I know that reticles are very subjective to each person. I wanted to know what y’alls thought was on an ideal center dot size in a reticle and from what magnification it becomes useable. The power I am looking at would be 5-25 and out to 1200 yards.
Rifle Scopes Does size matter? Center dot of course
- Thread starter Anthony-ss
- Start date
For me it's been .05 mil. Have it in the H59 and the March 5-40, a good size.
Maybe for hunting as top priority I could see using a .1 mil center dot. I had an IOR 6-24 with a dot that size and a March 3-24, just thought it was too thick for high mag, shooting groups, or for general use.
Haven't been able to warm up to the .04 mil center dot in my Midas TAC, too small and can't see it at lower magnification, I often wonder if the true size is less than .04 mil???
Maybe for hunting as top priority I could see using a .1 mil center dot. I had an IOR 6-24 with a dot that size and a March 3-24, just thought it was too thick for high mag, shooting groups, or for general use.
Haven't been able to warm up to the .04 mil center dot in my Midas TAC, too small and can't see it at lower magnification, I often wonder if the true size is less than .04 mil???
This is going to vary wildly due to personal preference. Your choices are (with examples):
.025 (Schmidt LRR)
.035/.036 (skmr3 mpct2)
.04 (vortex)
.05 (nightforce)
.075 (Gen3xr).
I’ve used them all and personally prefer the .035/.036. I can use it down to 5x (under 10x it doesn’t feel much more than crosshair).
.025 (Schmidt LRR)
.035/.036 (skmr3 mpct2)
.04 (vortex)
.05 (nightforce)
.075 (Gen3xr).
I’ve used them all and personally prefer the .035/.036. I can use it down to 5x (under 10x it doesn’t feel much more than crosshair).
@Anthony-ss, how often do you think you will use the center dot past 100 or maybe 200 yards. After that its wind holds and the dot is not relevant anymore. It is only their for zeroing the rifle.
So then smaller maybe better to zero off of. Do you prefer the .2 mil hash marks for a hold over or find the .5 to be useable enough?
Last edited:
I just started using a reticle with .2 mil marks on the windage. I didn’t like it at first sight but as I have been using it, i have warmed up to it. All my other scopes just have .5 mil hashes. I am undecided at this point which I like more. As for .5 mil being usuable, they sure are. That has been what is available for a long while now. They are proven.
What is being overlooked by many is that often times, the center dot is the thickness of the main stadia of the reticle. Or the reticle line thickness isn’t much bigger.
So, unless the reticle thickness is substantially more or less than the center dot, even though you may not always be using the dot, the thickness does matter.
I can see for hold overs the thickness could easily cover up your target if too thick, I guess they can be too thin but that would be harder for that to be too thin. Was looking at the gen 3xr or the mpct2. I did like the msr2 but the fact that there can't be any easy hold overs if need may be a draw back.
It depends on your preferences of course but for me, it’s what YOUR eyes can see and get the job done. My eyesight has issues so the smaller dot need more magnification to see BUT this comes at the expense of a smaller FOV which can be a big disadvantage when transitioning. This has me re-thinking my AMG and the new 7C reticle on the new RZRs. YMMV
I have an AMG as well. I didnt like the dot center and still would prefer a trafitional crosshair but like I said in my earlier post. I dont dial wind so the center of the reticle (dot) is basically only used to zero the rifle. After that I use the rest of the reticle like traditional crosshairs anyhow.
For anyone who says they can be just as precise with .5 as a .2 reticle:
Take a ruler that has only .5 and whole marks.
Lay it on a piece of paper and mark 1/10th or 2/10 marks only using the .5 and whole marks. Do this on 10 pieces of paper.
Then set a ruler down next that breaks it down in .2 or .1. See how far you are off and then do the angular math at distance.
Not saying that reticles with .5’s don’t work. But there is zero logic in that you can use one to be just as precise.
Take a ruler that has only .5 and whole marks.
Lay it on a piece of paper and mark 1/10th or 2/10 marks only using the .5 and whole marks. Do this on 10 pieces of paper.
Then set a ruler down next that breaks it down in .2 or .1. See how far you are off and then do the angular math at distance.
Not saying that reticles with .5’s don’t work. But there is zero logic in that you can use one to be just as precise.
I beg to differ.
Surveyors using a (metric) level and staff will makes measurements down to a millimetre while the staff only has centimetre graduations.
The human eye can pretty accurately interpolate 1cm into 10 parts, or .5mil down to .1mil.
I did your test and was well under .1mil of error, more like .025mil of error. Take that out to 100m and you are looking at 25mm of error or 1".
So I'd suggest you can be as accurate with .5mil hashes, BUT .2mil will be a heap easier and quicker.
So I'd suggest you can be as accurate with .5mil hashes, BUT .2mil will be a heap easier and quicker.
Similar threads
