US Optics with Lund reticle- Pics

[Bear1142]

Jesse,

USO is building a new website. Once they are finished it will be on the new site.

Yep, track me down at Ozark. Be more than happy to let you try it out.

Erik

[SamG]

The glass is phenomenal. Its every bit as good as the expensive European scopes. FOV is monstrous on 1x. Yeah....Illumination is kinda weak in bright daylight. But once you see the reticle. You'll see its not all that important for speed.

I'll say its definitely worth looking at in MO.

Any plans on putting this reticle in the new 1.5-6x version of this scope? Do you think the additional magnification is needed for 3 gun matches in general or would you stick with the 1-4 version?

[Pro2AInPA]

The glass is phenomenal. Its every bit as good as the expensive European scopes. FOV is monstrous on 1x. Yeah....Illumination is kinda weak in bright daylight. But once you see the reticle. You'll see its not all that important for speed.

I'll say its definitely worth looking at in MO.

Any plans on putting this reticle in the new 1.5-6x version of this scope? Do you think the additional magnification is needed for 3 gun matches in general or would you stick with the 1-4 version?

The consensus is that true 1x and exceptional glass is more important than >4x. I tend to agree.

[Chuck Anderson]

I really don't understand why everyone wants so much magnification on a 3 Gun optic. I run a 1-3 or 1-4 and have never had any issues. Target ID is not an issue for us. If it's a target that's supposed to be visible to the Iron shooters a 3x scope should be plenty. If you have to identify your target at 400 yards as friend, or foe, armed or not, then I wouldn't mind having a 1-8.

[Bear1142]

Any plans on putting this reticle in the new 1.5-6x version of this scope? Do you think the additional magnification is needed for 3 gun matches in general or would you stick with the 1-4 version?

USO could certainly put this reticle in their 1.5-6x but because the reticle is in the rear plane, the stadia tree only works accurately on one power setting. I could see issues where shooters would not want to go all the way up to 6x due to mirage or stability issues and they dial the magnification back a bit. If they do this, then the stadia tree will not accurately work on the longer range small targets at the reduced power setting. That's the trade off between first and second focal plane scopes. First plane works on any power setting but the reticle zooms up and down with the power setting. The second plane reticle stays the same size regardless of the setting, but it will only work accurately on one power setting.

I think Chuck's sentiments are dead on. Having more magnification does not make a long range shot easier. It only brings the image closer. It will increase the size of target in the scope but it also magnifies your wobble zone which can really make it tough to get hits on distant targets. I think anything in the 1-4 or 1-5 range is perfect. I defintely wouldn't want anything stronger than 6 and even if I had 6 I would rarely use it. 4 or 5 power is plenty for anything we have to shoot.

Erik

Edited September 20, 2010 by Bear1142

[SamG]

Any plans on putting this reticle in the new 1.5-6x version of this scope? Do you think the additional magnification is needed for 3 gun matches in general or would you stick with the 1-4 version?

USO could certainly put this reticle in their 1.5-6x but because the reticle is in the rear plane, the stadia tree only works accurately on one power setting. I could see issues where shooters would not want to go all the way up to 6x due to mirage or stability issues and they dial the magnification back a bit. If they do this, then the stadia tree will not accurately work on the longer range small targets at the reduced power setting. That's the trade off between first and second focal plane scopes. First plane works on any power setting but the reticle zooms up and down with the power setting. The second plane reticle stays the same size regardless of the setting, but it will only work accurately on one power setting.

I think Chuck's sentiments are dead on. Having more magnification does not make a long range shot easier. It only brings the image closer. It will increase the size of target in the scope but it also magnifies your wobble zone which can really make it tough to get hits on distant targets. I think anything in the 1-4 or 1-5 range is perfect. I defintely wouldn't want anything stronger than 6 and even if I had 6 I would rarely use it. 4 or 5 power is plenty for anything we have to shoot.

Erik

Just getting back into 3 gun shooting after a 8 year layoff and trying to get back up to speed on what current equipment trends are. I'm used to shooting with an Acog and an offset red dot so I'm not familiar with using adjustable optics for 3 gun. So if I am understanding your reply, the reticle magnifies (gets larger) as you increase magnification? Is this an advantage or disadvantage when shooting 300-400 yard targets? Or do you have to leave it set on 1X to get full benefit of the reticle? Sorry for the multiple questions

[Bear1142]

Sam,

Don't worry about all the questions, it's no problem!

No, this reticle is in the rear focal plane so it stays the same size regardless of the magnification setting.

There is are some advantages/disadvantages on long range targets depending upon the magnification range of your scope, but the short answer is that if both styles of scopes (front & rear focal planes) are set to the maximum magnification, then there is no advantage or disadvantage. They are both the same. The difference is on the up close targets. When you dial back down to 1 power, the rear focal plane reticles stay the same size, so you are seeing the same size reticle all the time. The front focal plane reticles will shrink down in size significantly and they can be a real challenge to see and/or use when you are trying to perform on the high speed/up close targets. Not saying it can't be done, I just think the shooter has to work harder to get the same performance on a stage out of a front focal scope compared to a rear focal scope.

Nope, you get full benefit of the reticle throughout the magnification range. The only real limitation is that stadia tree (which isn't really used until you are at 300 yds.)needs to be used at 4x, but that's a non issue. Once you get to the ranges where you would use the stadia tree, you'll be on 4x anyway. The fact is that 95% of the time you are either going to have your power setting on either 1 or 4. On 1 the center dot works for any practical shot you want to take and once you're on 4x, the reticle works across the spectrum from 1 to 600 yards.

Erik

[SamG]

Sam,

Don't worry about all the questions, it's no problem!

No, this reticle is in the rear focal plane so it stays the same size regardless of the magnification setting.

There is are some advantages/disadvantages on long range targets depending upon the magnification range of your scope, but the short answer is that if both styles of scopes (front & rear focal planes) are set to the maximum magnification, then there is no advantage or disadvantage. They are both the same. The difference is on the up close targets. When you dial back down to 1 power, the rear focal plane reticles stay the same size, so you are seeing the same size reticle all the time. The front focal plane reticles will shrink down in size significantly and they can be a real challenge to see and/or use when you are trying to perform on the high speed/up close targets. Not saying it can't be done, I just think the shooter has to work harder to get the same performance on a stage out of a front focal scope compared to a rear focal scope.

Nope, you get full benefit of the reticle throughout the magnification range. The only real limitation is that stadia tree (which isn't really used until you are at 300 yds.)needs to be used at 4x, but that's a non issue. Once you get to the ranges where you would use the stadia tree, you'll be on 4x anyway. The fact is that 95% of the time you are either going to have your power setting on either 1 or 4. On 1 the center dot works for any practical shot you want to take and once you're on 4x, the reticle works across the spectrum from 1 to 600 yards.

Erik

Thanks for the explanations. I just purchased a Larue SPR mount in anticipation of ordering one of these but was not sure which reticle to get.

Sam

[Jesse Tischauser]

I took a couple looks through Eriks scope today and the reticle is damn near perfect. Now if I could just het him to let me take it home after the match for a month so I could really get a feel for it.

[norbs007]

I took a couple looks through Eriks scope today and the reticle is damn near perfect. Now if I could just het him to let me take it home after the match for a month so I could really get a feel for it.

What ya think of the illumination?

[Jesse Tischauser]

I took a couple looks through Eriks scope today and the reticle is damn near perfect. Now if I could just het him to let me take it home after the match for a month so I could really get a feel for it.

What ya think of the illumination?

I could see it at 3:00 in the afternoon on a sunny day. It would work just fine for me. I'm used to that little glowing 1moa dot in my TR24 Accupoint. It was not over glaring bright with the starburst like the mini red dots look at times.

I also had the chance to look through Wynn's 1.x-8 IOR on his 308 and the Lund Reticle was small in comparison. So it could very easily be used for long range precision work on small targets and the reticle will not clutter anything up at CQB range.

If I had an extra $1400 lying around I'd buy one to run.

[Pro2AInPA]

I took a couple looks through Eriks scope today and the reticle is damn near perfect. Now if I could just het him to let me take it home after the match for a month so I could really get a feel for it.

What ya think of the illumination?

I could see it at 3:00 in the afternoon on a sunny day. It would work just fine for me. I'm used to that little glowing 1moa dot in my TR24 Accupoint. It was not over glaring bright with the starburst like the mini red dots look at times.

I also had the chance to look through Wynn's 1.x-8 IOR on his 308 and the Lund Reticle was small in comparison. So it could very easily be used for long range precision work on small targets and the reticle will not clutter anything up at CQB range.

If I had an extra $1400 lying around I'd buy one to run.

Thanks for the hands on info Jesse.

[norbs007]

I took a couple looks through Eriks scope today and the reticle is damn near perfect. Now if I could just het him to let me take it home after the match for a month so I could really get a feel for it.

What ya think of the illumination?

I could see it at 3:00 in the afternoon on a sunny day. It would work just fine for me. I'm used to that little glowing 1moa dot in my TR24 Accupoint. It was not over glaring bright with the starburst like the mini red dots look at times.

I also had the chance to look through Wynn's 1.x-8 IOR on his 308 and the Lund Reticle was small in comparison. So it could very easily be used for long range precision work on small targets and the reticle will not clutter anything up at CQB range.

If I had an extra $1400 lying around I'd buy one to run.

Thanks for the hands on info Jesse.

Yes, thank you for the info; I was considering a TR24 for a new build but this might just change things. Now to find a way to pay for one

[Jesse Tischauser]

Like I said if I had $1400 that had to be spent on an optic I'd get one to play with. Since I don't, my TR24 that is $700 less and works great with it's 300 yard zero and no holdover out to 325. It just so happens that 99.9% or thereabouts of every match is under 325.

Edited September 25, 2010 by jtischauser

[carbon9]

BTT. Tired of the old thread being above this(new) one. Why? Because I keep clicking on it hoping for more info. Love the reticle, don't care about the illumination, just wish it wasn't so heavy. Probably buy one anyways. Anybody make magnesium or magnesium alloy scope mounts???? Why not??? Not much more $$$$ wise. Absorbs shock better then aluminum. Lighter then aluminum. Needs a good coating for corrosion resistance is the only drawback I can see. As for it "burning" so can titanium but magnesium is easier to machine then titanium. I'd like to see a handguard made of Mg as well. Or a scope body, magnesium resists denting, should be perfect for a scope body, charging handle or handguard. Let's see some "Elektron" enter the mix.

[goat68]

Now I just need to find someone out west here to get one so I can take a look at it. The reticle looks promising.

[reddot556]

i notice someone is selling one of these at ar15.com for pretty cheap

[jaredr]

my understanding is that chris patty is sole distributor for these, and if so, then either someone is re-selling it at a loss (not sure why they would do that) or they do not have this particular manufacturer + model + reticle. couldn't find any posting on arf.com so not sure what they're advertising, but perhaps my search-fu is just weak.

[reddot556]

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=7&f=23&t=807904

[00bullitt]

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=7&f=23&t=807904

That is a great deal. Includes the ADM mount. I've shot this reticle. It is awesome. I'm an illumination fan but this reticle is so crisp and contrasting, it really does not need it. That is really the only fault of the scope is that its not Aimpoint bright in the sunlight.

[jaredr]

that is a smoking deal. if i hadn't just blown my piggy-bank money on a new shotgun, i'd be all over that.

thread drift

just got some shot show magazine in the mail ("NSSF Shot Business") and they've got an article on multigun, big picture of rob romero holding a 6' check from FN congrats

[BD Williamson]

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=7&f=23&t=807904

Thanks for the heads up on this scope. Just got it today and it rocks. Cant wait to got out and sight it in.

Thanks Reddot!

[Nick Weidhaas]

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=7&f=23&t=807904

Thanks for the heads up on this scope. Just got it today and it rocks. Cant wait to got out and sight it in.

Thanks Reddot!

Please post on your range session....interested in this optic/reticle.

[Nick Weidhaas]

Anyone pick up one of these yet? I'm interested in some additional feedback from new buyers.

[slowsure]

I have had mine now for two months now and have shot two matches (one local match and one little big match MS3G) with it and some practice (about 30 rounds) with it.

Mounting and sighting in went as expected. Everything was square and to size (reticle to housing and tube size.

This reticle/scope combo rocks at high speed shooting, both eyes open its very much like a RDS. Hose at will! Field of vision is good also. It will dial Under 1x. I did this at practice once and found the targets to be "odd" looking. Wount make that mistake again.

I have shot this reticle out to only ~200 yrds in a match at one R&R flasher. Didnt really need the hash marks on that target. Im used to using a cross hair style reticle and i use the horizontal line as my "cant indicator" if you will. This reticle dosent have a horizontal line only vertical. I had to make an mental effort to keep the line vertical while shooting at distance. Not a problem with the scope, just my use of the reticle.

The biggest disappointment in this scope was at LAMR on the long range stage. The area that the targets were in was dark. I thought to dial the lit reticle to the highest setting and sighted the target...nothing. A very faint pale green ( I choose green as the reticle color) was all I got. Green in the center of the line that faded to black, not a bright green good enough to use. Im not used to using a lit up reticle anyway so no biggie for me. The reticle is not bright enough for daylight use for me.

The circle with small dot is very quick on close targets. Glass is very good also.

Long term durability TBD. I seem to hard on scopes as my XTR-14 has been back to the factory twice in a year. If its going to break ill manage it. So far sp good with the USO.

If it holds up to abuse without falling apart ill be happy.