Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

New reticle in a 1-4x24 scope


kgunz11

Recommended Posts

I have shot a loopy with a standard dual x crosshair for some time and really like it because of the simplicity. Given time I new that change was coming. I blame it on curiosity and not on necessity.

Here's information on a scope that I'm using this coming season. The illumination works well in low light conditions.

From the Valdada website:

CQB-BDC Reticule - Line thickness is .5 moa @ 100yds on 8 power. Dot diameter is 1.5 moa, inside horseshoe is 10 moa, outside horseshoe is 16 moa. Reticule designed with a 62gr fmj 5.56 nato for holdover, but it works well with 147gr-155gr .308's as well. Tick marks represent 21" shoulders and taper to 800 yds for quick ranging. Red illumination.

[spelling edit]

post-787-1261026763_thumb.jpg

Edited by Sterling White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tod your missing the point. Those folks are happy so they wont be a part of the market. The market share is too small to get anyone to spend too much money in R&D on what you want just because everything else is wrong or not good enough. There's only one perfect thing in this world, and you probably need to go change her diaper (illustrating a matter of perspective, (some people think what they have works and that's their perspective... big difference in perception and reality)). Everything else we can find fault in. Does that make sense?

What's wrong with your Swaro?

I'm not missing THE point....I refuse to acknowledge it. I know and talk to way too many people in SF MIL and LE groups. They are not happy with what they have. If the product was out there....it would sell. Where the scope companies are wrong is that they don't listen where it matters. They get info from wrong sources and act off input from the wrong people. and then they invest big money and make the wrong product.

And actually.....A persons perception is their reality.

Nothing big is wrong with my Swarovski. I would prefer bigger zeroing knobs and a reticle like we are discussing such as Erik's with a 2moa dot. But it does everything I need it to in its current state.

Fixing the knobs is easy. I can do that with a phone call. ;) BTDT.

Please do it. Dial those numbers for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does a LEO need that the Eotech is not giving them? They need the ability to________________

What does the 11B need that the Acog is not giving them? They need the ability to________________

I'm asking because I need to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have shot a loopy with a standard dual x crosshair. Given time I new that change was coming.

Here's information on a scope that I'm using this coming season. The illumination works well in low light conditions.

From the Valdada website:

CQB-BDC Reticule - Line thickness is .5 moa @ 100yds on 8 power. Dot diameter is 1.5 moa, inside horseshoe is 10 moa, outside horseshoe is 16 moa. Reticule designed with a 62gr fmj 5.56 nato for holdover, but it works well with 147gr-155gr .308's as well. Tick marks represent 21" shoulders and taper to 800 yds for quick ranging. Red illumination.

A simplistic type reticle like that is what is needed......so long as the dot illuminates in daylight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does a LEO need that the Eotech is not giving them? They need the ability to_make precision hostage shots inside 100 yards if need be

What does the 11B need that the Acog is not giving them? They need the ability to_have a true 1x for CQB engagements as well as the abilty to engage threats out to 400 yards

I'm asking because I need to know.

Its not just about room clearing for LEO. Think patrol rifles. It gives SWAT guys overwatch ability as well as another intel option.

On top of that Eotechs suck for reliability. Aimpoints are the way to go in that aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tod your missing the point. Those folks are happy so they wont be a part of the market. The market share is too small to get anyone to spend too much money in R&D on what you want just because everything else is wrong or not good enough. There's only one perfect thing in this world, and you probably need to go change her diaper (illustrating a matter of perspective, (some people think what they have works and that's their perspective... big difference in perception and reality)). Everything else we can find fault in. Does that make sense?

What's wrong with your Swaro?

I'm not missing THE point....I refuse to acknowledge it. I know and talk to way too many people in SF MIL and LE groups. They are not happy with what they have. If the product was out there....it would sell. Where the scope companies are wrong is that they don't listen where it matters. They get info from wrong sources and act off input from the wrong people. and then they invest big money and make the wrong product.

And actually.....A persons perception is their reality.

Nothing big is wrong with my Swarovski. I would prefer bigger zeroing knobs and a reticle like we are discussing such as Erik's with a 2moa dot. But it does everything I need it to in its current state.

Fixing the knobs is easy. I can do that with a phone call. ;) BTDT.

Please do it. Dial those numbers for me.

I'll give you the number, you call them and tell them what you want. Be prepared to stroke them a check. It shouldn't be too expensive, but they might need to borrow your scope to fit a turret for it.

(805) 901-1752

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tod your missing the point. Those folks are happy so they wont be a part of the market. The market share is too small to get anyone to spend too much money in R&D on what you want just because everything else is wrong or not good enough. There's only one perfect thing in this world, and you probably need to go change her diaper (illustrating a matter of perspective, (some people think what they have works and that's their perspective... big difference in perception and reality)). Everything else we can find fault in. Does that make sense?

What's wrong with your Swaro?

I'm not missing THE point....I refuse to acknowledge it. I know and talk to way too many people in SF MIL and LE groups. They are not happy with what they have. If the product was out there....it would sell. Where the scope companies are wrong is that they don't listen where it matters. They get info from wrong sources and act off input from the wrong people. and then they invest big money and make the wrong product.

And actually.....A persons perception is their reality.

Nothing big is wrong with my Swarovski. I would prefer bigger zeroing knobs and a reticle like we are discussing such as Erik's with a 2moa dot. But it does everything I need it to in its current state.

Fixing the knobs is easy. I can do that with a phone call. ;) BTDT.

Please do it. Dial those numbers for me.

I'll give you the number, you call them and tell them what you want. Be prepared to stroke them a check. It shouldn't be too expensive, but they might need to borrow your scope to fit a turret for it.

(805) 901-1752

Cool.....who is that I'm calling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does a LEO need that the Eotech is not giving them? They need the ability to_make precision hostage shots inside 100 yards

What does the 11B need that the Acog is not giving them? They need the ability to_have a true 1x for CQB engagements as well as the abilty to engage threats out to 400 yards

I'm asking because I need to know.

On top of that Eotechs suck for reliability.

LEO should NEVER make precision hostage shots inside 100 yards. First of all it is not SOP, there are other tools for that job. That's like asking someone to skin a deer with a spoon, you shouldn't even attempt it, call in the guy with the knife.

Soldiers have red dots mounted on top of the Acog for that.

ETA other photo

post-13561-1261027516_thumb.jpg

post-13561-1261027665_thumb.jpg

Edited by kgunz11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobby.....you're starting to fall into the category of "you don't know what you don't know". You never want to be that guy.

Go back and read the part about efficiency again. And go study SOP for first responders.

I'm done here. This discussion is turning into an argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does a LEO need that the Eotech is not giving them? They need the ability to_make precision hostage shots inside 100 yards

What does the 11B need that the Acog is not giving them? They need the ability to_have a true 1x for CQB engagements as well as the abilty to engage threats out to 400 yards

I'm asking because I need to know.

On top of that Eotechs suck for reliability.

LEO should NEVER make precision hostage shots inside 100 yards. First of all it is not SOP, there are other tools for that job. That's like asking someone to skin a deer with a spoon, you shouldn't even attempt it, call in the guy with the knife.

Exactly where do you get your knowledge of SOP's? that's a pretty blanket statement don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobby.....you're starting to fall into the category of "you don't know what you don't know". You never want to be that guy.

And go study SOP for first responders.

I have forwarded the SOP question to a 27 yr police veteran, SWAT team commander, slotted sniper, and the most knowledgeable combat applications guy I know. He'll be able to quote the SOP from their department manual.

Others look like this:

http://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/res...w/Chap18-3.html

http://www.wpbpolice.org/policies/download...TIATIONTEAM.pdf

I might be the "I don't know what I don't know" guy (I don't know everything of course, but I don't claim to), but I'm not the kind of guy that thinks there is always greener grass on the other side of the fence either. Like I said, I use training to make up for shortcomings in equipment. I asked a few valid questions hoping to get a valid answer so that I had something to relay to someone capable of producing a more suitable optic for the community. I stated my case that the market for the type of optic you desire, both CQB and long range precision, is available in the Acog combo with many different reticles with BDC hash marks and daytime visible illumination. I've been having this discussion with a major scope manufacturer since SHOT show last year. Even got Jerry Miculek involved to share his expertise with those folks. The same things I have been saying to you I have been hearing.

"there's not enough market share to develop that optic"

"3 gunners are a very small part of the scope business"

"there are already scopes out there that do that"

"mil and leo guys have good optics choices already"

"we did a 1-6 power scope and no one bought it" (my reply was because the reticle was unsuitable)

I was hoping you could give me an angle that I had not already tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does a LEO need that the Eotech is not giving them? They need the ability to_make precision hostage shots inside 100 yards

What does the 11B need that the Acog is not giving them? They need the ability to_have a true 1x for CQB engagements as well as the abilty to engage threats out to 400 yards

I'm asking because I need to know.

On top of that Eotechs suck for reliability.

LEO should NEVER make precision hostage shots inside 100 yards. First of all it is not SOP, there are other tools for that job. That's like asking someone to skin a deer with a spoon, you shouldn't even attempt it, call in the guy with the knife.

Exactly where do you get your knowledge of SOP's? that's a pretty blanket statement don't you think?

I think you can make "blanket statements" where "Standard" Operating Procedures are concerned. Every written one I have been able to find all suggest not antagonizing the situation. The goal is to get the hostage out alive and there are teams that their specific goal is to do that. Back off, call for back up, attempt to calm the BG, and gather intel until more personnel arrive.

Do you know of a SOP that suggests firing on the BG if you are the first to respond and it involves a precision placed shot? There ARE standard operating procedures and going in with your guns blazing in a hostage situation is not one of them.

Do you have something that states otherwise? Do you work for a department that authorizes such shots to be taken? I understand there are special circumstances, but rarely is that handled outside of the written SOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that most agree or would accept a 1-4 or 1-6 of sufficient quality, bright illumination with proper turrets. Its the exact design of the reticle that everyone gets hung up on. Some want simple (me) some want more clutter. Why not offer a standard reticle, brightly iluminated and offer a custom etching program at additional charge for individual tastes. I paid over $2000.00 for a swaro that wasn't perfect to my taste. I certainly would pay $1200.00 + whatever to get exactly what I want....

I know it can be done,with todays computer technology its just a matter of a company stepping up and realizing the true potential of a base scope and custom reticle program and institute it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to suggest that we stay on topic.....reticles! And not go into the muddy waters of SOPs with special ops.

Was kinda hoping that to hear from Trapr how he saved the day with spoon... :cheers:

<<<Good Call Sterling :) Wheres a mod when you need em?>>>

---mod squad

<_< I was stabed with a spoon once. not fun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trapr was busy saving the day!!!!!!!!!!!!! I do have to work,......................occasionally :rolleyes:

I agree with whoever said, STAY on TOPIC, SOP's and policy, and SOC's and CoC are not what matter when it comes to a new reticle design. But then our moderator is involved in this discussion, so I'm assuming he's enbroiled in the discussion????? :roflol:

From what I read trying to catch up, nobody really wants clutter in the reticle, nor does anyone want or need a BIG central aiming point, 2moa seems to be agreeable. Bobby if you want answers to your questions, post your questions and I'm sure we can give you answers. as for the ones you did post. EO suffers from battery issues, IT NEEDS THEM!!!! and it provides NO magnification.

ACOG suffers from no wide field of view for true CQB use, unless you train heavily with it and get used to working with it. it still could use 1x ability hence the use of iron sights applied to it.

the magnifiers and iron sights applied to both of these sights are Bandaids used in an attempt to cure a serious injury, they work to a certain extent but are not ideal. Which is why you see low power optics being used more prevalently, the desire for some to increase the upper end of the magnification beyond 4x is in my opinion simply an attempt to crossover into precision riflery, practical riflery truly does not require more than 4x, because shots beyond that are the realm of another type of rifle altogether, it also tends to make the scope bigger and heavier than needed.

Sterlings reticle design is OK in my opinion but I personally do not like the big donut in the way, it tends to obscure the target too much on longer range shooting for my liking. For CQB/Hosing type shooting I would simply use the entire reticle as my aiming reference, I have had this happen with the ACOG when I used it for a precision carbine match.

Trapr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to suggest that we stay on topic.....reticles! And not go into the muddy waters of SOPs with special ops.

Was kinda hoping that to hear from Trapr how he saved the day with spoon... :cheers:

<<<Good Call Sterling :) Wheres a mod when you need em?>>>

---mod squad

<_< I was stabed with a spoon once. not fun

All this talk about spoons..... SOP's..... special ops.....I would just give in and let Todd have a reshoot. Because that's really want you want isn't it. ISN'T IT! :roflol:

No really the above discussions of reticals is very good and the idea train should not dead end. I believe we (the 3gun crowd) have just scratched the surface. Keep it coming.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to suggest that we stay on topic.....reticles! And not go into the muddy waters of SOPs with special ops.

Was kinda hoping that to hear from Trapr how he saved the day with spoon... :cheers:

<<<Good Call Sterling :) Wheres a mod when you need em?>>>

---mod squad

more specifically reticles for tactical class. in open, with a secondary red dot, all u need is a scope with a bdc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I wanted a USO scope I could get any reticle design I or you guys wanted, but I am NOT a fan of US Optics.

March scopes are nice and they are 1-10X scopes. ;) Having a usable reticle in a package like that would own the 3G world.

NF makes a nice 1-4X scope and they are happy with their velocity reticles. Getting them to add a daylight visible dot in the center shouldn't be too big of a deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for anyone interested, this was the response.

You don’t ask for things with a simple answer. This will be lengthy.

This comes up from a discussion with a guy. Is he a sworn officer?

If he is, someone outranking him has made those decisions.

If he is, he should have a “use of force continium” which is part of his department “use of force policy”. Which is in line with the “LAW”.

If he is, he should also have been trained on these items and it should be documented.

If he is, he should also be trained on non-active shooter, versus active shooter scenarios and have it documented.

However:

First responders normal response is to save lives, both the victim and suspect, when their own life is not immediately threatened by deadly force. A hostage situation does not automatically make for a situation where the responders’ life is a threat of deadly force situation. The responder must assess the situation and determine the nature of the call.

If the situation fits into the responder’s policy and is with-in his training, and ability, and the responder reasonably believes that deadly force is about to be used against the person of another, and that the responder must use deadly force to stop this use against the person of another, the responder may use deadly force. And the responder best be able to articulate in detail all the reasons.

At the same time, the responder may not recklessly endanger the life of others, say a crowded street of onlookers, other hostages, or all the children standing in the background while Mommy is held hostage. If the BG kills Mommy, he/she did it by his/her criminal action, there are times we can’t save one life when many others are endangered by our actions. One BG out front cannot be shot by a Sniper while three more armed BG’s hold 25 hostages in the back of the store…

However:

Reality comes into play.

The responder must first have a precision AR. (ie in real life, sub-moa).

The responder must have precision ammunition with LE accepted stopping power.

The responder must have precision accuracy training with this weapon. “Owens vs Haas”

The responder must have precision accuracy training documented. “Whitney vs Warden”

The responder must have precision accuracy training that is approved by his department. “Owens vs Haas” “Whitney vs Warden” “Hays vs Jefferson County” “Anderson vs Creighton”

City of Canton vs Harris - Sets the standard of deliberate indifference to training.

McClelland vs Facteau - Establishes the fact that budgetary constraints which limit training time and resources is not considered a valid defense for not training.

Hays vs Jefferson County - Unstructured training may not fulfill the agency's responsibility to train its officers.

Whitney vs Warden - If training is not documented, it did not occur in the eyes of the court.

Owens vs Haas - Individual officers must be formally trained to perform the requirements of their job. In other words, snipers must receive sniper training. DMR’s must receive DMR training, Responders must receive Responder/DMR/Shoot-don’t shoot training…

The bottom line is there is an expectation on the part of the courts for agencies to provide adequate training time, resources and materials to the officers it entrusts with protecting the public. Failure to provide that training is not taken lightly. It is one of the first areas attacked in any use of force action. Protect yourselves and protect your agencies. A few thousand dollars spent training each year is an insurance premium against paying millions of dollars later in a lawsuit.

District of Columbia vs Parker - If your agency issues equipment, they have to train you with it. Further, the agency has to provide you the means to maintain your training and fitness.

Anderson vs Creighton - Sets standards for specially and reasonably trained officers.

Richardson vs US - Addresses instructor liability. Trainers need frequent training and updates on their skills and specialties.

Next However:

Since you asked:

Our guys respond and determine they have a hostage situation (versus an active shooter or terrorist). 999 of 1000 times they will not shoot first and ask questions later.

(Important Interrupt: Active Shooter and Terrorist: Shoot immediately.)

They begin a dialogue to try to defuse the situation. They also call immediately for help notifying dispatch and everybody else they have a hostage situation.

The type of weapon (if present) determines the next response.

No weapon, physical restraint, talk. First responder, second responder, and negotiators.

Knife: Talk until somebody with the weapon ability to remove the problem arrives, Continue to TALK, then based on the deadly force actions taken by Mr. Knife, resolve the situation. 999 out of 1000, Mr. Knife gives up.

Pistol: Talk until somebody with the weapon ability to remove the problem arrives, (and during this time, secure the scene, remove anyone who could become Collateral Casualties) Continue to TALK, then based on the deadly force actions taken by Mr. Pistol, resolve the situation. 999 out of 1000, Mr. Pistol gives up.

Grenade, Bomb, etc, see Pistol:

Rifle: Talk until somebody with the weapon ability to remove the problem arrives, (and during this time, secure the scene ((a much bigger scene than Mr. Pistol)), remove anyone who could become Collateral Casualties) Continue to TALK, then based on the deadly force actions taken by Mr. Rifle, resolve the situation. 999 out of 1000, Mr. Rifle gives up.

269 times in 27 years, Snipers dealt with the problem.

“somebody with the weapon ability to remove the problem”:

Officer extremely well trained with service handgun.

Officer extremely well trained with service rifle.

DMR trained Officer.

Sniper.

I asked the questions

What does a LEO need that the Eotech is not giving them? They need the ability to________________

What does the 11B need that the Acog is not giving them? They need the ability to________________

Most of them don’t have a weapon or ammo with the required accuracy for the precision LE requires.

11B damn sure does not with current issue weapons and ammunition. Their ACOG is a 4X optic that has been recognized as the best 100-300 man sized compromise for a combat optic. Not worth a shit inside a house under 25 yards. Depending on the training, experience, and quality of rifle and ammo, the right man can do the 100 yard head shot with the ACOG.

However, the right man can do the same thing with issue iron sights.

With LE, the right man with training, experience, quality rifle and ammo, can do the 100 yard head shot with irons, EO-Tech (depending on the reticle), or ACOG. Again, the ACOG sucks below 25 yards in a hurry. In the 269 Sniper times in 27 years, there are no more than 5 shootings beyond 100 yards. The closest is like 3 feet, with 70-75% under 50 yards.

There currently is no complete data on submachine gun and patrol rifle shootings, but 80% or so are under 25 yards, like in house, in yard, at contact distance.

EO-Tech with zero magnification, as well as the Aim-Point, is seen as the problem, no magnification, so you see the 3X magnifiers, and the 4X ACOG for distance, but the no magnification for CQB. Irons work perfectly well with good eyes and consistent training… You personally know why the pistol shooters have gone to optical sights… Same reason on the rifle, allows for better precision aiming… Better precision aiming, allows for better precision hits. Best precision hits stop the BG the quickest. It’s all about placement…

Which is why I went with the Leupold 1.5-5 and the Burris 1-4 on my duty weapons that I use daily for said purpose you describe. SFOD-D for some reason helped design the S&B Short Dot (1-4) for their uses.

In the end, it’s the individual officer’s decision to shoot or not, based on what they perceive.

And that is another lengthy discussion with many factors, most specific, Snipers ordered to shoot do not because they don’t have a clear shot, or Snipers/DMRs/Officers DO shoot when ordered not to because they see something Command does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

running the risk of keeping this thread *on* target.....

So, *what if*... Instead of looking at it from the perspective of a give scope manufacturer.

What if we could form a consensus around a user designed reticle? Yes, I understand it wouldn't match *everyones* requirements. But what about the 80/20 rule or 90/10.

I guess what I'm saying is - is there enough consensus that you could create a rough specification for a scope? Then maybe take that to manufactures and see who'd be will to run a prototype run and get the feedback.

It seems we are all in agreement about a couple of things. (consensus wise)

- 1-4 or 1-6

- daylight illuminated (means bright daylight and bright illumination

- Rear focal plan reticle

- Good knobs (I don't know how to define those)

- some form of consensus around a CQB reticle (this seems to the be the point where we could pool our resources - start with an adequate starting point and draw up an ideal reticle)

Still might be that no manufacture would be interested... but I suspect that if you came up with a group design, that would support a price point and volume, and you took it to a variety of manufacturers, it might get their attention.

Just some random thots I suppose....

Alan - a total newbie!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erik has a reticle that most everybody likes, it's just not daylight illuminated, but seems to be a good compromise. I am in the ear of a company that wants to be in the Burris XTR and Meopta price range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...