Bear1142

The nice thing about this reticle is that this really isn't an issue. Once its zeroed you don't have to make any scope adjustments unless you go over 600 yards. If you do decided to shoot more than 600, you'll have to work up a range card to work with the center dot anyway so you'll know what your adjustments are ahead of time. Erik

grywolfbg, Sorry, I don't have any experience with the Meopta to offer a valid comparison, but it is on par of even better that the Elcan Specter D/R's illumination. Not entirely sure about price, but I'd expect it to be around the same as the NightForce 1-4x. Not sure about delivery dates. Forum dealer Chris Paty(CPWSA) is a stocking USO dealer. I would contact him to find out about prices and delivery times. smokeshwn, Not sure about the 1-6x scope or if they will offer it in the 1.5-6x model. The best thing to do would be to call USO. I only worked on the reticle, I don't know about any other plans they may have for scope designs. Erik

Good news Alex! The US Optics does! And you have the choice of either Red or Green illumination. So how many do you want? Erik

Slowsure, 30mm mounts fit just fine. I use a LaRue mount, but any 30mm should work. Forum dealer Chris Paty (CPWSA) is a stocking US Optics Dealer and he is taking orders. I'm with ya on the Green! It was very nice. Brian, FOV is 116ft @100yds. X, I prefer to use the Sierra 69's, but if the Sierra's are unavailable then I use the Nosler's. BC's are around .301-.305. I wouldn't worry too much abouth the factory stuff. If you're within 50fps, that stadia will work. Were just trying to ring the steel, not hit sub-moa in the center. The minor velocity variations won't make that much difference. With all the loads available, I'm sure you'll find a 68/69 or 75/77 that works without having to go the reloading route. I did consider windage marks for the 300 point, but decided against it. If the wind was kicking up, just hold off to the side of the plate. 300yds is close enough that a half plate holdoff would get you a good hit and it reduced the scope clutter a bit. Dustin, The MGM is definitely a tough match. For that match, I would probably consider using a different scope. Something with a bit more range and more finite adjustments. 700-900 is really outside the capability of this scope. It could be done, but it's not the best choice for this match. I sure that increasing the power range on the top can be done as other scope companies are doing it, but for the USO scope it requires a whole new body design in order to fit everything in the tube at the right place. Maybe later on down the road USO will offer something, but right now you have either the 1-4x or a 1.5-6x, but the 1.5-6 is not available with this reticle. Erik

Jade, Yep, it's scary how close the 77's (@ 2,700fps) are to the 69's. For all practical purposes its an exact match. HA! With a name that bad, everyone will remember it! Erik

RMA_38sup, I don't have any recent experience with the Meopta, so I can't give an opinion in regards to the brightness of the reticle, but the USO is on par or brighter than the Elcan when the entire reticle is lit, not the center dot function. In the USO the entire reticle will illuminate, not the center dot. If illumination is an issue or priority, then I would recommend going with the green illumination. It was definitely brighter during the daytime. I'm having mine built with the Green diode. X, Yes, I load all of my 69gr. match loads. Considering the volume of high performance ammunition I use during a season, it's really cost prohibitive to purchase all that match ammo, and that's if you can even find it. Ammo been tough to get lately. If I were to go with factory stuff, I would probably go with Black Hill, Federal, or Nosler, in no particular order. Ideally, I would try one box of all of those listed for accuracy through my rifle. I would also chronograph some rounds to check my velocities. Then I would go with the most accurate load in my rifle, but considering the long backorders for precision ammo, I would probably go with one of the three previously mentioned companies based on which one I could get in quantity. Dustin, I was hesitant to even run it out to 600, but in the end I decided it would be better. There are a couple of reasons why I stopped at 600. First, this reticle was designed as a close up reticle (0-200 yards)that could go long distance if needed. The vast majority of 3 gun rifle shots are under 200 yards. Even our distance shots rarely get over 400. I wanted a reticle that would allow me to still go fast on all the up close stuff, but had enough long range precision that I wouldn't struggle to hit the long range stuff. This is why the scope is only a 1-4x, but it has a true 1 power for speed up close. Having 4x on the high end is enough magnification to get hits out to 600, if needed. There are some new scope designs that have magnification ranges that go from 1-6 and 1-8, but considering we are really only concerned with hitting the steel target and not pinpoint precision and long distance, I think 4x is enough. The most I would want is 5x. Having a higher magnification doesn't make long range shots easier, it just brings the image closer to use, but it also magnifies our wobble zone. Another reason I stopped at 600 was to keep the reticle from getting too cluttered. I wanted something simple that was easy to use, but didn't clutter up the scope like the horus vision system. I'm not knocking the Horus Vision, it's a great system for long range precision, but it's a very busy and distracting on the up close stuff.

Xfactor, That will always be one of the problems with calibrated reticles. If the ammunition you choose to use is not close to the spec'd ammo, then the calibrations are not going to work for you. What loads are you using? 2,560 fps seems a little slow, even from a fast 18" barrel. My 69gr. gives me 2,850 from an 18" barrel, which incidentally is one of the reasons I choose that spec. I also did a little research on commercial 69 gr. loadings to see how fast they were loading their ammo. There was no info as to the barrel length they used when calculating these velocities, but 2,850 fps was the ground floor for all their ammo. Even if they used 24" barrels, running their ammo through an 18-20" barrel shouldn't reduce your velocities so much that you'd be significantly under 2,800 fps. Black Hills Red/Blue Box 68/69gr. loads- 2,850 fps Remington 69's- 3,000 fps Federal 69's- 3,000 fps Nosler Custom 69's- 2,900 fps Lapua 69's- 3,030 fps Fiocchi 69's- 3,000 fps Privi Part 69's- 2,855 fps I also don't load for a low PF for rifle. The higher pressure rounds work the compensator's better and the higher velocities give flatter trajectories. An additional benefit was that this load closely mimics the trajectories of the 75/77gr. loads (at 2,700 +/- fps), so you can use any heavy weight bullet and the reticle will work. Erik

Guys, Here is the new version of the reticle I've been designing with some of the design changes you guys have recommended. The new specs are as follows: Reticle is in the rear focal plane 2 MOA Center dot Calibrated drop reticle for a 69gr. at 2,850 fps. Reticle is designed to be zeroed at 200 yards in the center of the 2 MOA dot Tip of center vertical post is 300 yard zero The small hashmarks are the 350, 450, and 550 hold points 400, 500, and 600 stadia lines with 10 mph crosswind hold off points Large outer circle for bracketing close run & gun targets is 55 MOA Scope is a US Optics SN4 1-4x with a true one power on the low end. I saw a new prototype scope at SHOT show with a brighter diode. The entire reticle will be illuminated in either red or green. Both are daytime visible and of the two green is brighter than red. Any final thoughts? Lund Reticle.pdf Erik

I've never heard of them. Gotta website? Erik

The CQ/T is a very good scope with a good Field of View, but it's practical max. effective range is about 350 yards if you use a 200yd. zero. Once you start getting out to 350 and beyond you have to hold the center dot over the target out in space and it can become quite challenging to visually know your hold over distances on 10" plates. From zero to 300yds., it's a good scope. Used one for a couple of seasons before I went to the US Optics SN4. Erik

Standby for details on the US Optics reticle. Changes have been made and I'm waiting on the technical drawings for final approval, but I should have a preliminary drawing up soon. Erik

Optics- 200 yards Irons- 300 yards Erik

With the little amount of shooting you're doing nowadays....the barrel will never got hot enough to burn you. Erik

The primary factor driving cost will be the additional cost of acquiring Titanium. I'm not a machinist but I do know Ti is a PITA to machine so I would also expect some additional production expenses, but I think the real problem is locating the Ti. From what I understand it's in high demand and supplies are low, which is not conducive to getting it at a good price. I would expect it to be 1/3 to 1/2 lighter than a standard Titan. Still working on it though. Erik

I need to ask John about a FFP version (Just for you RS ), but unless you want to pony up the custom reticle fee, and you may want to, you won't be able to get any additional changes. But to have a major scope manufacturer that is willing to custom build you what you (or anybody) considers is the perfect reticle is definitely worth the design fee. Grey, I won't be shrinking the large outer circle so much as I'm tweaking it. My original goal is to make the large outer circle just small enough to fit the entire standard target just inside the circle at 20 yards. Fill the circle with the target and out to 20 yards you're almost guaranteed 2 "A" hits. But I hear what you're saying. I agree with you that I don't want to large circle "crowding" the center array, so it won't shrink too much more. Erik

Update Okay, I spoke with John at USO briefly as he is on vacation, but the reticle changes should be no problem. In a nutshell, here are the changes. 2 MOA center dot instead of 3 MOA 300 yard post extending up from stadia tree Large outer circle will be reduced from 5 MOA thickness to 4 MOA thickness Overall size of large outer ring will be reduced slightly, size to be determined Entire reticle will be illuminated like the EOTech reticle Scope will have target type turrents under protectice caps, if you want to dial MOA during a stage you'll be able to (not sure why you'd want to though.) Illuminated reticle should be available in either green or red Things to be determined. Total price (Should be in the $1,150 to $1,300 range) How much brighter the reticle can/will be 1/2 moa vs. 5/8 moa clicks (only important if you want to dial dope though) Things in the works. Working to develop a Cattail/Throw-lever for the magnification ring Erik

As interesting an idea as it is, I think it's just a bit too unconventional for most people. The human eye has a natural tendency to center objects. This is part of the reason why the circular dot works so well at engaging MGM targets at distance. I think most shooters take too much time trying to center up crosshairs on the circular MGM plate, making sure there are 4 equal quarters before firing the shot. Using a dot, you either place a circle within a circle or stack the circle on top of another circle like a figure 8 and break the shot. I hear what your saying about having a built in feature to deal with the mechanical offset of the sights, and it could have some potential, but I'd rather just practice holding high up close rather than having an offset reticle. Agreed. This is one of the issues that I've bounced back and forth on. I didn't like having a 350 post when all of the other holdovers were 4,5, and 600. I felt it was too easy to confuse the 350 post for a 300 hold. The other problem with a 300 post is that the original 3 MOA center dot was designed to be zeroed at 200. A 300 post was going to run almost right up into the bottom of the circle, there would be a small gap between the bottom of the circle and the top of the post. Having a 2 MOA dot allows a bit more room to make it more practical, so I may revisit it, but the primary reason is was omitted was the because the 200 and 300 holds were too close. Well, the hold-overs are a pretty big advantage. Going to war with one long range steel is no fun. It's the kind of target you need to hit quickly to do well. Having a bad day on one long range target can add minutes to your stage time, not just seconds. It's the kind of thing that can kill a stage and tank you for the entire match. Long range steel is generally what separates the men from the boys and the winners from the losers. I can't recall hearing any shooters who tanked the long range stages and still did well in the overall standings. I think you underestimate the advantage the hold-overs can provide. I also think you can make the argument that the overall quality, durability, better reticle design, target turrets, and clarity of the glass of USO justifies the additional price tag. With respect to price, I'm hoping they will come in somewhere between $1,200-$1,300, but I'll post more when I hear something. You already have a FFP option with USO, I don't see any issues with having them make a SN4 with the reticle in the FFP. You'd just have to specify that you wanted a FFP scope. Considering most combat is less than 300 meters and with all the other technology available, I don't think range estimation is a necessary or even desireable feature. The average soldier can estimate distances pretty well out to 300 meters. What he needs is a reticle that is uncluttered with non-essential information that will allow him to achieve good center mass hits at speed out to 300 meters and some calibrated hold-overs to allow hits at further distance without having to make any scope adjustments. Considering these requirements, I see great similarity between what 3-gun shooters do and what soldiers do. Yeah, not sure why the do that. It's on my agenda to find out why. While I concede that anything is possible, I don't know how probable this is. The SN4 maxes out at 4 power. When you dial up in the heat of the moment, nobody eases into the max power setting. You usually crank the power hard until it stops and this isn't an issue. If this has happened to you, then I suggest an easier fix may be to paint a large witness mark on your scope and manification ring so you can take a quick 1/2 sec. look to ensure you're at the proper max power setting and didn't stop short. While I can see this may be a legitimate issue with a the 2-7 power range, only having 4 power really negates the need to dial down to increase the FOV. Maybe if you have a 6 power scope, but even then, you can only shoot one target at a time so max out the power and make the hit, then find the next target by lifting your head off the scope, then drive the rifle to the next target. It will be faster when compared to trying to find your next target through the scope on a high power setting. Once again, considering the distances this scope is primarily design for, I don't really see the benefit of ranging circles or Mils. You have to remember, I designed the reticle as a CQB reticle that can do long distance if it has too, not the other way around. It's simply designed to get good hits at distance, not head shots at 400 plus. I think your reticle design has some real application in a 1-6 power range for a Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR), but I don't believe you need all of the precision your building into the reticle for this application. Your average soldier is not going to have the time or skill to Mil a moving vehicle and properly lead it with the Mil harshmarks in an urban environment before the vehicle is either out of view, out of range, or the squad 249's and 240's start lighting it up. He's going to take a quick hold on the front end of the car and let the lead fly. A DMR shooter in an overwatch position, definitely, and your reticle design would be better for that application, but considering this scopes intended purpose, I don't think you need that level of precision. Good ideas though and probably one of the better discussion we've had on BE in a long time. Erik

Guys, Thanks for all the interest in the reticle design. Here is the latest update. The large outer circle is 50 MOA and 5 MOA thick, which is the same thickness as the Leupold CQT outer circle. The overall diameter of the circle is slightly smaller, but the thickness is the same. It sounds thick when you're discussing it, but if you've ever seen the CQT reticle, it's not that bad. I like the large outer circle for bracketing my targets on up close run & gun stages. Putting the large circle on the target is very fast compared to centering the dot in the A zone. The center dot is being changed from 3 MOA to 2 MOA. This was a relatively easy change. There seems to be some misconception about the SN4 illumination. The reticle IS daytime visible, but it does get washed out on a very bright, sunny day. On a normal day, it is visible. Hopefully, the upgraded illumination will be visible on these very sunny type days as well. I'm working to get the strongest possible illumination in the scope that the confines of the scope body will allow (More on this later.) Currently, there is no way to only illuminate the center dot. The entire reticle is illuminated, not just the dot. It may also be possible to illuminate the reticle in green in addition to red. Still working on this one though. The problem I'm currently facing is the design of the scope body itself. The SN 4's were never design to have a reticle in the RFP. All of USO's scopes are FFP designs. This whole undertaking is completely new ground for them and I'm very grateful for the opportunity to work with USO on this project. Shifting to a RFP reticle has caused some "space" issues. John Williams has worked very hard to overcome the issues, but there is only so much he can do given the current scope body design. Such an issue is the illumination of only the center dot. While this task is not that difficult to accomplish with the right parts, the problem is fitting the parts inside the scope body. The current design does not lend itself to successfully implanting an Aimpoint style dot in the center of the scope. The entire reticle can be illuminated, but the technology needed to illuminate only the center dot, simply won't fit in the current scope body. The easy answer is just design a new body. Well, that's where the costs really go through the roof. Without going into all the details, suffice to say that it's a substantial investment for an entirely brand new market with no previous company history of success. I'm hopeful that this first design will sell well enough for USO to realize there is great potential for sales, but they are going to need to see some sales on this initial design before they commit the substantial funds necessary to design a scope from the ground up. The good news is that if things work and and they green light this project. We 3-gunners will have an clean slate to design a scope with ANY and ALL the feature we've been discussing here. Scope body size, objective size, power ranges, Aimpoint style illumination, reticle designs, built in cat tails, short 180 magnification throws, ALL OF IT! This could be the opportunity of a lifetime, but we have to support the USO with the products they currently have and the new scope they are offering. Even if you have no desire to purchase any of their products, a short little email thanking them for their time and effort to support 3-gunners would be a great way to show them we've noticed the effort they are making. I'm hoping to have some more news soon. I'll keep you guys posted on any new developements. Erik

Bobby, The US Optics is daytime visible to a degree. You will see the illumination, but the whole reticle illuminates, not the center dot. I'm also working on reducing the center 3 moa dot down to a 2 moa. Erik

With regards to SOP and sniper shots, etc.. I will simply say that sometimes the bad guy's will force you to do things your don't want to do or are not entirely prepared to do, but you still need to step up and make the best shot you can. Waiting for the SWAT guys is a nice option, but the actions of the BG will determine what you do and when you do it. Bobby, Let me start off by saying, I feel your pain. My road with US Optics, Nightforce, and some others is pretty much a mirror image of your problems. It's actually pretty amazing. I've never seen an industry so resistant to accepting feedback from the end users. Here's something that may help you. It's really all how you position the scope in the marketplace. You have to convince whomever your dealing with that 3 Gunners are the best R&D for the scope world because anything that is successful in 3G will be successful in MIL/LEO world. 3G shooters are all about good center mass hits at very high speed from bad breath distance to 500 yards. This is the same type of performance needed in the MIL/LEO world. Your average officer or soldier is not going to dial in dope for a precision shot. They are going to take the shot with the info they have on or in the scope ring. It's the same for 3G shooters. I want to the ability to make shots on 10" plates out to 500 yards without have to make any adjustments. I want to mount the rifle, take the correct hold, and make a good center mass hit. You need to convince your people that the scopes that 3G shooters want will have applications in the MIL/LEO world. All three worlds have the same requirements. It's not three separate markets, it's all one big market AND you have at your disposal probably the best experts in the world that can T&E any new reticle designs for free. Have them spin up a reticle and send it over to some 3G guys, they will very quickly tell you whether or not the reticle design is on the right track. And throw the BS flag if they tell you it costs $30,000 to develop a reticle. That's just some BS excuse they float because they dont' believe in what you've got and they don't have the balls to tell you. Get with your guys and reposition your reticle design in the marketplace, hell, bring them to a 3 gun match and let them see firsthand what we do and maybe then they'll make the connection between 3G and MIL/LEO shooting requirements. Oh, and for all you guys who wanted a 2 moa dot in my reticle design........standby, things are in the works. Erik

Machining Titanium is no fun and it increases our costs for materials and production time. Don't know a price now, but would having a Ti Titan be worth the extra cost to make them? I might be able to convince the powers to be to make a small limited run of Ti comps. Erik

Merlin, Thanks for the kind remarks, but you shot my SIG 556 Rifle, not the Sabre piston rifle, but you are correct, all piston guns will have a bit more pop in the shoulder, but they can still be made to shoot very flat. I'm using the SJC Titan comp. Erik

Bryan, Check with Adams Arms. I've got a Sabre upper with a AA kit. It has a Samson railed handguard, but I'm not sure if they had to modify it to fit. If AA can't sell you one, I'm sure they can point you in the right direction. Erik

Nice work! I'm sorry I couldn't make this one. Hopefully I can make the next one. Erik

Before I went the circle, I played with a diamond design for quite a while. I tried using both a solid and a hollow diamond, but it never worked out well. The issue was how to zero it. If you used 100 yards for the tip, then your 200 yard was under the diamond or in the center of the hollow diamond. If you zeroed for 200, then your 100 yard zero was somewhere in space above your diamond tip. Addtionally, the drop between your 100-200 was always less than your drop from 200-300 so the legs of your diamond were always longer under your zero than above your zero. I tried many variations, but I never come up with a totally satisfactory design. Peter, I'm with ya. It's what works for you. For me, I find the very precise aiming points very difficult to stabilize. They always seem to move around too much for me. Almost like a scope set on too high a power factor. Every little movement was magnified. I find the dot and crosshairs settle faster for me. Give Trijicon your "build it and they will come" pitch! There's plenty of room to play. Erik