3 Gun Optics

[Bear1142]

Any thoughts on a diamond instead of a dot or a triangle? Seems like it would accomplish the best of both: the speed of a dot, but with better precision for both zero and hold-over...

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

Edited November 10, 2009 by Bear1142

[outerlimits]

i still like the horseshoe reticle, now that trijicon has kinda "borrowed" ed verdugo's design.

[00bullitt]

What are y'alls thoughts on front focal plane reticles in low power optics as opposed to the rear focal plane optics?

I personally find absolutley no use whatsoever in a front focal plane reticle for a low power objective.

For those of you wondering what the difference is:

Front/1st focal plane reticle= reticle size adjusts and increases with magnification. Gives ranging capability as well as calibrated reticles at all levels of magnification

Rear/2nd focal plane reticle= reticle size remains constant at all levels of magnification. Only calibrated at one power setting

[P.E. Kelley]

I would not bite to hard until you as least look at the IOR PitBull.

I am Mr. Cheap scope (as I don't use them) until this unit came along!

I now have two of them. And I know a long time US Optic user that

just picked up one.

Patrick

Pat,

Looked at them at RM3G....for that price there is no way I am doing without daytime visible illumination. I am still not buying that it can't be done without a $1500+ price tag....after all Meopta has done it.

You are right they ain't bright but I have had no need for illuminated Iron sights so this is not a problem for me.....just me.

I will say the BDC is spot on to the 450 yards I have locally and speaking as a pretty fast up close rifleman the PitBull is wicked fast up close.

With this scope I need no more than practice to place well.

Patrick

[outerlimits]

What are y'alls thoughts on front focal plane reticles in low power optics as opposed to the rear focal plane optics?

I personally find absolutley no use whatsoever in a front focal plane reticle for a low power objective.

For those of you wondering what the difference is:

Front/1st focal plane reticle= reticle size adjusts and increases with magnification. Gives ranging capability as well as calibrated reticles at all levels of magnification

Rear/2nd focal plane reticle= reticle size remains constant at all levels of magnification. Only calibrated at one power setting

i agree it's of no use unless it is illuminated...then you basically have a dot or whatever the reticle appears to be a 1x power. on mine, without bright enough illumination, you definitely have to look HARD to find that reticle.

[00bullitt]

Even illuminated its still hokey looking. The dot blooms real big and so is the reticle.I did not like my short dot for that reason. Its backwards to me. It seems as if you would rather have a bigger more visible reticle on low power and a smaller less obtrusive reticle on max setting. I've just yet to see a need or true purpose that a front focal plane reticle brings to a low power optic.

[SHELLFISH17]

Even illuminated its still hokey looking. The dot blooms real big and so is the reticle.I did not like my short dot for that reason. Its backwards to me. It seems as if you would rather have a bigger more visible reticle on low power and a smaller less obtrusive reticle on max setting. I've just yet to see a need or true purpose that a front focal plane reticle brings to a low power optic.

I agree, no need for 1st focal on low powered optics.

[Xfactor]

Any thoughts on a diamond instead of a dot or a triangle? Seems like it would accomplish the best of both: the speed of a dot, but with better precision for both zero and hold-over...

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.

Erik

Hi Erik,

I was thinking of a solid diamond, same height/width as the diameter of the 3 MOA dot. In that case, wouldn't all the aiming points and hold-overs just be the same as the dot?

Basically it would be just like a dot, but with the option of aiming with a little more precision at zero, and for a 12 o'clock hold-over. The only disadvantage I can think of compared to a dot would be that the diamond might be a little less intuitive to center on, or "figure-8" hold-over on a round plate (e.g. 200yd, and 350yd sight pictures).

Edited November 10, 2009 by Xfactor

[el pres]

Every little movement was magnified. I find the dot and crosshairs settle faster for me.

Erik,

Now your unintentionaly screwing with my head ?? I'm going to have to strap on a big dot

and go play a little ??

Edited November 10, 2009 by P.Pres

[Jesse Tischauser]

All Benny would give me was a toilet paper roll with some wire streched across it...but DAYAAHM it WORKS!!!

that sounds promising Kurt. How thick are the wires? If you paint them with flourescent paint and put a poor boy magnifyer behind it this thread may be complete!

[smokshwn]

Todd,

Absolutely agreed....no need for 1st focal plane scopes in our game. At times even using them on a precision rig bothers me as I do not range that often and at high magnification and long distance the reticle begins to cover too much of the target.

Pat,

"illuminated Irons" have you talked to Kurt about this....he might get on board with that idea. Also quit throwing around that stupid "P" word we all know it isn't about the practice, you can buy your way to success silly

[Charles Bond]

I just opened my package from SWFA containing my Elcan DR 1.5/6x. It has a lot of WOW.

The reticle appears crisper than the 1/4x which I have been using and that one was rather crisp. Lens quality is exceptional. The illuminated dot or reticle (your choice by which way you turn the dial) is daytime visible and the center dot is 1.5 moa when at 6x.

I had worried I might not like the 1.5x lower end but just playing with it in the office I am finding objects as close as 3 feet are crisp. I know I am giving up a bit of field of view going from 1x on the older one to the 1.5x on the new one but if anything, the field of view on the 1x was so large as to be distracting. Field of view here is 16 degrees and since there is a 42 mm entrance optic diameter, it is still exceptional.

New on this optic is a VSOR rangefinder based on 30 inches from 300 to 800. I had worried about the detent on the power settings but it appears they did this right. The changed the lever to actually make it easier to get on and as a result, the detent is not really a factor.

[kgunz11]

Any thoughts on a diamond instead of a dot or a triangle? Seems like it would accomplish the best of both: the speed of a dot, but with better precision for both zero and hold-over...

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.

Erik

Hi Erik,

I was thinking of a solid diamond, same height/width as the diameter of the 3 MOA dot. In that case, wouldn't all the aiming points and hold-overs just be the same as the dot?

Basically it would be just like a dot, but with the option of aiming with a little more precision at zero, and for a 12 o'clock hold-over. The only disadvantage I can think of compared to a dot would be that the diamond might be a little less intuitive to center on, or "figure-8" hold-over on a round plate (e.g. 200yd, and 350yd sight pictures).

I agree, a 3MOA triangle would be the same as the dot. You could even have a very bright .75MOA dot in the triangle for a 200 yard reference mark. Aaron, your thinking is like mine, but we have to remind ourselves, this is a 1-4 power intermediate range combat type application where speed is everything. There's little need for precision on 100 yard targets where you'd need that tiny point of a triangle. Erik's right, his dot would have to be stupid fast.

[smokshwn]

I just opened my package from SWFA containing my Elcan DR 1.5/6x. It has a lot of WOW.

The reticle appears crisper than the 1/4x which I have been using and that one was rather crisp. Lens quality is exceptional. The illuminated dot or reticle (your choice by which way you turn the dial) is daytime visible and the center dot is 1.5 moa when at 6x.

I had worried I might not like the 1.5x lower end but just playing with it in the office I am finding objects as close as 3 feet are crisp. I know I am giving up a bit of field of view going from 1x on the older one to the 1.5x on the new one but if anything, the field of view on the 1x was so large as to be distracting. Field of view here is 16 degrees and since there is a 42 mm entrance optic diameter, it is still exceptional.

New on this optic is a VSOR rangefinder based on 30 inches from 300 to 800. I had worried about the detent on the power settings but it appears they did this right. The changed the lever to actually make it easier to get on and as a result, the detent is not really a factor.

Even though the $$$ are big .....this scope is interesting

[Sterling White]

After reading the thread for a while now here are some of the things that I have noted as some of the more common factors being discussed:

- good (quality) glass

- 1.0-? power magnification (or as close to 1.0)

- a rear focal plane reticle

- a simple reticle that allows for precision long-range shots

- a ranging or bdc reticle

- a reticle that allows for quick acquisition for short-range shots

- price

Did I miss any? Is the objective size an issue? What about overall scope and ring wt.?

A few other items noted are:

- some scopes are built with a specific load in mind (bullet wt & speed)

- every shooter has their own idea on where the gun should be zero'd, ie., 25, 50, 100, 200

- the benefits of daytime reticle illumination goes to personal preference

Oh yea....Kurts TP Special

[sp edit]

Edited November 11, 2009 by Sterling White

[bigbrowndog]

Sterling I would say that a BDC reticle isn't really necessary, but something that offers multiple aiming points. Because really we don't need to have a reticle that goes out to 5 or 6 hundred yds, or at least we shouldn't need it.

the Meopta seems to offer this by chance with the dot and lower vert. post. simple should win out over BDC, but too simple isn't good either. Definitely a smaller than 4moa dot/triangle/doughnut. Even my front post is smaller than that.

Trapr

[Charles Bond]

After reading the thread for a while now here are some of the things that I have noted as some of the more common factors being discussed:

- good (quality) glass

- 1.0-? power magnification (or as close to 1.0)

- a rear focal plane reticle

- a simple reticle that allows for precision long-range shots

- a ranging or bdc reticle

- a reticle that allows for quick acquisition for short-range shots

- price

Did I miss any? Is the objective size an issue? What about overall scope and ring wt.?

A few other items noted are:

- some scopes are built with a specific load in mind (bullet wt & speed)

- every shooter has their own idea on where the gun should be zero'd, ie., 25, 50, 100, 200

- the benefits of daytime reticle illumination goes to personal preference

Oh yea....Kurts TP Special

[sp edit]

One thing that put me off at first about the Elcan DR was the size & weight. After I shot it my first match I never again thought about it since all the other elements you cite were so good that it was easy to overcome the fact it is large and is likely the heaviest scope discussed here although the US Optics is also rather heavy.

As to reticle built for a specific bullet weight and speed, Kurt has hit the nail on the head. What is critical is multiple refence points in the reticle. By way of example the difference in the reticle for a 55=62-69 gr bullet in 223 at 400 yards or less for our sport is not significant enough to worry about. What is for me more critical is having an opportunity to practice at real rather than simulated distance.

Once you get a high quality optic, get it zeroed and gain the confidence that comes with shooting it at distance, you start looking for the matches that allow you to use it to your advantage.

[Rynnäkökivääri 62]

I think a simple mildot reticle with an illuminated center in a 1-4x would be my preference, as long as the dot can be set bright enough to be seen in daylight, instant winner as far as I am concerned, would be useful for CQB and longer range shooting. If only Trijicon or Meopta could put a mildot in their scopes...

Although I think NF's 1-4x scope can be had with a mil-dot so maybe my troubles are over? Still, would be nice to have something a bit bigger for when you want to take out tin cans at 400 yards or more.

[grywlfbg]

Even illuminated its still hokey looking. The dot blooms real big and so is the reticle.I did not like my short dot for that reason. Its backwards to me. It seems as if you would rather have a bigger more visible reticle on low power and a smaller less obtrusive reticle on max setting. I've just yet to see a need or true purpose that a front focal plane reticle brings to a low power optic.

First, it was nice to meet you at FB3G today; thanks for letting me take a peek through your ZX-6i.

On the focal plane subject, have you had any trouble with your holdovers changing when using different magnification settings? I'm still quite new to the sport but as I understand it, with a SFP reticle zeroed and holdovers calculated at 6X, the holdovers would be different at 4X, 1X, etc. With a 1-6X optic, 6X may be too much for say, 300yd targets so maybe you'd like to use 4X for that distance. Won't your holdovers change depending on the magnification selected?

I'm not arguing for FFP because of this, just trying to get a feel for how one uses variable power optics most effectively and perhaps igniting the whole holdover vs dialing discussion.

Edited December 7, 2009 by grywlfbg

[Xfactor]

On the focal plane subject, have you had any trouble with your holdovers changing when using different magnification settings? I'm still quite new to the sport but as I understand it, with a SFP reticle zeroed and holdovers calculated at 6X, the holdovers would be different at 4X, 1X, etc. With a 1-6X optic, 6X may be too much for say, 300yd targets so maybe you'd like to use 4X for that distance. Won't your holdovers change depending on the magnification selected?

For long ranges where I need a hold-over, I'm always at my max zoom.

[00bullitt]

Even illuminated its still hokey looking. The dot blooms real big and so is the reticle.I did not like my short dot for that reason. Its backwards to me. It seems as if you would rather have a bigger more visible reticle on low power and a smaller less obtrusive reticle on max setting. I've just yet to see a need or true purpose that a front focal plane reticle brings to a low power optic.

First, it was nice to meet you at FB3G today; thanks for letting me take a peek through your ZX-6i.

On the focal plane subject, have you had any trouble with your holdovers changing when using different magnification settings? I'm still quite new to the sport but as I understand it, with a SFP reticle zeroed and holdovers calculated at 6X, the holdovers would be different at 4X, 1X, etc. With a 1-6X optic, 6X may be too much for say, 300yd targets so maybe you'd like to use 4X for that distance. Won't your holdovers change depending on the magnification selected?

I'm not arguing for FFP because of this, just trying to get a feel for how one uses variable power optics most effectively and perhaps igniting the whole holdover vs dialing discussion.

Nice to meet you as well. Always cool to put screen names with faces.

Holdovers won't change with front or rear focal plane assuming you are using them on known size targets and using a reference point on the target for your holds.

In our sport the most popular target we see at most large matches are probably MGM flash targets. Next I would say would be Larues and R&R flashers. But given an MGM.....you know it is 10" in diameter with a squarish head on top of it. I hold on the target and use target references for my hold with the dot and crosshairs in my scope for a known distance target. So therefore my the focal plane of the reticle has no bearing of the outcome nor does the magnification. If I was using a calibrated stadia...then it would have to be used on max power or the calibrated power setting for the reticle to work properly. I just know my holds for several of the target styles we shoot at. If its different and outside the realm of a holdover....I will dial my dope and hold dead on.

[Hannu]

So, what is the best existing scope ?

-True 1.0x power (so long the only one I have seen)

-6x power

-Dot reticle in rear focal plane = 1.2 moa - 7.0 moa

-Bright illumination, 2-stage adjustment for it.

-Small (thin) lines below and up from dot, can be used to holdover to 300

-Long (thin) lines to sides, easy to take lead

-Lines are so thin you do not notice them in fast close range work

-Can be used without turret caps, +/-15 clicks fast adjustment marks

It is always faster to shoot with illumination. Yes you can make as good hit with black dot, but it is slower.

All unnecessary stuff in reticle will make shooting slower. Just bright dot, and some holdover line if you want it.

Sorry about being so lousy phographer... I can not get reticle illumination to the "film" but it is very bright in daylight, little brighter than CD-I.

[Graham Smith]

So, what is the best existing scope ?

Are you describing an actual scope or is it just a list of what you want in one?

[Carbon]

I recognize that picture. That is Hannu's Z-6i with a reticle that cannot be found in the states. Very clear on one power and bright without being overpowering. Hannu won the Nordic rifle match in 2007 with that scope. Smoked us all especially on the moving targets.

How are you liking Colorado?

Carl

[Hannu]

Hi Carl ! It is nice to hear from you. Last couple of weeks here in Colorado have reminded me about Finland: lots of snow and pretty cold There are not so many shooting ranges available here, but have managed to find couple of places within reasonable drive.

I described existing scope, it is in the photo and just what Carl said - Z6i with LD-I reticle. Paper target in the photo is ~10yd away. Note those metallic silhouette mount lines inside and outside FOV - they continue from the same place with 1x power. There is at least 1 pcs in US right now, because I took my scope with me

Before anyone has time to ask, yes it is the same scope used by ERC2009 Open Division winner.