I purchased a 4x16 nightforce with the mil xt reticle. I seem to be having issue with eye strain when shooting groups for accuracy. What targets do you use with the mil-xt reticle?
What targets for the mil-xt reticle
- Thread starter recoil20
- Start date
I'd suggest going through the process of setting your diopter a second time. Glassaholic has a good write up; https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/attachments/diopter-adjustment-pdf.7812388/
uncommon opinion...when shooting for groups, I like to shoot at an X instead of a +.
If you overlay a + (crosshair) on top of a + (target hold point) it can get a little lost because you lose sight of your aim point, the reticle covers up what you're trying to see...especially with a lower mag (16x) optic.
When you have a + (crosshair) laid out on top of a X (target hold point) it's a little easier to tell that you're actually holding where you want to be holding.
I made a rubber stamp cause I got tired of buying paper targets, so I can use anything handy that will take ink. White paper, yellow paper, card board, yada yada yada.
Short answer, I get less eye strain when i shoot at an "X"
If you overlay a + (crosshair) on top of a + (target hold point) it can get a little lost because you lose sight of your aim point, the reticle covers up what you're trying to see...especially with a lower mag (16x) optic.
When you have a + (crosshair) laid out on top of a X (target hold point) it's a little easier to tell that you're actually holding where you want to be holding.
I made a rubber stamp cause I got tired of buying paper targets, so I can use anything handy that will take ink. White paper, yellow paper, card board, yada yada yada.
Short answer, I get less eye strain when i shoot at an "X"
As mentioned make sure the diopter is adjusted for your eyes first and foremost. Then just try different targets. The Mil XT isn't really special with it being a dot center reticle as a lot as like that now. Some people like having a dot in the center that they can set the reticle dot on and some like an open center where you can put the dot in the center. Tons of printable targets to try online. Below are a couple free sites I use.
Accurate Shooter Targets
Accurate Shooter Targets
I like a small diamond as I find I can line the crosshairs up with the four points and it's pretty natural. This is my favorite:
I just realized I didn't have the version with the logo on it before and I have been setting the target in landscape instead of portrait. All my data has been off by 90 degrees!
I rather like this write up from March...ignoring scope specific stuff like ocular lock ring
How to adjust the Eyepiece – with Q&A | Products | MARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design CorporationMARCH Scopes | DEON Optical Design Corporation
MARCH Scopes Official Site
marchscopes.com
I either print off Larue targets from the wife's laser printer, or I grab some cardboard and a straight edge and a sharpie.
A 4' level and a sharpie makes for really cheap targets in seconds.
I'm always fascinated people buy stacks of paper targets in stores.
If you have issues shooting out your aiming point use an offset. Most often I'll hold under .5 Mil to keep my aiming point clean. As a side effect it's generally a smaller point to aim with also.
Eye strain is personal. I had a few vortex scopes and binos, and just couldn't use them. After about 5 minutes my eyes would hurt. Tried to like them for years. Looked through a gen3 for 5 minutes. Looks beautiful, then my eyes get sore.
I've wrote it off as something with the coatings. They have an almost fake amount of contrast, and while most others look a little dull in comparison none of them give me that problem.
A 4' level and a sharpie makes for really cheap targets in seconds.
I'm always fascinated people buy stacks of paper targets in stores.
If you have issues shooting out your aiming point use an offset. Most often I'll hold under .5 Mil to keep my aiming point clean. As a side effect it's generally a smaller point to aim with also.
Eye strain is personal. I had a few vortex scopes and binos, and just couldn't use them. After about 5 minutes my eyes would hurt. Tried to like them for years. Looked through a gen3 for 5 minutes. Looks beautiful, then my eyes get sore.
I've wrote it off as something with the coatings. They have an almost fake amount of contrast, and while most others look a little dull in comparison none of them give me that problem.
I really like the idea of the Rubber Stamp, I wonder if Staples or similar can do this with a PDF or? I would make the X in the rubber stamp with each line at 1" long so I could easily use my Ballistic-X app to measure groups with. Then I could stamp almost anywhere on cardboard backers. For LD and such I'd still use my LD targets I designed but rubber stamp sounds so simplistic!
thats what I've got going on...it's by design. It's exactly 1" outside to outside. If you know what you want...I can make you one.
You mean people pay for targets instead of just printing them off on the printer at work?
In all seriousness, my range has a little club house and sells all sorts of different styles of targets, so a lot of the time I'm lazy and just spend $2-3 on a handful of targets while I'm there. I like the IBS Hunter style targets as I find the circles 1) make it easy to center the reticle in the target consistently and 2) are forgiving of not being perfectly level on the target backer. I hate it when I use a diamond or "+" style target and forget to bring a level. I get back to the bench, level the rifle with the anti cant level, and realize my target is crooked.
Sorry, I don’t have a blank target immediately handy to share, but this one will do.
Eye strain:
If you make your own targets like me, it’s super helpful (for me) to have those big eye chart letters on it to aid focusing. Makes that experience less prone to error and speeds it up.
I also added some other stuff on there too, like the three bar thing cribbed from that Air Force resolution chart.
Do you shoot under range lights when it gets dark? Being in Minnesota where the nights get long in the fall/winter, that’s pretty common for me. Anyway, if that’s the case, try turning off the shed lights (shooting position). Sure helps ease the eye strain for me and helps my focus.
Side note:
If you use PC target software or apps to measure your groups, it can be difficult to find an 1” distance on some targets, so I added a nice and dark 1” horizontal line in the middle.
I also have really tried to reduce the amount of writing I must do on the target by, say, pre-populating things like the 2024 year etc.
Less time writing outside = really helpful on a windy day in the winter!
Eye strain:
If you make your own targets like me, it’s super helpful (for me) to have those big eye chart letters on it to aid focusing. Makes that experience less prone to error and speeds it up.
I also added some other stuff on there too, like the three bar thing cribbed from that Air Force resolution chart.
Do you shoot under range lights when it gets dark? Being in Minnesota where the nights get long in the fall/winter, that’s pretty common for me. Anyway, if that’s the case, try turning off the shed lights (shooting position). Sure helps ease the eye strain for me and helps my focus.
Side note:
If you use PC target software or apps to measure your groups, it can be difficult to find an 1” distance on some targets, so I added a nice and dark 1” horizontal line in the middle.
I also have really tried to reduce the amount of writing I must do on the target by, say, pre-populating things like the 2024 year etc.
Less time writing outside = really helpful on a windy day in the winter!
Last edited:
Haha, I enjoy the little Sharpied on notes that are almost unintelligible to anyone but the shooter. All my targets look like that.
Something I do (that is probably obvious to everyone else but I will share just in case) is make duplicate copies of targets or use misprints and keep those with me at the firing line on a clipboard to make notes with as needed. More than once I told myself I would remember something and forgot or jotted something down in my notebook I couldn't interpret later on.
Also I use either the 8.5" or 11" edge of the paper for a reference for Range Buddy. Seems to work.
Last edited:
Omg this is my life!
Your solution is so dead simple I feel like a doof for not considering it.
My god that is so much better than sketching a stupid mini target in my small notebook and then adding notes (that I invariably run out of room for!).
I used to use these free pdf from our fav place, a dot of red to contrast the black reticle works pretty well...then copy in color as many as you wish.
I switched over to these since every square/waterline is an inch...also free pdf from AS
I have 2 4-32 nx8 both with the mil-xt reticle...as others suggested try adjusting your diopter, they are fantastic scopes for the price point.
I switched over to these since every square/waterline is an inch...also free pdf from AS
I have 2 4-32 nx8 both with the mil-xt reticle...as others suggested try adjusting your diopter, they are fantastic scopes for the price point.
It didn't cross your mind to use the known paper size foe your scale reference?
I always based scale on the 11" paper width. (8.5x11)
Using 11" instead of 1" is more accurate when you're trying to extrapolate group size
Glad someone found it a handy tip!
My mini targets I sketch always look terrible and I also ran out of room for notes lol. At the end of the range session I place the two targets beside each other and take a picture.
Interesting. I’ve never thought of that.
I just re-measured a target using 11” paper width for the reference. That particular one averaged out 0.01 MOA larger than when I used my 1” reference. Some groups were 0.02 MOA larger, some 0.01 larger, and one was the same. None of the groups on the 11” ref target were smaller than the 1” ref target.
That target had six 5-shot groups on it.
I’m not a math guy. The pic is never perfectly shot with no perspective errors (either through lens curvature distortion or me not holding the camera perfectly square to the target).
If that is true, you’re saying measuring a larger distance (11”) is more accurate than one 11x smaller (1”)?
Yes. What he's saying is that if your measurements are off by say 1/10" if you measure a 1" reference distance it will be off by 10%. But if you measure an 11" distance that same 0.1" error equates to less than 1% and it will be a much more accurate reference.
Regarding perspective/angles I find it helpful to take a picture where the edges of the paper are all square with the edges of the picture, the border portion.
Yes, I didn't say you would have smaller groups, I said you would have more accurate groups.
Think of it like this.
If you use you app and measure your 1" mark for your reference...but you're off by .05" when you try to set your end points, by meausuring from one sise of the line or the other...it's still pretty good and probably close enough.
But if you use 11" and you're off by the same .05"...the formula splits that discrepancy among the entire 11" you were measuring when it computes a baseline scale.
Go to Walmart, get a package of paper hole protectors. They’re a 1/4” ID and 1/2” OD.
I used that with my MilXT and now my Gen3XR Fine. Works great for grouping.
Comes in multi color packs and white, but I take a black sharpie to the white ones. I find that black, pink, and orange pop the best in the various conditions out here in AZ.
I used that with my MilXT and now my Gen3XR Fine. Works great for grouping.
Comes in multi color packs and white, but I take a black sharpie to the white ones. I find that black, pink, and orange pop the best in the various conditions out here in AZ.
First off, ready for a long post? I apologize; this is really getting into the weeds…especially over something as small as a 0.02 MOA difference lol.
This is for the geeks. Just stop reading if you don’t gaf about being exact.
I really want to thank you guys for the tips. Anything to make the measuring more accurate is good by me. ESPECIALLY for field photo taking.
I now understand what you two are getting at with the 11” measurement.
However, upon thinking a little more, here are some more things I’d like your feedback on.
Lens distortion
Not sure if either of you have considered this. Usually camera lenses have more distortion on the edges, some markedly so.
I just remembered that when I decided where I was going to put that 1” reference mark, I considered distortion and that’s why I put it roughly in the center.
That’s also why I use the telephoto lens on my phone (77mm in 35mm full-frame terms) as lenses over 50mm (FF) typically have much less distortion than my wide 26mm “standard” lens.
Now, lenses for copy stands are optimized for “flat-field” images (can’t remember the technical term). Lenses in a phone are all over the map; some have a separate wide angle lens and a separate higher mag zoom lens, some have optical zoom, some only digital zoom, etc
Here’s my camera(s)
Take a look at the 35mm equivalents.
In my opinion, the two wider lenses are much too wide for a flat-ish image…although phone cams do all sorts of arcane digital processing in the background to fix issues. And there’s all sorts phone cam of stuff here that I am not an expert on (or am completely unaware of).
Perhaps a 1:1 comparo to full-frame lenses is wholly inappropriate.
Anyway, the upshot is I wonder if measuring 1” in the center is potentially more accurate than 11” horizontally? That’s sort of unanswerable without specifying an exact phone model + lens, of course.
I’m sure there’s some sort of test that would answer this question. Like printing out a fine grid and taking lots of boring pics.
Slightly canted or perspective-skewed pictures, targets with the corners ripped off, edge reference marks
So, I measured along the top because the bottom corners were ripped due to the staples. And note that USUALLY I take shots without cutting off a slice of paper. Sort of a worst case, I suppose. (Edit: I discovered that I didn’t cut off an edge. See below a ways)
The pic was slightly canted, so the measurement (thin red line on top) becomes longer than 11”.
I thought maybe I could print reference marks on the paper’s edges to be sure the line is perpendicular (and thus theoretically exactly 11”).
But, as you probably know, laser printers usually can’t print right to the edges. Maybe it would be close enough?
Of course, ensuring the corners are always intact is the easiest and most efficient way I can think of to get a decent shot of obtaining a “perfect” 11” measurement.
I don’t want to mess about correcting perspective in photoshop. Sort of a pain. Ditto with adjusting the cant in the iPhone photos app. Big changes are easy with the app, but tiny corrections are a pain in the ass due to “snapping.”
And even if I can straighten one edge pretty well, the other edge now is revealed to be skewed.
Result is this pic is skewed and unfixable (by me) unless I goof off in photoshop. Maybe there’s an app for that too lol or maybe you wizards have a quick and easy fix?
Geek note: you may have noticed this target pic is the same as the earlier one. So why is there suddenly some corkboard visible on top?
I have forgotten if I did this, but the answer must be that I had already attempted to straighten it, but used the right edge as my guide.
Random notes
Plus cheap stands might not be square…I guess I could buy a scanner.
I’d really rather optimize the easy solution, which is shooting the pics in an open range shed outdoors against a cork board. I found standing with the target at eye level at 3x zoom on my iPhone provides the best results.
Shooting straight down freehand is tougher for me to hold everything just right, and there are usually many more lighting issues.
I’ve tried enabling the grid feature, but my camera’s grid is the rule of thirds style and not the most helpful. Having a much finer grid with some lines very near the photo frame’s edges would provide a vast improvement.
You guys let me know how you tackle those issues.
I did understand the accuracy thing, and was asking for more explanation. Sorry if I miscommunicated.
This is for the geeks. Just stop reading if you don’t gaf about being exact.
I really want to thank you guys for the tips. Anything to make the measuring more accurate is good by me. ESPECIALLY for field photo taking.
I now understand what you two are getting at with the 11” measurement.
However, upon thinking a little more, here are some more things I’d like your feedback on.
- Further thoughts on lens distortion
- Slightly canted pictures…
- …or with a slightly skewed perspective
- Targets with the corners ripped off
- The inability to print reference marks along the targets edge (laser printer limitation)
Lens distortion
Not sure if either of you have considered this. Usually camera lenses have more distortion on the edges, some markedly so.
I just remembered that when I decided where I was going to put that 1” reference mark, I considered distortion and that’s why I put it roughly in the center.
That’s also why I use the telephoto lens on my phone (77mm in 35mm full-frame terms) as lenses over 50mm (FF) typically have much less distortion than my wide 26mm “standard” lens.
Now, lenses for copy stands are optimized for “flat-field” images (can’t remember the technical term). Lenses in a phone are all over the map; some have a separate wide angle lens and a separate higher mag zoom lens, some have optical zoom, some only digital zoom, etc
Here’s my camera(s)
Take a look at the 35mm equivalents.
In my opinion, the two wider lenses are much too wide for a flat-ish image…although phone cams do all sorts of arcane digital processing in the background to fix issues. And there’s all sorts phone cam of stuff here that I am not an expert on (or am completely unaware of).
Perhaps a 1:1 comparo to full-frame lenses is wholly inappropriate.
Anyway, the upshot is I wonder if measuring 1” in the center is potentially more accurate than 11” horizontally? That’s sort of unanswerable without specifying an exact phone model + lens, of course.
I’m sure there’s some sort of test that would answer this question. Like printing out a fine grid and taking lots of boring pics.
Slightly canted or perspective-skewed pictures, targets with the corners ripped off, edge reference marks
So, I measured along the top because the bottom corners were ripped due to the staples. And note that USUALLY I take shots without cutting off a slice of paper. Sort of a worst case, I suppose. (Edit: I discovered that I didn’t cut off an edge. See below a ways)
The pic was slightly canted, so the measurement (thin red line on top) becomes longer than 11”.
I thought maybe I could print reference marks on the paper’s edges to be sure the line is perpendicular (and thus theoretically exactly 11”).
But, as you probably know, laser printers usually can’t print right to the edges. Maybe it would be close enough?
Of course, ensuring the corners are always intact is the easiest and most efficient way I can think of to get a decent shot of obtaining a “perfect” 11” measurement.
I don’t want to mess about correcting perspective in photoshop. Sort of a pain. Ditto with adjusting the cant in the iPhone photos app. Big changes are easy with the app, but tiny corrections are a pain in the ass due to “snapping.”
And even if I can straighten one edge pretty well, the other edge now is revealed to be skewed.
Result is this pic is skewed and unfixable (by me) unless I goof off in photoshop. Maybe there’s an app for that too lol or maybe you wizards have a quick and easy fix?
Geek note: you may have noticed this target pic is the same as the earlier one. So why is there suddenly some corkboard visible on top?
I have forgotten if I did this, but the answer must be that I had already attempted to straighten it, but used the right edge as my guide.
Random notes
Yeah, this is extremely difficult to really really really nail when shooting freehand. I’m a photographer and using a copy stand would be the best thing I can think of (don’t have one). But they take up a fair bit of room, good ones anre fairly expensive for what you get, and all are a hassle.
Plus cheap stands might not be square…I guess I could buy a scanner.
I’d really rather optimize the easy solution, which is shooting the pics in an open range shed outdoors against a cork board. I found standing with the target at eye level at 3x zoom on my iPhone provides the best results.
Shooting straight down freehand is tougher for me to hold everything just right, and there are usually many more lighting issues.
I’ve tried enabling the grid feature, but my camera’s grid is the rule of thirds style and not the most helpful. Having a much finer grid with some lines very near the photo frame’s edges would provide a vast improvement.
You guys let me know how you tackle those issues.
Oh, never thought you implied either way (larger/smaller). I just was reporting my measurements.
I did understand the accuracy thing, and was asking for more explanation. Sorry if I miscommunicated.
Ahhhh math. Lol it’s Greek to me man. I trust you.
Last edited:
I'm certainly not an expert but I think if you square up the target as best as you can with a freehand camera any discrepancies aren't going to matter.
I realize errors stack but think about this. If you measure 11" but due to distortion it's actually 10.9" your 1 MOA group is going to measure closer to 1.01 or 0.99 MOA.
A 1 mph wind reading error can shift your point of impact about 0.1 MOA with something like a 6.5cm or ten times your measuring error. There are so many variables other than just wind that it is, in my optinion, quite inconsequential.
All my main scopes are floating dot centers. I like this target from the mytargets link Rob provided for groups Very intuitive to center the dot in the circle.
Totally get it. As I admitted, I am going off the deep end into a sort of “what if” space that doesn’t really matter. It’s just interesting in a mind-masterbatory way. Stupid, I know, just humor me.
Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick, I really went overboard up there, didn’t I!
Basically me talking to me. I have beaten that horse to death. Summary is that I…
VALUE:
- The easiest and quickest solution that gets me the most accurate results (don’t want to deal with a scanner)
& I SHOOT:
- With iPhone telephoto lens (less distortion)
- As squared up as possible, freehand, eye level, in the field
- My paper’s corners are frequently torn off
SO I’LL TRY:
- To find phone apps that quickly fix perspective issues after the fact, or
- To use alternate camera apps that provide more grid lines to largely stop the issue from happening in the first place
- To print ref measurement marks on the paper’s edges (alleviate torn off corner prob)
- To staple differently so I don’t tear my corners off
- To test actual lens distortion effects
- Edit: to test the iPhone pics against a scanner
This Daily Affermation brought to you by Stuart Smalley
Last edited:
Modern Day Sniper / Modern Day Rifleman makes the targets they use for their training courses available for download if you join their forum in The Mighty Network.
One of these two links takes you there.
www.moderndayrifleman.com
-Stan
One of these two links takes you there.
Modern Day Rifleman
Hello, I'm Caylen Wojcik, Lead Instructor and Owner of Modern Day Sniper. I'm committed to transforming the art of precision rifle training. Our adventure started with the Modern Day Sniper podcast, now a top source for high-quality insights in the precision shooting world. Thank you for joining...
www.moderndayrifleman.com
-Stan
Eye strain can be a common issue, especially with higher magnification scopes, and for the MIL-XT reticle, a good target to use is one that has clear contrasting colors and defined edges to help your eyes focus better.
You can try the grid targets, dot targets or bullseye targets. Make sure you're also taking regular breaks to rest your eyes and consider adjusting your shooting position or the distance to the target if you're still experiencing strain.
You can try the grid targets, dot targets or bullseye targets. Make sure you're also taking regular breaks to rest your eyes and consider adjusting your shooting position or the distance to the target if you're still experiencing strain.
