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;
