Rifle Scopes Which Falcon Menace reticle?

[startrek]

Just ordered one of the FM scopes from the UK and have a choice of reticle, what are the advantages or disadvantages of both?

Enhanced Mil Dot Reticle - http://www.falconoptics.com/pdf/FFPEMDMaster.pdf

ML16 Mil Line Reticle - http://www.falconoptics.com/pdf/FFPML16Master.pdf

 

[Aries64]

Re: Which Falcon Menace reticle?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: startrek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just ordered one of the FM scopes from the UK and have a choice of reticle, what are the advantages or disadvantages of both?

Enhanced Mil Dot Reticle - http://www.falconoptics.com/pdf/FFPEMDMaster.pdf

ML16 Mil Line Reticle - http://www.falconoptics.com/pdf/FFPML16Master.pdf

</div></div>
Last year I bought a 4-14X44 FFP ML16 from Robert Snyder (RWS Gunsmithing) because I thought the ML16's skeleton posts and lack of dots would help me see low or wide misses with .22s' at long range (200 yards +). I liked the reticle, but the long stadia lines turned out to clutter the view too much for my liking, and the skeleton posts turned out be unnecessary. However, I only had the scope mounted for one range session, as the reticle was canted in my scope and I returned the scope for a refund.

RWS was out of the 4-14X44s' for several months, and whenever they came back into stock I missed them. Then a couple of months ago I bought an as-new 4-14X44 FFP with the EMD from another Hide' member. The reticle isn't canted and so far the scope seems to track OK, which are the most important things.

That said, while the EMD's round Mildots might seem to obscure more of the target area than the ML16's stadia lines, in use I find the EMD's Mildots less obtrusive than the long stadia lines of the ML16. Hope this helps.

Keith

 

[startrek]

Re: Which Falcon Menace reticle?

Thanks for the info, that is exactly what I needed to know.

 

[user]

Re: Which Falcon Menace reticle?

ML 16 is gtg

 

[glock24]

Re: Which Falcon Menace reticle?

I think a prudent comparison of both reticles requires an understanding of how each one works to range a target. After all, that's what they are for . . .

<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">ML16</span></span>

The Falcon ML16 reticle (and EMD) is based in milliradians, but to keep the view looking uncluttered, each mil is only divided in half (1/2) instead of in tenths (1/10) like the knobs. As you can see, this makes the reticle less accurate than the knobs.

In an effort to try and squeeze more accuracy from the reticle, it is taught to divide each division on the reticle in half (1/2 ) again, but in one’s brain using imaginary lines. Below is a zoomed image of the ML16 reticle to show how this would work.

The red lines and values are imaginary. On the real ML16 reticle your brain can find the halfway point between the two existing vertical lines. This effectively gives the reticle more resolution, making the reticle count like this;

<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">EMD</span></span>

The Enhanced Mil-Dot (EMD) reticle seems harder to read because the dot must be divided in half in one’s brain to allow it to read like the ML16 reticle. While I understand this might seem annoying, also consider the fact that the EMD can actually measure more accurately than the ML16.

Again, the red lines and values below are imaginary, including the one through the center of the dot, which is required to find the whole mil values. BUT, the cool thing about the dot is the fact that it is purposely 0.2 mils wide. This means that the distance from the edge of the dot to the center is 0.1 mil. These 0.1 mil graduations on the reticle mean it is as accurate as the graduations on your knobs and DOPE card, hence the unique value of the dot. Below is how the EMD reticle counts;

 

[valmet76]

Re: Which Falcon Menace reticle?

I have the ML16 and I would rather have the EMD, if only because it's more like the Gen2 in my S&B.