New reticle in a 1-4x24 scope

[Alan Adamson]

Alan....put some ice on it.....the sting only lasts for a second

I've also been down that road with Swarovski on the phone and at SHOT last year about the turrets. They are not available on the 1-6 nor retrofittable. And they say they were not interested in the idea either at that time.

It is on Cold's agenda to drop by and see them again this year and see if their position may have shifted some.

hehe... Thanks Tod, feeling is coming back around already... I was just poking at you...

I'm a self stated beginner with very little to add to the conversation, however I can always try to keep the topic moving ...

Ouch that smile hurt ...

Hoping for change... damn, just hope its not the kind that is messing with the country...

Alan

[Alan Adamson]

Alan....put some ice on it.....the sting only lasts for a second

I've also been down that road with Swarovski on the phone and at SHOT last year about the turrets. They are not available on the 1-6 nor retrofittable. And they say they were not interested in the idea either at that time.

It is on Cold's agenda to drop by and see them again this year and see if their position may have shifted some.

Hey, Tod, on Erik's program is there some *hope* that USO may do it daylight visible? I pretty much thought that wasn't going to happen? Was glad to hear that the dot size was going to change however...

Alan

[00bullitt]

Yes....there is hope that it may be daylight visible. He is working with them on it. It is not an easy modification....hence costly.

But rest assured.....Erik is great at presentation. He also will be visiting others at SHOT as well. Keep fingers crossed. The good thing is.....alot has already been put into motion. There actually is a working reticle in a scope now. And it is under refinement.

[Bear1142]

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

[USMCRET]

Found Erik's...(NOTE: before the dot was scaled to 2moa instead of 3.)

And here's Tod's

Guys I like them both and I think either would be a hit out here in the 3 Gun world. You guys keep working hard to get these out there. Let me know when someone will produce it in a scope. Erik I know you have one in the USO scope I saw but as I understand the price is getting higher daily.

Yes I know when to poke the Bear

Mike

[gose]

Found Erik's...(NOTE: before the dot was scaled to 2moa instead of 3.)

And here's Tod's

Guys I like them both and I think either would be a hit out here in the 3 Gun world. You guys keep working hard to get these out there. Let me know when someone will produce it in a scope. Erik I know you have one in the USO scope I saw but as I understand the price is getting higher daily.

Yes I know when to poke the Bear

Mike

I really like both of them as well. However, having the whole reticle illuminated might be a deal breaker to me, but I'd have to look through one to make the decision. Either of the reticles with just the dot illuminated and I'd probably order one unseen...

[Xfactor]

Found Erik's...(NOTE: before the dot was scaled to 2moa instead of 3.)

And here's Tod's

Guys I like them both and I think either would be a hit out here in the 3 Gun world. You guys keep working hard to get these out there. Let me know when someone will produce it in a scope. Erik I know you have one in the USO scope I saw but as I understand the price is getting higher daily.

Yes I know when to poke the Bear

Mike

I really like both of them as well. However, having the whole reticle illuminated might be a deal breaker to me, but I'd have to look through one to make the decision. Either of the reticles with just the dot illuminated and I'd probably order one unseen...

+1

[grywlfbg]

I really like both of them as well. However, having the whole reticle illuminated might be a deal breaker to me, but I'd have to look through one to make the decision. Either of the reticles with just the dot illuminated and I'd probably order one unseen...

Hmm. Maybe it's because I'm an old EOTech guy but I like the idea that the outer circle will be illuminated. Illumination helps the most at short range and that's where you use the larger circle. I don't think having a black circle would be all that useful. For long range stages I can see how having the stadia illuminated could be weird. In that case just run that stage w/o illumination.

If Erik can get the USO scope to be brighter than my XTR I'm interested.

[Religious Shooter]

Erik,

I'm running a 1.5-6X SN4, I have the JNGMIL reticle:

From my observations... I'd suggest that you move the tree and the small dot up.

For me the main use of the big circle is for CQB type ranges. Whenever I use my SN4 (and all scopes) with my AR I have to conciously aim up at the close targets to take into account the sight to bore axis difference. For close ranges I would use the bottom of the big circle as my focus. I find it annoying that I'm actually only using a small portion of the circle as my aiming point for the close targets. Why not utilize more of the circle and have an offset built into the reticle (2nd picture)?

And given that the future illumination on the SN4 will be (bright) daylight visible, I'd suggest that you recommend that an FFP version of your reticle (that's daylight visible) be also made available. The knock on FFP is that it gets too small at the lower power. But given that the reticle will be lit up I don't think this will matter much.

I prefer FFP in that the hold-overs will be consistent at any power range.

Personally I'd buy a new SN4 if the reticle was:

- bright daylight visible

- FFP

- was offset (as noted above)

[AlamoShooter]

What kind of $Change is Eric's scope going to be ?

And is the XTR 2gen that hard to see in the day light

[00bullitt]

Erik,

I'm running a 1.5-6X SN4, I have the JNGMIL reticle:

From my observations... I'd suggest that you move the tree and the small dot up.

For me the main use of the big circle is for CQB type ranges. Whenever I use my SN4 (and all scopes) with my AR I have to conciously aim up at the close targets to take into account the sight to bore axis difference. For close ranges I would use the bottom of the big circle as my focus. I find it annoying that I'm actually only using a small portion of the circle as my aiming point for the close targets. Why not utilize more of the circle and have an offset built into the reticle (2nd picture)?

And given that the future illumination on the SN4 will be (bright) daylight visible, I'd suggest that you recommend that an FFP version of your reticle (that's daylight visible) be also made available. The knock on FFP is that it gets too small at the lower power. But given that the reticle will be lit up I don't think this will matter much.

I prefer FFP in that the hold-overs will be consistent at any power range.

Personally I'd buy a new SN4 if the reticle was:

- bright daylight visible

- FFP

- was offset (as noted above)

Erik's entire design was based around the second focal plane and the reticle remaining a constant size. Him nor I have found a need to use holdovers on anything less than max power in a low power optic of less than 6x. I guess this is something that precision rifle guys get hung up on. Still do not get it. I totally understand the need and intent for FFP scopes in precision rifle work.....but a low power CQB type optic? Makes no sense to me.

[00bullitt]

What kind of $Change is Eric's scope going to be ?

And is the XTR 2gen that hard to see in the day light

Its probably gonna be about $1350 for the illuminated model.

[Religious Shooter]

Erik,

Also like to add that in three gun I have shot more 300-350 yard targets than 400 yard targets. I'd request that you extend the center line up to correspond with a 300 or 350 yard hold. I don't think it would add too much clutter.

[Religious Shooter]

Erik's entire design was based around the second focal plane and the reticle remaining a constant size. Him nor I have found a need to use holdovers on anything less than max power in a low power optic of less than 6x. I guess this is something that precision rifle guys get hung up on. Still do not get it. I totally understand the need and intent for FFP scopes in precision rifle work.....but a low power CQB type optic? Makes no sense to me.

I'm more of a 3 gun shooter than I am a precision rifle shooter.

I think a daylight visibile reticle SN4 with SFP is going to cost a tad more than $1350 --- as Erik noted in his post USO will have to redesign the scope body.

As a prospective buyer for the scope I would need to justify the cost.

Other than hold-overs... What practical advantage will this version of the SN4 give me over my Meopta?

IMHO.... nothing.

Given that I have the Meopta, I'm I going to pay $1350+ just to have holdovers at one specific power? Nope.

Why not have an initial version that is FFP and daylight visible? USO can get their beaks wet with a daylight visible reticle(DVR) in the SN4. Then when they get that perfected they can then redesign the scope body to be able to have SFP and a DVR.

[00bullitt]

Erik's entire design was based around the second focal plane and the reticle remaining a constant size. Him nor I have found a need to use holdovers on anything less than max power in a low power optic of less than 6x. I guess this is something that precision rifle guys get hung up on. Still do not get it. I totally understand the need and intent for FFP scopes in precision rifle work.....but a low power CQB type optic? Makes no sense to me.

I'm more of a 3 gun shooter than I am a precision rifle shooter.

I think a daylight visibile reticle SN4 with SFP is going to cost a tad more than $1350 --- as Erik noted in his post USO will have to redesign the scope body.

As a prospective buyer for the scope I would need to justify the cost.

Other than hold-overs... What practical advantage will this version of the SN4 give me over my Meopta?

IMHO.... nothing.

Given that I have the Meopta, I'm I going to pay $1350+ just to have holdovers at one specific power? Nope.

Why not have an initial version that is FFP and daylight visible? USO can get their beaks wet with a daylight visible reticle(DVR) in the SN4. Then when they get that perfected they can then redesign the scope body to be able to have SFP and a DVR.

They already have the JPJ1 reticle in the FFP. Assuming they make this reticle daylight visible. It should transfer across all their reticles. There ya go.

The JPJ1 is what led to having this reticle design put into the rear focal plane. It simply sucked in the FFP.

The scope body only needs to be redesigned for illumination of the dot only with the reticle placed in the rear rather than the front. The hardware to do such does not fit when the reticle is placed in the rear focal plane. The scope body works fine by placing the reticle in the rear as is. The only option to illuminate the reticle without redesigning the scope body is to illuminate the entire reticle.

Personal benefit and justification of this reticle is subjective. Its not gonna be for everyone nor suit everyone. But I am curious.....why would you need to have holdovers on power less than 4? On top of that....it becomes increasingly harder to see a smaller stadia tree which would hinder speed. I just don't get the rationale of having a FFP reticle in a scope with 6x or less.

[BigJimFish]

Wow, looking through this thread I am glad to see that I am not alone in my reticle woes. I have been searching for a better scope than my current CQ/T for some time in conjunction with setting up a review thread Here . One of your members, a 00bullitt, contacted me about posting the table on this website (which seems like a great idea) and that is how I came to find this forum.

I have a few comments. Keep in mind that I have not competed in 3 gun though I have observed such competitions and that I am one opinionated SOB who forms and changes opinions quite easily with new input. I like to think of it as learning though the Socratic method.

I have been driven nuts by the lack of desirable reticles in quality 1-4x scopes. I swear if I see another damn mill dot I'm going to scream. I'm not even convinced that mil dots are still a good method of range estimation for sniper scopes and I know they suck for any rifle you would use in a situation where you don't have all day to pull out your calculator and plug away. As far as I can tell pretty much any situation where you would be using a scope and not sitting at a bench rest falls into this category. It seems to not have dawned on scope manufacturers that the mil dot scope was a compromise that stemmed from limitations in wire reticle technology. Now we can glass etch so put some darn floating features in there why don't you.

I agree with many of you that what works for 3 gun is not necessarily good for combat. However, what works for combat is probably passable though not ideal for 3 gun. The average 3 gunner is good, quite good. I am amazed at the speed and precision of the competitors when I watch matches. The average soldier is not good. In fact the average soldier is pretty terrible. Some of my best friends are soldiers and they spend entirely to much time waiting and marching, not enough time doing genuine training, and no time really competing to hone their skills. I out shoot many of them when they have an AR and I use a handgun. It's not entirely there fault (though if my life depended on my rifle I might try to get a bit more proficient.) many of them were not gun folk to start with and therefore have no training or practice outside of the service. I suspect this is different in the special ops community though I still expect the average 3 gunner is better at hitting targets (when not being shot at) than the average spec ops operator. Competition is simply that effective a tool for improving performance. The distinction in scope designs is that a 3 gunner knows his hold overs, hold offs, and from what I can tell target range for practice whereas an average soldier is clueless. It is my belief that any good 1-4x reticle geared to soldiers should have bullet drop, range estimation features, and possibly even some limited windage features. Preferably the bullet drop and ranging would be of the Acog/IOR/JPJ1 variety. It seems when I read through your posts that the prefered 3 gun reticle is quite minimalistic. Having no range estimation, some windage, and some drop information. While I expect the Combat styled reticle might be a bit busy for 3 gun I'm not sure the 3 gun reticle would be much help to the not so trained soldier in combat.

In any case I designed and drafted a reticle from the combat point of view which, though perhaps better many of the current reticles, is really much busier than the experienced 3 gunner seems to desire. At some point in the future I will probably post it but I am currently still in discussions with a few scope companies about it. Most tuned me down out of hand as I expected but a few, well 2, still have interest and I can be quite persistent. As you folks mentioned I also found U.S. Optics to be the only scope company willing to talk about a one off personal reticle. If the SN-4s had 1/2MOA adjustments instead of 5/8ths and was not first focal plane I would probably even have dropped the $1k up ding for the personal reticle. I am pleased to here that you have been working with them on a 2nd focal plane scope or adaptation of the SN-4s to that end.

Further on the topic of custom reticles. A big win to the first scope company who offers custom reticles from the customers .dwg files for a $300 up ding. Its not that hard people. Glass etching machines are essentially CNC. All you need to do is adapt a programing interface to transition the .dwg file to machine code for the etcher in a generic manner. Ok maybe thats not easy but take this one step and labor is greatly minimized for the custom operation. In the case of a scope maker such a U.S. Optics that builds to order if this were done no extra labor at all would be necessary to reap the extra $300.

[grywlfbg]

And is the XTR 2gen that hard to see in the day light

Well, it's brighter than the 1st gen but it isn't EOTech/Meopta bright. Thread about the 2nd gen here: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...c=87354&hl=

If you're familiar w/ the Meopta it's equivalent to a Meopta on level 6 (Meopta's go to 7) so it's pretty good but it's not enough to work in desert sunshine.

[Religious Shooter]

They already have the JPJ1 reticle in the FFP. Assuming they make this reticle daylight visible. It should transfer across all their reticles. There ya go.

The JPJ1's tree isn't oriented correctly. So the hashmarks don't function correctly as windage holds.

But I am curious.....why would you need to have holdovers on power less than 4? On top of that....it becomes increasingly harder to see a smaller stadia tree which would hinder speed. I just don't get the rationale of having a FFP reticle in a scope with 6x or less.

Well... what do you think would happen when in the heat of the moment you accidentally put your scope at 3.8x... or 3.7x... or 3.9x? How's the tree going to do on the farther targets? Will you miss? Will you need to shoot more because it's not hitting where it is supposed to because it's not on 4X?

I have a 2-7 Burris with a ballistic plex (?) reticle. It's SFP and I found that I wanted to dial back down on occasion to increase the field of view. But in doing so the reticle's hold-overs becomes "useless". I did cards for when it was in 4X and 1X in addition to 7X. But it was just a pain...

And if I was at 6.8X... 6.9X... etc. with the Burris my hit percentage lessened with the farther targets.

So I got an SN4. The dope on the reticle is consistent at whatever power I want. Much easier to use. But of course it is in FFP and the reticle's hold-overs do become smaller and less useful at lower power. But what happens if it is lit up? And the hashmarks are more appropriately spaced like Erik's reticle?

And as Erik mentions the whole reticle has to be lit. Not just the center. With an FFP version the big circle will shrink down so it will be more like an eotech reticle when it is at 1X.

I'm not saying Erik shouldn't go with an SFP. I'm saying he should look into offering an SFP and an FFP version. Just offer the end-user a choice.

[grywlfbg]

Erik,

Also like to add that in three gun I have shot more 300-350 yard targets than 400 yard targets. I'd request that you extend the center line up to correspond with a 300 or 350 yard hold. I don't think it would add too much clutter.

I like the center post extended up to 300yds but I disagree w/ the offset dot. A shooter just needs to know that at <50yds you aim a little high. I think it's way too confusing.

[Religious Shooter]

Modifying Erik's reticle... this is what I would like to see for an all around scope (not just for 3 gun).

What we don't normally see in three gun (that the soldier's see in the field) are moving targets and unknown distance targets.

For example:

- Say you are at the side of a road waiting to ambush a car/person. A car zip's by (laterally) and you want to engage it. With the mil bar on top you would use the hashmarks for lead. If you don't have that mil bar you don't have a good reference at all (for lead) to engage that target.

- You see a target at a distance. You need to quickly range it. You put one of the ranging circles on top to quickly get a rough range on the target. Given the range you got from the circle you would then use the reticle to adjust for the shot. If you didn't have those circles (or the mil bar) your only way to range it would be the zero dot and the tree.

I think in order for the scope to be (more) successful you need to also appeal to the other markets out there. IMHO, the above modifications are unobtrosive enough that the reticle can be used for both 3 gun and real world applications.

[dmshozer1]

Wow, looking through this thread I am glad to see that I am not alone in my reticle woes. I have been searching for a better scope than my current CQ/T for some time in conjunction with setting up a review thread Here . One of your members, a 00bullitt, contacted me about posting the table on this website (which seems like a great idea) and that is how I came to find this forum.

I have a few comments. Keep in mind that I have not competed in 3 gun though I have observed such competitions and that I am one opinionated SOB who forms and changes opinions quite easily with new input. I like to think of it as learning though the Socratic method.

I have been driven nuts by the lack of desirable reticles in quality 1-4x scopes. I swear if I see another damn mill dot I'm going to scream. I'm not even convinced that mil dots are still a good method of range estimation for sniper scopes and I know they suck for any rifle you would use in a situation where you don't have all day to pull out your calculator and plug away. As far as I can tell pretty much any situation where you would be using a scope and not sitting at a bench rest falls into this category. It seems to not have dawned on scope manufacturers that the mil dot scope was a compromise that stemmed from limitations in wire reticle technology. Now we can glass etch so put some darn floating features in there why don't you.

I agree with many of you that what works for 3 gun is not necessarily good for combat. However, what works for combat is probably passable though not ideal for 3 gun. The average 3 gunner is good, quite good. I am amazed at the speed and precision of the competitors when I watch matches. The average soldier is not good. In fact the average soldier is pretty terrible. Some of my best friends are soldiers and they spend entirely to much time waiting and marching, not enough time doing genuine training, and no time really competing to hone their skills. I out shoot many of them when they have an AR and I use a handgun. It's not entirely there fault (though if my life depended on my rifle I might try to get a bit more proficient.) many of them were not gun folk to start with and therefore have no training or practice outside of the service. I suspect this is different in the special ops community though I still expect the average 3 gunner is better at hitting targets (when not being shot at) than the average spec ops operator. Competition is simply that effective a tool for improving performance. The distinction in scope designs is that a 3 gunner knows his hold overs, hold offs, and from what I can tell target range for practice whereas an average soldier is clueless. It is my belief that any good 1-4x reticle geared to soldiers should have bullet drop, range estimation features, and possibly even some limited windage features. Preferably the bullet drop and ranging would be of the Acog/IOR/JPJ1 variety. It seems when I read through your posts that the prefered 3 gun reticle is quite minimalistic. Having no range estimation, some windage, and some drop information. While I expect the Combat styled reticle might be a bit busy for 3 gun I'm not sure the 3 gun reticle would be much help to the not so trained soldier in combat.

In any case I designed and drafted a reticle from the combat point of view which, though perhaps better many of the current reticles, is really much busier than the experienced 3 gunner seems to desire. At some point in the future I will probably post it but I am currently still in discussions with a few scope companies about it. Most tuned me down out of hand as I expected but a few, well 2, still have interest and I can be quite persistent. As you folks mentioned I also found U.S. Optics to be the only scope company willing to talk about a one off personal reticle. If the SN-4s had 1/2MOA adjustments instead of 5/8ths and was not first focal plane I would probably even have dropped the $1k up ding for the personal reticle. I am pleased to here that you have been working with them on a 2nd focal plane scope or adaptation of the SN-4s to that end.

Further on the topic of custom reticles. A big win to the first scope company who offers custom reticles from the customers .dwg files for a $300 up ding. Its not that hard people. Glass etching machines are essentially CNC. All you need to do is adapt a programing interface to transition the .dwg file to machine code for the etcher in a generic manner. Ok maybe thats not easy but take this one step and labor is greatly minimized for the custom operation. In the case of a scope maker such a U.S. Optics that builds to order if this were done no extra labor at all would be necessary to reap the extra $300.

BigJim,

Keep up the good work!

[Bear1142]

Why not utilize more of the circle and have an offset built into the reticle (2nd picture)?

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.

Also like to add that in three gun I have shot more 300-350 yard targets than 400 yard targets. I'd request that you extend the center line up to correspond with a 300 or 350 yard hold. I don't think it would add too much clutter.

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.

Other than hold-overs... What practical advantage will this version of the SN4 give me over my Meopta?

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.

It is my belief that any good 1-4x reticle geared to soldiers should have bullet drop, range estimation features, and possibly even some limited windage features. Preferably the bullet drop and ranging would be of the Acog/IOR/JPJ1 variety. It seems when I read through your posts that the prefered 3 gun reticle is quite minimalistic. Having no range estimation, some windage, and some drop information. While I expect the Combat styled reticle might be a bit busy for 3 gun I'm not sure the 3 gun reticle would be much help to the not so trained soldier in combat.

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.

If the SN-4s had 1/2MOA adjustments instead of 5/8ths

Yeah, not sure why the do that. It's on my agenda to find out why.

what do you think would happen when in the heat of the moment you accidentally put your scope at 3.8x... or 3.7x... or 3.9x?

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.

I have a 2-7 Burris with a ballistic plex (?) reticle. It's SFP and I found that I wanted to dial back down on occasion to increase the field of view. But in doing so the reticle's hold-overs becomes "useless".

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.

- Say you are at the side of a road waiting to ambush a car/person. A car zip's by (laterally) and you want to engage it. With the mil bar on top you would use the hashmarks for lead. If you don't have that mil bar you don't have a good reference at all (for lead) to engage that target.

- You see a target at a distance. You need to quickly range it. You put one of the ranging circles on top to quickly get a rough range on the target. Given the range you got from the circle you would then use the reticle to adjust for the shot. If you didn't have those circles (or the mil bar) your only way to range it would be the zero dot and the tree.

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

Edited December 23, 2009 by Bear1142

[sono]

Ok I missed it somewhere I'm sure, but when will it be available? I now run irons so all this talk of reticle design makes no sense to me. I wanna get an optic and with the guys working on this I know it will be solid. Cash ready so when?

[Sterling White]

New product entry into a market has to be a big risk for scope manufacturer's "IF" they are going to carry the note. Less risk or no risk would be involved in the investment if a "group buy" took place with 50% or 100% of the money up front.

The next series of questions would be:

Which manufacturer would be willing?

Would they subcontract out for individual components or would they have in-house capability?

What kind of QA/QC is in place?

How many units need to be produced to break even on cost settup - 25, 50, 100, 200?

Does the company have glass & electronic specialist in-house to fix problems when they happen?

We all talk (b*^ch) about product cost but there really is much more involved than saying "I anticipate the scope costing $1000-1200". Geez...I would like to see a manufacturer step up and say that they could build this scope for less than $1000. Guess what - I'm guessing that a lot of guys would consider using one!

[content edit]

Edited December 23, 2009 by Sterling White

[kellyn]

Erik's entire design was based around the second focal plane and the reticle remaining a constant size. Him nor I have found a need to use holdovers on anything less than max power in a low power optic of less than 6x. I guess this is something that precision rifle guys get hung up on. Still do not get it. I totally understand the need and intent for FFP scopes in precision rifle work.....but a low power CQB type optic? Makes no sense to me.

+1 on that!