Rifle Scopes What Does the Perfect Reticle For a 1-10x LPVO Look Like to You?

[Leftie]

With a few companies having released 1-10x optics with different reticle designs, I've been thinking about this a fair bit recently.

Who else has opinions?

 

[Hans7]

FC-DMx tree but with .2mil subtensions alternating sides of the primary 1mil lines to open it up and keeping it clean.

 

[rydah]

The March 1-10 dr reticle is what I always wanted in an lpvo. 1-10 with an exposed elevation turret and capped windage. Marchs reticle in concept is excellent, just needs to be more refined and one with wind dots offered for the guys that like that kind of thing.

Horizontal and vertical crosshairs needs to be thin like the top half of the vertical and the subtensions also need to be thiner and shorter. Max 5-8 mils for wind and 10 mils for elevation. Other than that it’s perfect.

 

[jeffl838]

I would want FFP, with eotech's 65 moa disappearing ring overlaid onto a thinner atacr-ish reticle, but with a multi-caliber acog-esque 0-600m BDC (but still with clear whole/half mil subtensions) and tremor style small small wind dots, lined up at the BDC's subtensions every 100m

Also would want bigger objective (I'd be happy with 32 through 44mm), adjustable parallax, and zerohold or schmidt style locking turret. I'd pay like 5k for this list of features in a 1-10x.

 

[Burdy]

I would want FFP, with eotech's 65 moa disappearing ring overlaid onto a thinner atacr-ish reticle, but with a multi-caliber acog-esque 0-600m BDC (but still with clear whole/half mil subtensions) and tremor style small small wind dots, lined up at the BDC's subtensions every 100m

Also would want bigger objective (I'd be happy with 32 through 44mm), adjustable parallax, and zerohold or schmidt style locking turret. I'd pay like 5k for this list of features in a 1-10x.

Can't argue with much of that. In my opinion a 1-10 LPVO should have a tree or wind dots, the rifles they go on are presumably made for fast engagements and having to hold off into thin air in that environment is no good. I GUESS I can go along with the parallax but you could leave that off and I would be fine.

There should be MORE 1-10's and LESS 1-10 LPVOs. I am not fully behind the magnification range in the current crop of LPVO's for several reasons. What does it go on? An AR-10, ok, well there is your market. A bolt gun? No. A carbine? For what? It's heavy, it requires a long throw from 1 all the way to 10, and you can reach 1,000 yards with a 1-8 just fine, or 800 yards with a 1-6 just fine, so what is the 1-10 for?
At the point my carbine needs or requires 10x, is the exact point it likely weighs enough or is precise enough to justify even more magnification and it certainly justifies more objective.

I'm glad the optics exist, don't get me wrong, but I have ZERO desire to go further than 1-8 on a carbine and I certainly prefer to keep those to lightweight 30mm models that better suit the weapon system.

If a manufacturer can make a 17 ounce 1-10 in 30mm with a short throw from min to max magnification, then it's just a value add and of course at that point, why not? Until then, I would rather them focus on the best eyebox available 1-6's and 1-8s with great reticles, keep hacking down the weight and then give us a nice 2.5-10 or 2.5-15 that's a that hair over 20 ounces. Then those with a long-range carbine can run that combined with a mini-red dot. To me that's the much better option and makes more sense and would certainly have less optical drawbacks.

 

[charnicus]

March’s reticle is perfect. I’ve daydreamed about a Mil-C in the ATACR 1-8 and something similar in the Vortex. I’d even take a Mil Dot. In my opinion Leupold was on the right track with some reticles in the Mk6 and Mk8. I don’t think everyone wants the tree’s and grids but I get their purpose thus for those that don’t, the option would be nice.

 

[E-Tool]

like the night force NP-R2 or MIL-R 5.

I wish they made a simple reticle like the NPR2 in mil/mil. It’s my favorite reticle in MOA.

 

[jeffl838]

Can't argue with much of that. In my opinion a 1-10 LPVO should have a tree or wind dots, the rifles they go on are presumably made for fast engagements and having to hold off into thin air in that environment is no good. I GUESS I can go along with the parallax but you could leave that off and I would be fine.

There should be MORE 1-10's and LESS 1-10 LPVOs. I am not fully behind the magnification range in the current crop of LPVO's for several reasons. What does it go on? An AR-10, ok, well there is your market. A bolt gun? No. A carbine? For what? It's heavy, it requires a long throw from 1 all the way to 10, and you can reach 1,000 yards with a 1-8 just fine, or 800 yards with a 1-6 just fine, so what is the 1-10 for?
At the point my carbine needs or requires 10x, is the exact point it likely weighs enough or is precise enough to justify even more magnification and it certainly justifies more objective.

I'm glad the optics exist, don't get me wrong, but I have ZERO desire to go further than 1-8 on a carbine and I certainly prefer to keep those to lightweight 30mm models that better suit the weapon system.

If a manufacturer can make a 17 ounce 1-10 in 30mm with a short throw from min to max magnification, then it's just a value add and of course at that point, why not? Until then, I would rather them focus on the best eyebox available 1-6's and 1-8s with great reticles, keep hacking down the weight and then give us a nice 2.5-10 or 2.5-15 that's a that hair over 20 ounces. Then those with a long-range carbine can run that combined with a mini-red dot. To me that's the much better option and makes more sense and would certainly have less optical drawbacks.

my atacr 1-8 can't refine a target at 600m due to lack of adjustable parallax. I could definitely shoot a silhouette, but would like the ability to finely focus.

That's a good way to put it - make a 1-10x SCOPE. I don't really care about the 1x THAT much if I also want 10x. The vortex and kahles 1-6's did the 1x really well and set such a high bar that I don't think 1-8 or 10's will ever even come close. If I care about 1x, I'm going with a 1-6. If I want more power, it's because I want more power and therefore I want all the other features that help that high end out.

 

[db2000]

Parallax would be nice as mentioned but I can attest to this reticle in 1-8x. The scope is badass. Bought because of the reticle, which is what was asked.

 

[Denys]

I would want FFP, with eotech's 65 moa disappearing ring overlaid onto a thinner atacr-ish reticle, but with a multi-caliber acog-esque 0-600m BDC (but still with clear whole/half mil subtensions) and tremor style small small wind dots, lined up at the BDC's subtensions every 100m

Also would want bigger objective (I'd be happy with 32 through 44mm), adjustable parallax, and zerohold or schmidt style locking turret. I'd pay like 5k for this list of features in a 1-10x.

A bigger objective on a 1-10X brings in a whole slew of optical challenges. March recently introduced a 1.5-15X42 that is very short and light. The objective lens assembly is all new technology. But even with that, it's low mag is 1.5X. It is also an SFP design for the moment but who knows what the future will bring; March is always at the lead in optical technology.

 

[rydah]

A bigger objective on a 1-10X brings in a whole slew of optical challenges. March recently introduced a 1.5-15X42 that is very short and light. The objective lens assembly is all new technology. But even with that, it's low mag is 1.5X. It is also an SFP design for the moment but who knows what the future will bring; March is always at the lead in optical technology.

Soon as they pull their finger out and offer it in mil/mil with exposed tactical turrets then I’m getting one. I think that’ll end up being the best short/medium range hunting scope made to date.

 

[PBWalsh]

Can't argue with much of that. In my opinion a 1-10 LPVO should have a tree or wind dots, the rifles they go on are presumably made for fast engagements and having to hold off into thin air in that environment is no good. I GUESS I can go along with the parallax but you could leave that off and I would be fine.

There should be MORE 1-10's and LESS 1-10 LPVOs. I am not fully behind the magnification range in the current crop of LPVO's for several reasons. What does it go on? An AR-10, ok, well there is your market. A bolt gun? No. A carbine? For what? It's heavy, it requires a long throw from 1 all the way to 10, and you can reach 1,000 yards with a 1-8 just fine, or 800 yards with a 1-6 just fine, so what is the 1-10 for?
At the point my carbine needs or requires 10x, is the exact point it likely weighs enough or is precise enough to justify even more magnification and it certainly justifies more objective.

I'm glad the optics exist, don't get me wrong, but I have ZERO desire to go further than 1-8 on a carbine and I certainly prefer to keep those to lightweight 30mm models that better suit the weapon system.

If a manufacturer can make a 17 ounce 1-10 in 30mm with a short throw from min to max magnification, then it's just a value add and of course at that point, why not? Until then, I would rather them focus on the best eyebox available 1-6's and 1-8s with great reticles, keep hacking down the weight and then give us a nice 2.5-10 or 2.5-15 that's a that hair over 20 ounces. Then those with a long-range carbine can run that combined with a mini-red dot. To me that's the much better option and makes more sense and would certainly have less optical drawbacks.

The non illuminated March 1-10 is 17.8oz. Illuminated version is 19ish oz.

 

[sheepdog697]

I really like the reticle in my accupoint 1-8. I have the mil version

 

[Denys]

Soon as they pull their finger out and offer it in mil/mil with exposed tactical turrets then I’m getting one. I think that’ll end up being the best short/medium range hunting scope made to date.

There are 2 versions of that scope, both SFP; a MIL/MIL and an MOA/MOA. The MIL version does have capped turrets, but you do know that with the cap removed, they are full-fledged adjustable turrets, with indicators and proper clicks.

However, if you really want tactical turrets, I would urge you to contact Deon directly and tell them. Just go to their website, click on About Us and then Contact Us and fill out the form. They do read every message and respond quickly.

 

[TacticalPlinker]

A combination of these features :

- NF Mil-XT (calibrated for the 1-10x- slightly thicker for speed)
- MSR2 Quick Ranging feature (up high at the 12 o'clock - just don't block upper FOV)
- Daylight bright center dot (floating dot)
- Dual Focal plane.
* A non sensitive parallax control.
- 32 to 40mm objective (allows for an ARD)

 

[Burdy]

The non illuminated March 1-10 is 17.8oz. Illuminated version is 19ish oz.

Yes but no tree or wind dot reticles and/or just not any reticle I like and I also cant stand when scope manufacturers make an optic that doesn't work with 99% of the best mounts out there. Im sure optically its an awesome scope, but mounting options important from my standpoint.

 

[PBWalsh]

The optics mounting is funky, which is why I’m slightly leaning to their 1-8 (non shorty) optic.

Not having a tree doesn’t both me too much, but I can see how folks would like them.

 

[Denys]

A combination of these features :

- NF Mil-XT (calibrated for the 1-10x- slightly thicker for speed)
- MSR2 Quick Ranging feature (up high at the 12 o'clock - just don't block upper FOV)
- Daylight bright center dot (floating dot)
- Dual Focal plane.
* A non sensitive parallax control.
- 32 to 40mm objective (allows for an ARD)

A true 1X scope is difficult to make even with a 24-28mm objective. A bigger objective with a true 1X scope is not something that is possible at the moment. I believe ILya made some video explaining the challenges of larger objectives and true 1X. As I explained earlier, March had to come up with a radical new design for the objective lens group to get a 1.5X with a 42mm objective. Also, dual focal plane reticles are another aspect that is complicated to build and assemble. I didn't say impossible but don't hold your breath. And what do you mean by "a non sensitive parallax control"?

 

[TacticalPlinker]

A true 1X scope is difficult to make even with a 24-28mm objective. A bigger objective with a true 1X scope is not something that is possible at the moment. I believe ILya made some video explaining the challenges of larger objectives and true 1X. As I explained earlier, March had to come up with a radical new design for the objective lens group to get a 1.5X with a 42mm objective. Also, dual focal plane reticles are another aspect that is complicated to build and assemble. I didn't say impossible but don't hold your breath. And what do you mean by "a non sensitive parallax control"?

Roger that ^^^^

A parallax that is more forgiving like the ATACR 4-16x42. The last time I got behind one of those it was almost as if I could set it for 300 yards and shoot past that out to a 800 without having to touch the thing. It was very easy going. But maybe it was just a good day for me.

 

[charnicus]

Roger that ^^^^

A parallax that is more forgiving like the ATACR 4-16x42. The last time I got behind one of those it was almost as if I could set it for 300 yards and shoot past that out to a 800 without having to touch the thing. It was very easy going. But maybe it was just a good day for me.

Nope you’re dead on. Super forgiving scope when it comes to parallax.

 

[Denys]

Roger that ^^^^

A parallax that is more forgiving like the ATACR 4-16x42. The last time I got behind one of those it was almost as if I could set it for 300 yards and shoot past that out to a 800 without having to touch the thing. It was very easy going. But maybe it was just a good day for me.

I think you're talking about the side focus and the resulting depth of field depending on magnification and distance.

Are you trying to compare a 4-16X42 to a 1-10X24 in DOF? If so, at what distance and magnification setting?

 

[Leftie]

There are a lot of good ideas here - it reminds me a little of what's being described in this thread, but for a much more specific niche - 1-10 magnification LPVO:

Thinking out loud, a reticle for the OEM crew

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...

www.snipershide.com