New reticle in a 1-4x24 scope

[bigbrowndog]

I hope its good clean ear

That price range would rock!!!! provided its a well made scope. I thinkit would entice a lot of people to consider , if it worked.

trapr

[kgunz11]

This kind of looks like one of the ACOG reticles, but someone sent me this as an idea. I like it, but I'm unsure of the dot placement. He says it is placed 3 MOA above the 200 yard zero. A 100 yard zero is 1.5 MOA above 200 yards so the bottom of the dot would have to be the 200 yard zero, not what is illustrated in the drawings. It still looks pretty clean.

Sheldon_Retical.pdf

[kgunz11]

Trapr, it's German made and has a lifetime replacement warranty on their current offerings. That combination alone gives it some merit.

[00bullitt]

We should just give in and let Tod have a reshoot. Because that's really what you want isn't it. ISN'T IT!

Alan.....you crack me up. I want you to know....I have not had a reshoot since BRM3G on your Barrett stage. But if you ever need my services.....just holler. I CAN get you that reshoot.

[Alan Adamson]

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.

I'm certainly no expert, and I've seen Erik's design. I would argue that it's *close* to what people wants, but still not quite.

The discussion that started this thread was headed in the right direction, but then got derailed with the SOP tangent.

For example. The IOR CQB seems to be a reasonable reticle as well, and has some nice features that are missing from Erik's and vice-a-versa. But in the pitbul it's in the front focal plan, and isn't daylight illuminated.

So there must be a consensus around reticles that could be formed. That's all I'm saying instead of trying to fit the reticle to the company that is doing it (US Optics has some challenges with everything we'd want for example), why not come up with the design, and then see who's willing to take some risk...afterall, this is free R&D for someone, and it costs us nothing either except for weeding the tangents out of the discussion ...

Just some bystander comments I suppose....

Alan

[00bullitt]

The Sheldon reticle is basically Erik's reticle without the circle and a 300 yard stadia line added.

For fast CQB work.....its nice to have a larger circle to get on close targets faster. I really liked the broken circle of the Vortec reticle on the first page assuming its about 50 moa outside .

I think the NF Velocity stadia tree added to the broken circle from the Vortec reticle on the first page would be BA assuming the dot could be daylight illuminated like an aimpoint.

[bigbrowndog]

and the personal disagreements continue, A "stadia tree" is not needed, IMO!! my discription of the German #4 based reticle IMO!!! is all that is really needed. another variation would be the current Meopta reticle with a lower stadia line and marks 4 moa apart would be good as well. I think having the reticle floating in the middle would suffice for CQB and could effectively eliminate the need for a circle around the central dot.

Simple is much better than clutter and vision barriers, aka: crappity crap!!

trapr

[kgunz11]

Getting a high intensity dot in the center of the reticle daylight illuminated shouldn't be a problem. A large black bold horse shoe with a bright red dot in the middle with a stadia tree underneath might work for most. That's what I'm hearing from this. Am I getting it wrong?

[Bear1142]

Bobby,

The US Optics is daytime visible to a degree. You will see the illumination, but the whole reticle illuminates, not the center dot.

I'm also working on reducing the center 3 moa dot down to a 2 moa.

Erik

[00bullitt]

and the personal disagreements continue, A "stadia tree" is not needed, IMO!! my discription of the German #4 based reticle IMO!!! is all that is really needed. another variation would be the current Meopta reticle with a lower stadia line and marks 4 moa apart would be good as well. I think having the reticle floating in the middle would suffice for CQB and could effectively eliminate the need for a circle around the central dot.

Simple is much better than clutter and vision barriers, aka: crappity crap!!

trapr

Yeah.....we dont agree. What you want will work as many scopes will. But I like the tree with real thin(as in 1/3moa)intersecting stadia lines. When done properly.....it almost invisible as in Erik's reticle.

[gose]

Oops, you said NOT intersected.

I dont need to bracket a target. I just need to place the dot on it and know that the scope is horizontal to the target. Remove the vertical line above the dot too. Thats lookin better though. The key is how bright the dot can be in the daylight. It needs to be Aimpoint bright.

+1

Drop the lines, as well as the numbers. Make the dot Aimpoint/Meopta bright and get some nice turrets on it.

I'd probably buy that scope for $1200 in 1-4 and definitely in 1-6.

[Sterling White]

I'm also working on reducing the center 3 moa dot down to a 2 moa.

Erik, did you borrow the spoon from Trapr??

Edited December 17, 2009 by Sterling White

[Sako92S]

This is all I need. CD-I reticle.

[00bullitt]

This is all I need. CD-I reticle.

It is working out fantastic for me right now. I can use the reticle for holds on a 10" target out to 500 yards if need be. But I usually dial dope past 300.

Its really the fastest reticle I have used to date coupled with the illumination.

[bigbrowndog]

you're right Todd!!! we're going to have to agree to disagree, because "almost" invisible is not invisible its still there cluttering up the view and obscuring the target.

Sterling, he didn't borrow the spoon he just hit it with his purse,...................ah errrrrr, shooting bag!!!!!

Merry Christmas to all,.................including those I disagree with!!!!!!

trapr

[00bullitt]

you're right Todd!!! we're going to have to agree to disagree, because "almost" invisible is not invisible its still there cluttering up the view and obscuring the target.

Sterling, he didn't borrow the spoon he just hit it with his purse,...................ah errrrrr, shooting bag!!!!!

Merry Christmas to all,.................including those I disagree with!!!!!!

trapr

Ohhh.....go shoot your irons and big heavy bullets and be happy

Merry Christmas,Happy Holidays and have a safe New Year to you and all as well. But Trapr,I know you'll be busy on New Years doin what you do best.

[Xfactor]

...Don't expect to see a ballistic holding reticle from them, loads are different according to temps, ASL, and MV...

...A reticle with 2 MOA graduations would work fine, you should know your own holds for YOUR load. 200 yards hold 2 MOA, 300 yards hold 4 MOA, 500 yards hold 8 MOA, 600 yards hold 12 MOA...

I totally agree here. This is the best way to keep one reticle useful for many rifles/loads.

As a lot of folks have said, I think I've seen some very good reticle designs proposed, but none are quite perfect yet. I think some "perfect" designs have been described, though...

I also agree with what's been said that it seems like a majority of folks are extremely close on agreeing on the details. The commonalities are:

• BRIGHT daytime illuminated center point - 2-3 MOA in size
  
• Good, fast, zeroing target turrets
  
• Excellent quality glass - the best available at the $1200 price point
  
• Between 1-4x and 1-6x focal length
  
• Thin-lined stadia tree with 3 or 4 hold-over lines
  

Where opinions seem to vary is mostly related to what other reticle markings are "necessary." But I have noticed that many of the serious, accomplished 3-gunners that are weighing-in agree that less is more. I tend to agree... but that said, there are a few additional markings that I'd be willing to accept if it meant that this great reticle/scope that we're all dreaming about actually comes to fruition!

Here are some additional markings that some want, and no one seems to refuse to accept:

• Large bracket circle (like the 55 MOA circle on Erik's reticle)
  
• Thin horizon cross hair (stopping short of intersecting with the center aiming point).
  (This could serve double duty as a means of aiding in maintaining level, as well as bracketing for those that desire to do so.)
  

And here are the markings that most seem to feel are probably excessive for a 3-gun scope:

• 12 o'clock post
  
• Heavy lines for cross hairs
  
• Circles, horseshoes, bracketing boxes, etc., close-in around the center aiming point
  

Some other thoughts...

For the stadia tree, as referenced above, I think the hold-over lines should be MOA increments so that they're universal to all rifles/loads rather than dialed-in for one combination only.

With regard to vertical windage lines on the horizontal stadia tree lines, I agree with Trapr that they're typically not really that useful. I wouldn't be averse to one vertical windage line at the end of each horizontal hold-over line designating a particular MOA of drift, (this would at least be a nice reference to have... ) but it would probably be just as useful (and less clutter) to just make the horizontal lines extend to a particular MOA appropriate for approx 10mph of wind drift with common loads. (This would also look like Erik's reticle.) 3-gun wind doping isn't an exact science, so no need to go crazy with this...

One other thought is about the center aiming point. I like a dot just fine, but I also still sorta like the triangle in my Trijicon TR21... it works just like a dot for high-speed/close-range work, but it gives a little better precision for longer range shots where the point of the triangle can be used as the reference (either where it's zero'ed, or, for hold-over/-unders, where the tip of the triangle would be at a reference point on the target.)

If any of this makes sense to anyone, maybe I can try my hand at drawing up a few sample reticles along these lines...

[grywlfbg]

Bobby,

The US Optics is daytime visible to a degree. You will see the illumination, but the whole reticle illuminates, not the center dot.

I'm also working on reducing the center 3 moa dot down to a 2 moa.

Erik

Erik,

I currently run a 2nd gen Burris XTR. But if you can get your reticle (the circle and dot, not the stadia) to be Meopta-bright I'll shell out $1,400 for it tomorrow. If the stadia had 5mph marks that would be bonus.

Edited December 18, 2009 by grywlfbg

[ken hebert]

Getting a high intensity dot in the center of the reticle daylight illuminated shouldn't be a problem. A large black bold horse shoe with a bright red dot in the middle with a stadia tree underneath might work for most. That's what I'm hearing from this. Am I getting it wrong?

think more "nightforce velocity reticle with a bright 2 min dot and no posts." just the information i need to see in a reticle and nothing else. I'd fork up $1200 for that in a heartbeat.

[bigbrowndog]

why is everyone hung up on windage stadia lines,..........................please someone convince me why we need them in 3 gun???????????????????????

its a bit windy hold on the edge of the target, its windier than that hold a little off the target. how many of you have actually used the windage hold off marks that some manufacturers provide????????????????????????????????????

Trapr

[cas]

It's late and I was bored.

Perhaps a bit too "Acog-ish". Can't decide which way I like the "V" (I think it's way too big as well) But non-chevron you could use the bottom point for 100 yards.

Edited December 18, 2009 by cas

[RufDog]

You think NF is behind the curve because they don't have daylight illumination?

The LE world likes their Eotech optics. The Mil world likes their Acog. Everybody seems to be happy except a few in the 3G world.

They like them because neither know much better.

[RufDog]

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.

Outstanding point.

[BigDave]

Has anyone spent time with this reticle from Trijicon? I'm sure there is a good reason, but I'd love to see this thing in the 1-4x AccuPoint. ETA - can or does anyone do custom reticles for the Accupoints?

Edited December 18, 2009 by BigDave

[00bullitt]

why is everyone hung up on windage stadia lines,..........................please someone convince me why we need them in 3 gun???????????????????????

its a bit windy hold on the edge of the target, its windier than that hold a little off the target. how many of you have actually used the windage hold off marks that some manufacturers provide????????????????????????????????????

Trapr

I've not used them because I have not had them....but I can remember every time I have needed them and not had them.

When you start getting past 300 yards and you are already holding over a target....it gets kinda hard and slow to float a reticle out in limbo trying to guess where you need to be in relation to the target to get your hit. The windage correction lines are just a fast easy indicator.

You need to jump over in Kurts division a little more and see how much harder it is to curve them little bullets on target in even a little wind from 300 yards and out.

But point of the matter for me is.....I've needed them many a times when it mattered and did not have them.