Really? A .075 center dot?
Sigh.... Been waiting years and years and they just plop a huge blob right in the center.
Sigh.... Been waiting years and years and they just plop a huge blob right in the center.
Rifle Scopes Tangent Theta Gen3 XR - details and images
- Thread starter jb1000br
- Start date
Don't worry kids, more for me. I'll put them to good use.......
I mean, c'mon. The line thickness on the gen2xr is .025 it says.
Their center dot is 3 times as thick? Why???
Run a finer center dot and move the lines closer to it if you're worried about losing a .3 or .5.
Sigh... Well... Maybe in another 5 years kids.
Their center dot is 3 times as thick? Why???
Run a finer center dot and move the lines closer to it if you're worried about losing a .3 or .5.
Sigh... Well... Maybe in another 5 years kids.
All the complaints about center dot are just further proof you can never please everyone when it comes to reticles. I mean really just over a quarter inch will be covered at 100 yards. If all I did was shoot groups at 100 it might not be for me, but I don’t. All the complaining before anyone has ever looked through one or use one is laughable. Quit muddying the waters. I will reserve judgment and see next week in person on steel in the field which way I feel on reticle, but at least it will be first hand when I comment. The guys that put down the cash and have the first 6 coming their way are the only ones that should be commenting on reticle IMO, looking at something on paper is much different than in the field through the scope. Don’t like it don’t buy it! but no one wants to sort through all the whining to try and read about what’s actually going on with these.
Exactly, I'm sure this scope is aimed more at a PRS/Tactical crowd, not Grandpa Jim who is shooting groups at 100.
The big center dot is nice. So far, I hate the .2 dot on my LRR reticle because its SO small and so hard to pickup on anything but a perfect white target at max zoom (which is never used anyway)
Here's my take on the reticle without the 1-mil dot weirdness:
And for those that like big center dots, here's the new Gen4XR-Beach-Ball
And for those that like big center dots, here's the new Gen4XR-Beach-Ball
Ordered mine two days ago from CS Tactical. Now I wait. Excited to get my hands on this thing.
Why would you do that! It has a giant aiming dot that’s gonna cover most every target you shoot at!!! I mean it’s basically a tennis ball at 100 yards... and a watermelon at 1000...lol!!!
That being said I hope to have tracking tomorrow on mine, I was early on preorder list.
Damn those 1/4” tennis balls!
Exactly! I just get a laugh out of all the complaints that have come up in multiple threads. Then you do the math and see that it’s only slightly larger than a 6mm bullet at 100. My sarcasm is mainly out of boredom until mine gets here. Still holding onto hope I’ll have it Friday!
I think the biggest reason for “complaints” is the dot appearance next to the rest of the reticle.
I’ll be checking one out this week if all goes well.
Regardless of what the math is, if it looks weird to your eye, you’re going to hate it.
Seems like an odd choice considering the rest of the market is using .05 and smaller.
Also, if we are going to throw math in it, they are utilizing a dot that is 50% larger than the average dot being used.
Maybe they know something we don’t, maybe not.
Waiting on the UPS truck to deliver these suckers...
Alright alright...let see them mystery reticle
Nop not doing it @GunGasm been there too many times
A quick hi and bye...
Sure, but I can use that exact logic to say don’t say anything until you try it, it will look different to your eye than on paper.
Also you don’t have to put the word complaints in “ “ that’s what has been posted about it by some. We can mince words and say grip, whine, lambaste, criticize, etc...
Mine showed up Monday. Quite pleased with the purchase.
I think the center dot should actually help in prs. I hope that it'll help me focus on the dot more instead of focusing on the target which happens often in fast paced shooting. But using the center of the reticle on a target is a rare occasion. Ive had the gen 2xr TT in the past and it was the best scope I've ever used for sure. I can't wait for this gen 3xr. If the dot is hard to use on paper I'll just dial up or down .2 tenths and use that to zero because of the really fine thickness of the reticle itself
I think that for now Gen 3 XR is for the 5-25x model only. I think they sell far more 5-25x models than the 3-15x, so unless sales go up substantially, it will be tricky to convince them to add Gen 3 XR reticle to it.
I had a talk with them about some other reticle options for the 3-15x models and I'll keep working on them.
Tangent Theta is a pretty small company, so they can not have too many projects at the same time. 5-25x comes first.
ILya
Agreed.
At this time, on new orders, they are quoting 3-5 months for delivery so in reality they can't and shouldn't take on more until it's such a time that their output can keep up with demand.
Thanks for the updates! Not gonna lie, it's a little weird that I just happened to be watching Ilya's shot update vids right now. I had hoped it was kind of inevitable, since they already sell the G2 in the TT315M and I really prefer the floating dot. And like probably others I maintain hope they'll eventually release a locking windage turret option all around. But, struggling to keep up with existing demand is a really good reason for them not to do either right now - one of those admirable problems for a company to have.
What I'm actually after is a lightweight mid range magnification hunting scope with the best possible low light performance. Ideally one I could buy once, cry a lot, and then be happy with forever, to include swapping it onto my other rifles (hence the interest in the tree ret). Don't want to derail the thread but would appreciate any nudges in an alternate direction. The existence of the new G3 and possibility that it may - eventually - find its way to the TT315M has given me that super dumb buyer's analysis paralysis, but my checking account is at least breathing a sigh of relief. For now.
What I'm actually after is a lightweight mid range magnification hunting scope with the best possible low light performance. Ideally one I could buy once, cry a lot, and then be happy with forever, to include swapping it onto my other rifles (hence the interest in the tree ret). Don't want to derail the thread but would appreciate any nudges in an alternate direction. The existence of the new G3 and possibility that it may - eventually - find its way to the TT315M has given me that super dumb buyer's analysis paralysis, but my checking account is at least breathing a sigh of relief. For now.
The guys at TT understand that reticles matter and they are working on options. However, you have to understand how that company views their products and how much obsessive compulsive attention to detail they have.
I recall they held back the introduction of production scopes because some mechanics worked perfectly at -30C, but not perfectly at -40C. Personally, I do not expect anything to work at -40C (I am indoors with a glass of single malt well before it gets that cold). They worked on it until it was perfect at -40C.
What I want them to do is introduce a simpler tree reticle with a bolder primary aiming point in the 3-15x50 Hunter platform. I think that would be a kick ass hunting scope for any lighting conditions and distances. I will sketch up a couple of designs and keep on harassing until they build one just to shut me up
(I wish it was that simple, but I will keep trying).ILya
Thanks for all that you do! It is really appreciated and frankly has probably sold a whole boatload of past and future TT's. That definitely applies to me. Feel free to tell them that.
I don't want to be the jerk that derails this thread, so I asked my question in more detail in separate thread "TT315M alternative." Would really appreciate your thoughts, or alternatively I can just cool my heels while you update your recommendations. Thanks again!
FWIW, I like your Hunter ret idea in concept, but honestly I would be taking a much harder look at the TT315H if they had just designed it around No4 rather than duplex. Just personal preference.
I don't want to be the jerk that derails this thread, so I asked my question in more detail in separate thread "TT315M alternative." Would really appreciate your thoughts, or alternatively I can just cool my heels while you update your recommendations. Thanks again!
FWIW, I like your Hunter ret idea in concept, but honestly I would be taking a much harder look at the TT315H if they had just designed it around No4 rather than duplex. Just personal preference.
Thanks for all that you do! It is really appreciated and frankly has probably sold a whole boatload of past and future TT's. That definitely applies to me. Feel free to tell them that.
I don't want to be the jerk that derails this thread, so I asked my question in more detail in separate thread "TT315M alternative." Would really appreciate your thoughts, or alternatively I can just cool my heels while you update your recommendations. Thanks again!
FWIW, I like your Hunter ret idea in concept, but honestly I would be taking a much harder look at the TT315H if they had just designed it around No4 rather than duplex. Just personal preference.
#4 vs duplex is an interesting question. In North America, #4 does not do that well. I do not know if you have seen the G4-BDC reticle in the Vortex Razor HD LH line, but that was my idea: I sketched it out on the back of the napkin as a way to modernize the #4 reticle without making it cumbersome. They went ahead and made the G4-BDC reticle out of my sketch.
In the US, it did not sell well and I fully expect that they will discontinue it here. However, in Europe, it is doing great. Different folks, different strokes. I prefer #4 to duplex and #4 variants to duplex variants. However, I appear to be in the minority on this one.
ILya
I got the opportunity to use the TT with the Gen3xr reticle yesterday. The rifle was top notch, a friend who is in the top 10 nationally let me try it. Your assumption is right. My eye was drawn to the center dot laying over the target and it was easy to acquire and send it. I went 7 of 8 on a stage with a gun I had never shot before. Seeing the target quickly was never an issue. The scope and turrets are so nice. I need one now.
The guys at TT understand that reticles matter and they are working on options. However, you have to understand how that company views their products and how much obsessive compulsive attention to detail they have.
I recall they held back the introduction of production scopes because some mechanics worked perfectly at -30C, but not perfectly at -40C. Personally, I do not expect anything to work at -40C (I am indoors with a glass of single malt well before it gets that cold). They worked on it until it was perfect at -40C.
What I want them to do is introduce a simpler tree reticle with a bolder primary aiming point in the 3-15x50 Hunter platform. I think that would be a kick ass hunting scope for any lighting conditions and distances. I will sketch up a couple of designs and keep on harassing until they build one just to shut me up
ILya
Annoy the shit out of them until they put a skmr1/mpct1 style reticle or add .2 to horizontal on the gen2xr.
My first TT will be here this week. Gen2xr and found one with the mtc type turrets they don’t offer anymore(as far as I know).
Let’s pretend I’m dumb and bad at math. 0.075 mil center dot would be about 2.2 inches at 1000 yards correct and .22 inches at 100 yards?
1 MRAD = 3.6 inches at 100 yards and 36 inches at 1000.
0.075 MRAD = 0.27 inches at 100 yards and 2.7 inches at 1000 yards.
If you're shooting quarter inch targets at 100 yards and 2.7 inch targets at 1000 yards, more power to you. I don't know of anybody who does, so the dot size doesn't concern me.
Dot size bothering some is a perceptual thing.
No amount of math or logic is going to change that.
I personally don’t like anything over .04
Many people probably like it though.
Also, I don’t think we need to pretend you’re bad at math at this point.
I spent some time and effort and tried to look through a ton of reticles under different conditions durign the course of the last year.
I am not hugely picky since I am quite comfortable with floating dots, floating crosshairs, etc but I think the drive to ever smaller primary aiming point is not the way to go. I am not hindered by a slightly larger aiming feature because I was originally trained to dissect the target and I can aim with the edge. Now, too large is not good, but there are very few reticles out there that are too large. Too small makes a much bigger problem for me although illumination helps with that under low light conditions.
In practical terms for floating dot reticles, I want something in the 0.05 to 0.1 range. Smaller than 0.05 is too small for me and if you want to go that thin, I prefer a crosshair or something along those lines to a dot. In general, I have designed a few reticles for a few different people and I prefer a three line thickness design guideline where I can make the tree thinner than the primary aiming point. Primary aiming features have to be designed in such a way that they are useful across the entire magnificaiton range, while the tree is only used at mid/high magnification.
TT's 0.075 mrad is perfectly reasonable for me.
ILya
I am not hugely picky since I am quite comfortable with floating dots, floating crosshairs, etc but I think the drive to ever smaller primary aiming point is not the way to go. I am not hindered by a slightly larger aiming feature because I was originally trained to dissect the target and I can aim with the edge. Now, too large is not good, but there are very few reticles out there that are too large. Too small makes a much bigger problem for me although illumination helps with that under low light conditions.
In practical terms for floating dot reticles, I want something in the 0.05 to 0.1 range. Smaller than 0.05 is too small for me and if you want to go that thin, I prefer a crosshair or something along those lines to a dot. In general, I have designed a few reticles for a few different people and I prefer a three line thickness design guideline where I can make the tree thinner than the primary aiming point. Primary aiming features have to be designed in such a way that they are useful across the entire magnificaiton range, while the tree is only used at mid/high magnification.
TT's 0.075 mrad is perfectly reasonable for me.
ILya
I think Schmidt went a bit too small on the LRR being .025.
For me, .035 is perfect. That seems to be the direction most are going in.
And the .05 is obviously popular as well.
Totally agree on crosshairs with thin reticles. The LRR is a bit small, but the gen2xr seems to be easier to work with since it’s a cross.
For me, .035 is perfect. That seems to be the direction most are going in.
And the .05 is obviously popular as well.
Totally agree on crosshairs with thin reticles. The LRR is a bit small, but the gen2xr seems to be easier to work with since it’s a cross.
Just had a chance to get behind the Gen3xr and I think the center dot is sized perfectly. Not too large whatsoever. Anything below .05 I don't care for and its on the lower end of my preference. The .075 seems like a sweet spot for my eyes. Just need to find another 4k laying around to snag another TT.
