that loopholes, despite being an old concept, is better left to mil and law enforcement. I think the same about urban hide sites and many other ttps.

Your post count means nothing. Your opinion is controversial, and in MY opinion, something a complete FUDD would say. Why should LE or .MIL be the only ones taught this? Like I said before, simple math is all that's required to figure out mechanical offset. So I guess by your statement, we civilians should remain stupid, and incapable of doing simple math.
 
This really isn't the end of the world either way, but it's on the edge of being a tactic more than a marksmanship drill. The closer something gets to a ttp, the more reasonable it is to restrict access to that information even if it's not classified but rather only sensitive.

red blooded Americans can benefit from a lot of firearms training. Unfortunately, these days our enemies use our openness and digital media production on firearms training against us. It's happened, and their access to that info isn't helping the war fighters.

No one would expect seal platoons or odas to publish their team sop books, because even if a technique is out there, confirming who is using it and how to do it matters a lot to the effectiveness and survivability of those groups.

Part of this classification controversy is likely created by the military itself. Realize that if big army treated it as totally unclassified, not fouo, some Joe would have been teaching it to Iraqis or afghanis without a second thought and likely expending the rounds actually training on it.

I'll go ahead and assume you aren't a troll. But, your idea that we firearms enthusiasts, and professionals alike, need to be steered away or restricted completely, goes against the very principles of gun ownership in this country.

FWIW, I'm a former Special Operations veteran. One of 100's of thousands. What if some foreign entity/individual decides to snuff me out, am I not supposed to use my knowledge? I think I'm okay doing what I was trained to do. And, if I teach friends and relatives this information, I can. There is nothing opsec about any of it.
 
There is more to be a sniper that dropping the hammer on someone through a loophole. You might get away with that once or twice but a lot more work is involved.

Love how this thread got hijacked. I will state my point again - Xmas Tree reticles are a fad, an evolutionary red herring, great to sell the latest thing to Departments and civilians with more money than sense. Hesketh-Pritchard would be having a quiet chuckle right about now.
 
As one of the shit stirrers in this thread, I will say that the instructor at that A1st class I attended was a legit, no shit, btdt, career snake eater (ret) and when he said they don't teach it outside of certain courses, he wasn't being an asshole about it. He worked for TH, and that was policy.

Looking back, this was 5 years ago or so. The Horus kestrel had just been released at that point, the AB wasn't made yet, and ballistic apps on cell phones wasn't near what it is now. FFS was king, and let's be honest about how many average shooters had access to the insane amount of shit we take for granted now.

I've been to a lot of bomb schools, and depending on who was conducting the training determined how much they were willing to teach. Hell, when I was teaching explosives there was shit I wasn't going to answer directly in an open classroom setting. The USMC EOD learned that lesson in Iraq when they were tasked with teaching the Iraqi EOD course and all of a sudden started seeing MUCH better bombs in their AO. There is zero voodoo in a basic explosive chain, but I have several close friends who are alive because some goat fucker screwed up shit that Alfred Nobel made public a long time ago.

What i I took from Jacob's video was: there ain't no magic to it, it's not particularly useful outside of very specific circumstances, but we constantly get asked about how to do it, so here ya go: mysticism dispelled


I will say that I'm amazed we made it 4 pages without Mark LaRue getting dragged up. Did I mention they gave away LaRue merch at the A1s course? :eek: :rolleyes: :cool:
 
As one of the shit stirrers in this thread, I will say that the instructor at that A1st class I attended was a legit, no shit, btdt, career snake eater (ret) and when he said they don't teach it outside of certain courses, he wasn't being an asshole about it. He worked for TH, and that was policy.

Looking back, this was 5 years ago or so. The Horus kestrel had just been released at that point, the AB wasn't made yet, and ballistic apps on cell phones wasn't near what it is now. FFS was king, and let's be honest about how many average shooters had access to the insane amount of shit we take for granted now.

I've been to a lot of bomb schools, and depending on who was conducting the training determined how much they were willing to teach. Hell, when I was teaching explosives there was shit I wasn't going to answer directly in an open classroom setting. The USMC EOD learned that lesson in Iraq when they were tasked with teaching the Iraqi EOD course and all of a sudden started seeing MUCH better bombs in their AO. There is zero voodoo in a basic explosive chain, but I have several close friends who are alive because some goat fucker screwed up shit that Alfred Nobel made public a long time ago.

What i I took from Jacob's video was: there ain't no magic to it, it's not particularly useful outside of very specific circumstances, but we constantly get asked about how to do it, so here ya go: mysticism dispelled


I will say that I'm amazed we made it 4 pages without Mark LaRue getting dragged up. Did I mention they gave away LaRue merch at the A1s course? :eek: :rolleyes: :cool:

Larue makes good products, I just don't like them crammed down my throat with a side dish of Horus for 2 hours during. Precision rifle DVD. Lol.

I haven't shot many matches and only shot one with a loophole so far but it was literally hilarious watching some of these good ol boys trying to figure it out. Half the group went up and shot the loophole and the other half sat back with there calculators scratching their head trying to come up with a formula. Then they were flabbergasted when they asked how those of us who made the shot did it. I watched 2 guys literally go to multiple people and ask and everyone that made the shot basically told them the same thing yet they didn't want to believe it was that easy.

As far as Xmas tree reticles, they have their place and serve a purpose but they're not the end all be all. You can do the same thing with any Mil based reticle. I've never been a fan of wind dots and wouldn't even think twice about not using them. I run the EBR-2C on my Gen 2 Razor and it's one of my favorite reticles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Larue makes good products, I just don't like them crammed down my throat with a side dish of Horus for 2 hours during. Precision rifle DVD. Lol.

I haven't shot many matches and only shot one with a loophole so far but it was literally hilarious watching some of these good ol boys trying to figure it out. Half the group went up and shot the loophole and the other half sat back with there calculators scratching their head trying to come up with a formula. Then they were flabbergasted when they asked how those of us who made the shot did it. I watched 2 guys literally go to multiple people and ask and everyone that made the shot basically told them the same thing yet they didn't want to believe it was that easy.

As far as Xmas tree reticles, they have their place and serve a purpose but they're not the end all be all. You can do the same thing with any Mil based reticle. I've never been a fan of wind dots and wouldn't even think twice about not using them. I run the EBR-2C on my Gen 2 Razor and it's one of my favorite reticles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bogeybrown Probably Pete. If it was, Pete's a good guy. I have a membership at the same private facility where they hold classes and we do briefly chat occasionally if I get there early enough before his students do.

Larue - yeah, I was going to stay away from that one initially. His local tactic is to give ranges his electronic popper targets in exchange for exclusive usage of a range occasionally. Him and TH do a lot of filming out there together.

The first time a range has an event or something scheduled that interferes with his plans he comes and pulls his targets - no working with the range owner or anything like that, just pulls them. Basically like a full-grown man-baby. I can understand the business relationship of course and his targets are nice, but I've asked multiple range owners here to just buy them outright and tell Mark to schedule his shit like everyone else instead of letting him dangle them like a $2200 carrot.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bender
This thread has been very interesting for me, both from the original conversation provoking question as well as some insight into some of the individuals that we choose or don't choose to give our hard earned money. I appreciate the "behind the scenes" look at their character, it's eye opening.

I will preface my next statements by saying that I do not have a military background and I have never attended any formal training, I only know what I have read and what I have observed by shooting as a hobby.

For me, simple as it sounds, what was drawing me to the grid type reticles originally was that it seemed like a way to take any errors in mechanical tracking out of the equation completely. In my situation I do (currently) all of my shooting at my parent’s place where my dad and I have a 400 yard "range" setup and I have experienced either induced by my bad form or mechanical POI adjustment problems.

That all being said what it seems like from the comments that I have read is that some people really like the x-mas tree reticles, some people hate them, and some think they are just unnecessary. So far it seems like the most concrete reason for people not liking them is being able to spot your missed shots because it might be lost in the grid depending on your environment and conditions. Are there any other reasons to stay away from them? Even if they aren't needed with the proper amount of training and experience couldn't they still be utilized effectively at shorter ranges and for longer ranges just ignore them all together and use the full dialed elevation?

This thread has kept me glued to it, thanks for any responses.
 
Addressing the original topic, as I chimed in on the hijack portion of this thread, I find them to be unnecessary. At a shoot last year I got a few shots through a friends S&B with the Horus H59? reticle. In the switchy winds at 1030-1050 (milk jug shoot) I found the dots nthing more that close(r) references. But, still not a valid hold point. Much as many above have said, it takes a near impossible match of distance, wind and atmosphere to make the dots work exactly. In my case then, I find them to be clutter. They are useable, but not as great as they are touted to be. You have to adjust off them. You might as well unclutter your reticle and go with a gradiated stadia (mil/moa) that you like.
 
Last edited:
it's much easier to see passed the hold over area on the Vortex because it is lighter and smaller than the rest of the reticle. There is still a Crosshair there, vs something that is all one size creating a uniform grid.

Holdover reticles work, they are just mils after all, but Vortex is not trying to tell you to always hold, they are giving you an area for reference vs blocking the FOV like a Horus does. the smaller dots are less intrusive than the grid.

The Human brain is not as big a fan of solid grids, it doesn't like them, but you have the CrossHair on the Vortex and the Dots, the brain can see a difference in the two... Just put them side by side and you can see what your eye picks up, it's not hard to see from first blush.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Milf Dots
So loopholes/mechanical offset have become the new Coriolis? Are we done drinking Spin-D?

I remember a year or two back, someone posted something about how to calculate shooting through a loophole on ARF and was met with multiple pages of basement dwellers mashing their keyboards to tell you that this is super secret shit and this is not something you should post on the internet because it can cost lives.

After I wiped the drink I spit out off my monitor, I realized 2 things; 1 - most people who do shoot don't grasp much 'theory' past what they are told or read in a shooting book and 2 - 90% of the people freaking out about it would have zero idea how to even figure out mechanical offset or what the next step is and/or why.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bender
it's much easier to see passed the hold over area on the Vortex because it is lighter and smaller than the rest of the reticle. There is still a Crosshair there, vs something that is all one size creating a uniform grid.

Holdover reticles work, they are just mils after all, but Vortex is not trying to tell you to always hold, they are giving you an area for reference vs blocking the FOV like a Horus does. the smaller dots are less intrusive than the grid.

The Human brain is not as big a fan of solid grids, it doesn't like them, but you have the CrossHair on the Vortex and the Dots, the brain can see a difference in the two... Just put them side by side and you can see what your eye picks up, it's not hard to see from first blush.

Thanks Frank.That's a good explanation. I have a Gen 2 with the EBR-2C, but haven't used it enough to form an opinion.
 
Thanks Frank.That's a good explanation. I have a Gen 2 with the EBR-2C, but haven't used it enough to form an opinion.

When you are forming your opinion take a look at the line marking numbers just to the right of the vertical crosshair on that reticle. It's funny nobody mentions that because Murphy likes those numbers to be "cluttering" your shot in his left to right wind when holding over and off. It just so happens they are conveniently placed for average winds, lol. Nah, I'll take the H reticle or one of Athlons.

Amazing how I could win two long range championships, very very seldomly dialing, with such a unusable and cluttered reticle as the H59, must have been a miracle I guess. Yes, I live out west in dusty conditions but we do get rain once in a while and I could still see where my impacts went most of the time. Regardless it's the debris kicked up by the bullet that one "see's" so if no debris are kicked up it's hard to tell where the bullet went at distance. BTW I've used plain crosshair reticles and not seen where the bullet impacted. Nothing is perfect although Athlons tree reticles strike a good balance.

This is how a dot holdover reticle should be designed, notice the compensation for aerodynamic bullet jump, up/down for wind holds! Sure would be cool to get one of Tubbs new DTR scopes and rifles after watching this video!!! There's nobody on the face of the earth I have more respect for as a true marksman that David Tubb, IMO, the best rifleman who has ever lived.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umkEy0Womk0




 
So, a question for you steve123,

On what kind of range do you train on with the H59? My limited experience shooting one found me on a makeshift range and having to spot shots that didn't always show a good splash. I'm thinking maybe knowing your ballistics as well as you do might make this a more helpful reticle? You might be looking left or right of a dot and the rest of us who don't use them are looking for a splash in the whole lower half of the scope?

Here's a pic of the H59: It looks worse than it really is, as the markings are see through, but not shown here. I found it to be more than I needed for adjustments. However, as you said, you've won long range comps using it
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com\/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcShrsC4xDHcrisOPr72bAW3WuEhL8rMOfs3gKegZHCoVAI6oqX0"}[/IMG2]

A shot of a USO type reticle that I use. Cluttered in the middle, but quite visible for windage adjustment:
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/www.usoptics.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/Website_MGR_17.jpg"}[/IMG2]
Obviously, one really has to understand their reticle to make it work for them.

And lastly, the TreMor3 of which this thread is about:
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/www.usoptics.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/Website_T3_17.jpg"}[/IMG2]
Save
Again, as I understand it (I haven't looked through one), the markings in the reticle are see through. Even still I found it a lot more than what I needed.
 
The problem with Steve is, he practices, so his results are not indicative of guys who do not thinking they will succeed simply because they have a hold over reticle.

By the way, "Which LR Championship" ?

Steve does a variety of shooting, from .22 to Long Range so saying he is successful is liking singling out one of the Top 5 PRS guys who have won with a Bushnell and saying they won because of the scope

Practice enough with any scope/reticle/ combination and you are bound to get familiar with it, how good you are is often a product of how you practice ... which unfortunately most don't do.

Saying you have Rain in AZ is funny too... yes it might rain in AZ but you are not dealing with grass and heavy Vegetation, you just dealing with a tiny bit of rain.

The H59 was chosen over the Tremor reticles, but since they have been pushing very hard for the T3 reticle in the military, the A1st Guys are excellent at Sales and Marketing and the favors never end as they know who to put these things too. But originally the push was for the Tremor 2 and then all the bugs started to show and they backed up and went H59.

Lastly, and to repeat myself again, Mils work, we already know this ... if you spend enough time you can get a grid to work for you, even I have taught Horus Classes when I was at Rifles Only, doesn't mean I like it or would buy one... but I have taught it to the military. If you know mils you can use it.
 
Sandwarrior, I live in an area where I can head out in any direction and find a place to shoot long range, the most common places are 20 minutes from the house, a juniper, grass and sparse sagebrush area. My steel lives in the back of my truck and I used to go out a couple times a week back during my win streak. It's familiarity and practice which go hand in hand. After a while I developed a intuition of where to hold for wind using the .2 mil lines. I also practice/d holds with PCP air rifles at my house. Trigger time pays off. That being said I don't get serious about winning, I'm just a normal guy who loves shooting, I lack the disciplined nature to be a national level champion, don't like to travel, don't have the $, etc.

Yes, the H59, looks worse than it is, it's busy to some but hasn't been to me. I got used to it and then liked it. Reference in the reticle is one thing that helped me be successful, moreso when it's getting 10-15 mph windy if holding over and off, like for instance a 5 mil holdover and a 1.7 mil of wind hold, the solution is there with a click discernible in the reticle. Yes one can do the same with a tree reticle. One can also do well with a reticle like that USO you use, though I'm certain I would not have won with that USO reticle holding over and off because when aiming at small steel I need reference close to the POI for the next correction.

Holding over/off gave me extra time to think about "not" making mistakes, like identifying the correct targets, making better wind calls and also building a tighter more comfortable position - while other guys were using time dialing for all the different targets. This was 96% off the bipod. If shooting off obstacles for a snap shot I'd dial and often dial for wind too. I'd also dial elevation for the 1100Y steel half the time, although that was mostly experimental and doing so didn't make a difference that I could tell anyway.

I've only seen the images of the TReMoR3 but I like that DTR reticle more.


 
LL, it was the AZPRC seasons in 2011 and 2012. Cory and Walt from GS used to go often and most of the regulars like Tim and Regina, Matt, Christopher, etc.

We'll always disagree about some things, really in this case it's spotting misses in the grid, that's okay, not everything is a right or wrong situation, right???
 
Steve123,
I wanted to be clear about what I meant about how the reticle looks. My intent wasn't the busyness of the reticle, only that some would see it and only see visual blockage.

I was hoping to make the point that while busy, you can see through the markings. The same applies to the TreMor3, I would assume. USO states the reticles are that way (all three are from the USO site).

The reticle I use is thin, but not see through. When dialing for wind , I dial a baseline that brings me close to the vertical and I hold from there. Most times I'm using full vertical hold.
 
I see.

That's one thing I've never tried for some reason, holding over, yet dialing for wind. For me it's been dial and holdoff or holdover and holdoff mostly.

In the AZPRC match I used to shoot we'd be shooting at, just guessing here, a 120 degree swing, so target #1 might be straight out and the next way to the left, the next way to the right, etc, and it was hardly ever low winds and constantly changing speeds or even switching directions, basically every shot required a large difference in hold. In this situation dialing wind for me would have made it harder. But I can see the merit dialing wind when holding over with the standard reticle in reasonably constant winds. Edit, I never needed to do this with a H or tree reticle.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a lot of experience with T3. But I have friends that do.

The guys that are trained by Todd Hoddnet are absolutely fanatical about it, and annoyingly so. It's really hard to tell a guy that dialing elevation when you have the time is absolutely worth it. It's weird and they get really weird about it.

When it does work, it's really exciting to watch. If you're on a flat range and shooting targets near to far, the time of flight dots really make things quick.

The downside of hold overs is that the further you get from the reticle center, the more likely you are to mess it up. It's really easy to lose a half or full mil staring towards the bottom of your scope. The human brain is naturally drawn towards the center of a hole, and only recognizes groups of 2s and 3s (look at 5 sticks and your brain says that it's 2+3=5...not "that's 5")

Also the dots tend to be pretty big. They should be smaller and closer together for non-308 calibers.

The best way to use the reticle might be to dial 0, 5 or 10 mils to try to keep your shots closers to the center of the reticle but still be able to use the dots.

It's a good SDM style scope. That's probably why Hoddnet likes to demonstrate it on LaRue guns.
 
This won't work. The wind dots are only accurate at the elevation they correspond to. Dialing the elevation (or slightly less) then holding wind at a wind dot closer to the horizontal stadia will give you less wind correction than you need to hit the target at its actual distance/elevation. The dots are arranged like a Christmas tree reticle.

Maybe you didn't understand me but it does work. Or I wouldn't do it. I know what the reticle looks like because I stare through one a couple hours every day
 
Interesting discussion.

I am not a big fan of Horus reticles. They are busier than I like and I do not like the mosquito net too much. However, like anything, in the hands of a good shooter who practices, they work just fine.

I do like David Tubb's DTR and plan to get one. As much as I respect David, I would not be looking at his DTR based on his reputation alone. Having gone through his materials and having talked to him at length, I think it is a very coherent system.

Personally, I tend to use reticle holdover for shooting within a few hundred yards (depending on the cartridge) and twist turrets when I go further than that. Perhaps, that will change when I get my hands on the DTR, but Horus was not to my liking.

ILya
 
Ilya point above reinforced thinking view on the reticle style. When these first came out, manufacturers were having a lot of problems with repeatable elevation and keeping zero. The Xmas tree was a way to zero once and not over stress the internals.

F Class, our shooting and believe it or not Short Range BR were drivers for change. Thanks to those disciplines, and better manufacturing techniques in the Naughties, we can now get scopes that will dial repeatedly to the same spot. The issue in 2017 is less and less an issue of equipment, and more and more an issue of us, the shooter, not being good enough.
 
I finally got it. I have done nothing but let that video buffer since my last post. I guess I really wanted to see that magic Voodoo.

And FWIW, I attended an Accuracy 1st course where the instructor specifically stated that they would not discuss or teach the loophole outside of vetted courses or whatever.

I can also attest to this statement. They sure acted like is was TOP Secret info. Im glad Lowlight and Jacob showed this video. I did get a great deal on the new kestrel there on a positive note.
 
Holdover reticles work, they are just mils after all, but Vortex is not trying to tell you to always hold, they are giving you an area for reference vs blocking the FOV like a Horus does. the smaller dots are less intrusive than the grid.

May i ask which reticle you would pick, if you werent limit by scope manufactor. Just, which reticle would you want? Maybe even a top 3 of YOUR favourties, not which you think are the best, but which YOU like :) ?

 
I finally got it. I have done nothing but let that video buffer since my last post. I guess I really wanted to see that magic Voodoo.

And FWIW, I attended an Accuracy 1st course where the instructor specifically stated that they would not discuss or teach the loophole outside of vetted courses or whatever.

Ask them about getting an AB Kestrel with the loophole solver included sometime, if you want to hear assholes slam shut.
 
May i ask which reticle you would pick, if you werent limit by scope manufactor. Just, which reticle would you want? Maybe even a top 3 of YOUR favourties, not which you think are the best, but which YOU like :) ?

I use very plain reticles, I am not big on the hold over reticles

My choices are:

MSR / P4 / P4F
Klein / GEN 2
Mil R -

I don't need the clutter because I spent a lot of time practicing to use reticles with less.

My speed / competition stuff tends to be Mil R or MSR based.

PS, FFS and ColdBore both include Loophole calculators, no limit on ownership. I did have an .Mil A1st student drop a jaw when I showed him how to calculate the distance with his basic App on the iPhone. I think I used Ballistics AE and had the number in less time with better accuracy than the formula they teach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Milf Dots
This really isn't the end of the world either way, but it's on the edge of being a tactic more than a marksmanship drill. The closer something gets to a ttp, the more reasonable it is to restrict access to that information even if it's not classified but rather only sensitive.

red blooded Americans can benefit from a lot of firearms training. Unfortunately, these days our enemies use our openness and digital media production on firearms training against us. It's happened, and their access to that info isn't helping the war fighters.

No one would expect seal platoons or odas to publish their team sop books, because even if a technique is out there, confirming who is using it and how to do it matters a lot to the effectiveness and survivability of those groups.

Part of this classification controversy is likely created by the military itself. Realize that if big army treated it as totally unclassified, not fouo, some Joe would have been teaching it to Iraqis or afghanis without a second thought and likely expending the rounds actually training on it.

Get over yourself.
 
The reason loophole shooting isn't taught to everyone is to keep the technique from being available readily to the people we fight. It's simple math, yes, but manufacturing hme is simple chemistry.

Its really not a slight to anyone. It's the same reason our forces won't teach a foreign partner force all the ttps used in cqb. You don't want a country or local force to be as competent as you, ever. So sometimes the refinement of certain skills is left out.

give me a break.....
 
It's manufactured Bullshit plain and simple

If you make the hole bigger than the mechanical offset there is no "Math" as military shooters, civilians, etc, have been shooting through holes since guns have been around, hell why do you think frontier cabins had shutters with crosses cut out in them ? They used the holes (Slots) to shoot through.

The problem is, you have a guy who never served, who found himself working with military people and he learned something, but rather than understanding what was he was exposed too, it became a case of Voodoo for him by realizing he could use the "Trajectory" values to shrink the hole. Problem is, there is no real practical application to have a hole that small and the mechanics around having a hole that small make it stupid to even bother with. So rather than say, Use a hole bigger than your mechanical offset, you demonstrate your (his) BS with tiny hole and cardboard acting like it's practical. There is no practical application for a hole smaller than the mechanical offset, it would require the target to be lined up perfectly as there is no wiggle room from a target's standpoint. Now demonstrating it you can line everything up to work, but in the field -- please. The distance required in your average room is too short. Unless the target is super close and then, that makes the angle necessary to even engage said target even smaller. The farther away, the easier to line the target up, but a target that far requires a bigger room to thread the needle correctly.

Look at every image of a modern sniper in combat and shooting through a hole and look at the size of the holes. They are bigger than the mechanical offset and require "Zero" math... none.

What happens is, you get a bunch of people who are easily impressed, and that leads to posts with titles like were have in this thread.

It's like the Danger Space video I did, where the front target is shot over and the rear target is hit. It's just your trajectory, and we have understood trajectories for a very long time

 
Loophole shot? What's the big deal? haha.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AfoGZVSII7A?ecver=1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Oh, and for what it's worth on the horus reticles... to date I have never, I repeat - never, had a student go the whole class without getting lost in the grid and engaging the target with the wrong hold. Our brains are pretty simple, and they need drastically different landmarks before they notice stuff. GenIIXR reticle is my fav. I'll leave the cluttered up reticles like horus for guys that think they need it. I don't.
 
Last edited:
My choices are:

MSR / P4 / P4F
Klein / GEN 2
Mil R -

Thanks. I was actually wondering wether gettinbg MSR would be selling myself short since "everybody" is praising Horus. Imma go with MSR, which is the one I've wanted since I started looking for a new scope.

It's hard to figure what is real and what is hype as a new shooter, because a lot of the people who are top shooters or get airtime often have money invested in this.