Hi, We are putting together a few new reticle options for next generation products. One particular concept is to have a floating center dot in the middle of a complex reticle. There are two lines of products we are thinking of to use this floating center dot idea, one is a line of FFP scopes and another one is a bench-rest long range scope. so question for you is what size of the dot you would prefer if it is in a first focal plane complex reticle (1moa or 0.5moa dot @24x). the same question for a preferable dot size if it is for a SFP benchrest scope (0.1moa or smaller @40x?) . love to hear from you guys ( you are the best) before we got this concept finalized. You can let us know as well if you do not like the floating center dot idea at all.
Rifle Scopes Athlon Optics -New floating center dot reticle
- Thread starter frostyline
- Start date
Hey there Frosty.
I'm assuming you forgot the "." or meant .1 moa with @24x???
I think that's a fantastic idea! There's a bunch of floating dot lovers around.
Probably most of us like smaller dots in FFP considering we'll be using 15x -18x most of the time in matches and rarely below 10x. I personally would like a .04 mil sized dot in a 6-24.
40x SFP moa, 10th moa sounds reasonable???
Interested to see others take on the subject.
If one of the new scope lines are meant for hunting I'm guessing they'll want a thicker reticle or dot than the tactical shooters.
I'm assuming you forgot the "." or meant .1 moa with @24x???
I think that's a fantastic idea! There's a bunch of floating dot lovers around.
Probably most of us like smaller dots in FFP considering we'll be using 15x -18x most of the time in matches and rarely below 10x. I personally would like a .04 mil sized dot in a 6-24.
40x SFP moa, 10th moa sounds reasonable???
Interested to see others take on the subject.
If one of the new scope lines are meant for hunting I'm guessing they'll want a thicker reticle or dot than the tactical shooters.
Minox Mr4 or Skmr 3 size is perfect. Might want to post this question over on Accurate shooter to get an idea for the benchrest version. Most use 1/8 or 1/16 moa dots on their March scopes.
Hi frostyline, it appears that you work for Athlon? Never owned one of your scopes but keep hearing great things and will probably have one at some point. But I wanted to say thank you for joining the Snipers Hide community and contributing. Kahles and March have owned the center dot reticle world and recently Minox has also introduced their version with the MR4 (Kahles uses a .036 mil dot and March uses a .1 mil dot, personally I think the Kahles is a bit too tiny for my taste and the March a bit too thick). Oddly enough I went through the exercise of designing my own reticle in AutoCAD last year, and would love to see this design or something similar make it into a production scope. I have a very fine .03 center dot which should satisfy the benchrest crowd, but surrounding that is a .2 mil open circle for quick acquisition at higher magnification and then ther is a 3 mil diameter quarter circles for when you're dialed way down and still want to take the shot but can no longer see the fine reticle. Let me know if you'd like a full PDF of this (PM me) or I'm fine with you just getting ideas from the below images (but I will say that if you produce this reticle in your Cronus BTR scope, I will be your first customer):
Damn Bill you've been putting a lot of thought into this.
Replacing the solid stadia with .2 mil spaced dots for the first 2 mil is an interesting idea. I can see the potential utility, but I have concerns about how easy it will be for the eye (my eye, anyway) to pick it up at higher mags. Only way to know for sure is to try it.
Replacing the solid stadia with .2 mil spaced dots for the first 2 mil is an interesting idea. I can see the potential utility, but I have concerns about how easy it will be for the eye (my eye, anyway) to pick it up at higher mags. Only way to know for sure is to try it.
Clearly some folks with a ton of thought on this. I can't say what size I'd like the dot to be but atleast for a FFP please include a quick ranging stadia reticle i.e. shoulder width or height based.
Also thanks for asking. Not a ton of that from other makers.
Thanks Joe, I did put some time and thought into it. Having owned high magnification optics like March and others I realized the need for a better reticle with FFP optics at 6x and greater. I like the floating dot designs but usually don't like how much gap there is between the dot and where the stadia lines pickup, the March is horrible, seems like an eternity by the time that line starts, the SKMR is probably the best I've seen with regard to how close the reticle is to the dot and the MR4 as well. I thought this design was a unique approach I had not seen before, our eyes are naturally drawn to the centers of concentric circles, my thought was this design would be "quicker" to acquire center on a target regardless of that target and then the outer circle for low magnification would be ideal for shots when zoomed all the way out where FFP reticles tend to really struggle but hopefully not too distracting at high mags. Much like the G2H reticle Bushnell employed in their LRHS model, that one is set at 4 mil in width where mine is 3 mil. I would think this would be ideal for something like the Athlon Cronus with 4.5-29 magnification range.
Another thought back to the OP's question on the ideal width of a center dot, what about a donut, these reticles are laser etched in glass and I wonder if something like a .1 mil outer diameter with a .05 inner diameter might not be possible with the etching, that way you get the best of both worlds, you have a center dot that is larger and easy to pickup but a finer center opening for those who want the precision... I'm tempted to throw that into my design and see how it would look.
Another thought back to the OP's question on the ideal width of a center dot, what about a donut, these reticles are laser etched in glass and I wonder if something like a .1 mil outer diameter with a .05 inner diameter might not be possible with the etching, that way you get the best of both worlds, you have a center dot that is larger and easy to pickup but a finer center opening for those who want the precision... I'm tempted to throw that into my design and see how it would look.
same size as on the TRemor 3
Hi all, appreciate all your responses! I am thinking to have 0.04mil or 0.03mil diameter dot for 6-24 and 4-16 FFP. and 0.02 mil diameter dot in a 4.5-30 FFP scope. are those still too big? I am worried the 0.03 mil might become too small. thoughts?
For the SFP benchrest scope, planning to have a 0.08 or 0.06moa center dot. will that work for you?
wjm308, i have PMed you on the reticle. let's talk more on that.
For the SFP benchrest scope, planning to have a 0.08 or 0.06moa center dot. will that work for you?
wjm308, i have PMed you on the reticle. let's talk more on that.
I like it. I would like it better if the circle around the center dot was gone, and the dot was in the middle of an cross instead of a circle. I really liked the tiny cross in the center of the SCR reticle.
You can talk smack about their scopes in general, but IOR has the floating dot down pretty damn good.
I'd look there for an idea of dot size.
I'd look there for an idea of dot size.
They do have very nice reticles.
also, this is a novel idea, but think about it. Why are ffp reticles vertically centered in the scope? especially the drop cross/christmas tree's.. Why do you have all that info down there if you cant see it when you need it, ie: full zoom for farther distances. ? If you are always dialing, then why use this reticle type?
Ret centers should be higher in the fov so you zoom in on what you'll be using at those distances. It should not be so high you ever lose the center dot though.
Along with this idea goes adjusting dot/stadia thickness to zoom range-- thicker/higher, thinner/lower. In the same vein as wjm's big outer ring.
With design and experiment, I believe it is possible to achieve a 'CVT' of rifle scope reticles. Simply keep what you are seeing fairly constant for your zoom range.
Also, definitely keep a ranging system. The minox 'cross' system looks pretty awesome, as it offers both height and width.
http://www.minox.com/fileadmin/forhtml/images/Zielfernrohre/Absehen/CCR_Ausschnitt.jpg
Ret centers should be higher in the fov so you zoom in on what you'll be using at those distances. It should not be so high you ever lose the center dot though.
Along with this idea goes adjusting dot/stadia thickness to zoom range-- thicker/higher, thinner/lower. In the same vein as wjm's big outer ring.
With design and experiment, I believe it is possible to achieve a 'CVT' of rifle scope reticles. Simply keep what you are seeing fairly constant for your zoom range.
Also, definitely keep a ranging system. The minox 'cross' system looks pretty awesome, as it offers both height and width.
http://www.minox.com/fileadmin/forhtml/images/Zielfernrohre/Absehen/CCR_Ausschnitt.jpg
That's a great flat shooting gun, guessing creed/.260 or 300wm by the drop. While it is certainly do-able, the point remains, especially for less flat bullets: why have the stuff down there if you most likely wont use it? You yourself only have access to 7 full widths on the mr4, 8th only 2.5 mils, and 9 & 10 completely gone. Wouldn't you prefer to see the full tree?
I agree about an open top half, which is why I dont like verticals that extend all the way up. What I suggest would still leave plenty of northern real estate, just moving it up a few mils or so. In the above example, simply 'cheating' the reticle up by 2/3 mils would allow plenty of open view, and still give you full, or almost full tree.
I agree about an open top half, which is why I dont like verticals that extend all the way up. What I suggest would still leave plenty of northern real estate, just moving it up a few mils or so. In the above example, simply 'cheating' the reticle up by 2/3 mils would allow plenty of open view, and still give you full, or almost full tree.
I like the Mil C do so I'd say .05, hope to see it soon. The floating cross works well but I'd love to have the floating dot. What is the size of the dot on the ETR?
It's .03 mil
Another vote for the tiny dot. I also like the ranging scale off to the side (wjm308)
The MR4 is to my eye as close to perfect as I've seen. That said until we have user swappable reticles each will be a compromise weighted for its primary use case. I'm a huge fan of Bushnell's 'donut of death' in their LRHS, but it's not an ideal target reticle.
H37 from Horus did exactly that, biased the reticle towards top of FOV. Problem was that it obstructed so much of the sight picture that your average shooter wasn’t interested.
I'm different than most of you guys. I like my chicks skinny and my reticles fat. 
And I love FFP reticles with a floating center dot. My all-time favorite is the MP-8 reticle from IOR. I've got it in 3-18x42 and 3.5-18x50 (illuminated). I love 'em both. The center dot on these is 0.1 MIL. It's perfect for me. Just right at maximum magnification and still visible at middle magnification.
Here's an old thread by the designer of this reticle with a good picture of it at middle magnification (10X, I think):
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/photo-of-mp8-dot-reticle-on-ior-with-moa-turrets.58972/
It's hard to design a good FFP reticle because at minimum magnification the lines on most designs are so thin that they can only be seen under ideal circumstances. Which is exactly the opposite of what you want. At low magnification you need bold, heavy lines that are findable in an instant (or in low light) and that naturally lead your eye to the aiming point in the center. (Think "heavy duplex" for snap shots while hunting in brush.) A "three-stage" design with fat, medium, and fine lines is what's needed, but rarely done. The medium and fine parts should subtend only a small area in the center. When you're zoomed out, you won't even see the fine part in the very center. It will just look like a tiny hole at the center of a "two-stage" reticle, which actually makes a good aiming point at low power. This design problem is exacerbated by the high zoom ratios on modern scopes. A design that's good for a 3X zoom ratio won't hold up so well with a 6X or 8X zoom ratio.
Just my 2 cents worth. Now, bring on the skinny chicks!
And I love FFP reticles with a floating center dot. My all-time favorite is the MP-8 reticle from IOR. I've got it in 3-18x42 and 3.5-18x50 (illuminated). I love 'em both. The center dot on these is 0.1 MIL. It's perfect for me. Just right at maximum magnification and still visible at middle magnification.
Here's an old thread by the designer of this reticle with a good picture of it at middle magnification (10X, I think):
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/photo-of-mp8-dot-reticle-on-ior-with-moa-turrets.58972/
It's hard to design a good FFP reticle because at minimum magnification the lines on most designs are so thin that they can only be seen under ideal circumstances. Which is exactly the opposite of what you want. At low magnification you need bold, heavy lines that are findable in an instant (or in low light) and that naturally lead your eye to the aiming point in the center. (Think "heavy duplex" for snap shots while hunting in brush.) A "three-stage" design with fat, medium, and fine lines is what's needed, but rarely done. The medium and fine parts should subtend only a small area in the center. When you're zoomed out, you won't even see the fine part in the very center. It will just look like a tiny hole at the center of a "two-stage" reticle, which actually makes a good aiming point at low power. This design problem is exacerbated by the high zoom ratios on modern scopes. A design that's good for a 3X zoom ratio won't hold up so well with a 6X or 8X zoom ratio.
Just my 2 cents worth. Now, bring on the skinny chicks!
Last edited:
Similar threads
