Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Nicely thought out!
Nicely thought out!
Rifle Scopes FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hai
Raf - Nice. Sorry I've been out of touch for a bit.
Save my personal love of floating centre dots - THAT is the DOGS BOLLOCKS.
Raf - Nice. Sorry I've been out of touch for a bit.
Save my personal love of floating centre dots - THAT is the DOGS BOLLOCKS.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hai
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On second thought, Bretshooter, the SFP reticle needs to remain in the center in both axis.
If it is off-center at all, it would end up at different points along the FFP reticle depending on the power setting.
One of the restrictions of using two reticles together is that the two only remain aligned at the very center. </div></div>
Of course, but will it work?
Yeah, now that you've said it, it's obvious. Back to the chalkboard.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On second thought, Bretshooter, the SFP reticle needs to remain in the center in both axis.
If it is off-center at all, it would end up at different points along the FFP reticle depending on the power setting.
One of the restrictions of using two reticles together is that the two only remain aligned at the very center. </div></div>
Of course, but will it work?
Yeah, now that you've said it, it's obvious. Back to the chalkboard.
Re: Roman Numerals vs Arabic
Pretty slick. Is that why you used IIII instead of IV?
Can someone actually range a half minute(IPHY) at 17 power? That is 6" at 1000 yards, or ranging a dime at 100 yards. Ok, before someone corrects me, a dime is .700, which is closer to 3/4 IPHY, but you get the point.
I think the other IPHY equivalents are easily enough resolved on the FFP crosshair with the 1 minute tics. But it is another tool to use.
Pretty slick. Is that why you used IIII instead of IV?
Can someone actually range a half minute(IPHY) at 17 power? That is 6" at 1000 yards, or ranging a dime at 100 yards. Ok, before someone corrects me, a dime is .700, which is closer to 3/4 IPHY, but you get the point.
I think the other IPHY equivalents are easily enough resolved on the FFP crosshair with the 1 minute tics. But it is another tool to use.
Re: Roman Numerals vs Arabic
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BretShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can someone actually range a half minute(IPHY) at 17 power? </div></div>
I would submit that at ASC it would be handy to be able to get down to 1/4th IPHY or even less.
33" target at 3.25 IPHY = 1015.3
33" target at 3.5 IPHY = 942
Since there are several shots at that venu within and beyond those ranges that folks hit pretty regularly I would have to say that yes folks can and do range down to 1/10 IPHY.
Cheers, Doc
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BretShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can someone actually range a half minute(IPHY) at 17 power? </div></div>
I would submit that at ASC it would be handy to be able to get down to 1/4th IPHY or even less.
33" target at 3.25 IPHY = 1015.3
33" target at 3.5 IPHY = 942
Since there are several shots at that venu within and beyond those ranges that folks hit pretty regularly I would have to say that yes folks can and do range down to 1/10 IPHY.
Cheers, Doc
Re: Roman Numerals vs Arabic
With practice and a good milliradian-based reticle, one can get pretty good at measuring targets to a precision of 0.05 mils, which corresponds to .18 inches at 100 yards.
That degree of precision is necessary to range reasonable-sized targets past about 700 yards, as there is less tolerance for range error at those distances than at short ones - and the targets are, relatively, smaller.
To practice that, take a target, and deliberately set it at a distance where the image will be an increment of 0.05 mils, by working the mil relation formula backwards. For example, a 12" target at 606 yards wil measure 0.55 mils. The same target at 513 yards will measure 0.65 mils.
Work to notice the difference between, in the first instance, 0.5 and 0.6.
Good practice, and doesn't even require ammo.
One you have done that, start ranging targets at odd distances. Perform the range calculations, and only afterwards use your laser to check the calculation.
Like most things, you get better with practice - but it needs to be useful practice.
With practice and a good milliradian-based reticle, one can get pretty good at measuring targets to a precision of 0.05 mils, which corresponds to .18 inches at 100 yards.
That degree of precision is necessary to range reasonable-sized targets past about 700 yards, as there is less tolerance for range error at those distances than at short ones - and the targets are, relatively, smaller.
To practice that, take a target, and deliberately set it at a distance where the image will be an increment of 0.05 mils, by working the mil relation formula backwards. For example, a 12" target at 606 yards wil measure 0.55 mils. The same target at 513 yards will measure 0.65 mils.
Work to notice the difference between, in the first instance, 0.5 and 0.6.
Good practice, and doesn't even require ammo.
One you have done that, start ranging targets at odd distances. Perform the range calculations, and only afterwards use your laser to check the calculation.
Like most things, you get better with practice - but it needs to be useful practice.
Re: Roman Numerals vs Arabic
Chris;
You certainly had some influence on the reticle, especially the stepped "5" and "10" tics. Not "exactly" what you had in mind, but my interpretation of it.
You have a good head for this stuff!
Bret, you could certainly do it that way, but I for one am not thrilled about the two not sharing a fixed intersection. Never hurts to come up with ideas, though.
I have had some wild ideas on this that didn't quite pan-out.
Chris;
You certainly had some influence on the reticle, especially the stepped "5" and "10" tics. Not "exactly" what you had in mind, but my interpretation of it.
You have a good head for this stuff!
Bret, you could certainly do it that way, but I for one am not thrilled about the two not sharing a fixed intersection. Never hurts to come up with ideas, though.
I have had some wild ideas on this that didn't quite pan-out.
Re: Roman Numerals vs Arabic
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Chris;
You certainly had some influence on the reticle, </div></div>Glad to have been of help. Actually I think the end result better than my idea of tapers.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rafael</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Chris;
You certainly had some influence on the reticle, </div></div>Glad to have been of help. Actually I think the end result better than my idea of tapers.
Re: Roman Numerals vs Arabic
Your input on the the tapers is where the idea came from for those thicker sections. Makes those marks useful at low power, but enables fine resolution at high power.
I played with the dot idea, and really like it, but I had already commited to the fine crosshair. I think it will work well, and we can certainly do more SFP reticles in the future.
Latest Dual-Focal-Plane reticle images here:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6141&Number=388475#Post388475
Your input on the the tapers is where the idea came from for those thicker sections. Makes those marks useful at low power, but enables fine resolution at high power.
I played with the dot idea, and really like it, but I had already commited to the fine crosshair. I think it will work well, and we can certainly do more SFP reticles in the future.
Latest Dual-Focal-Plane reticle images here:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6141&Number=388475#Post388475
Re: Roman Numerals vs Arabic
RAF-
No, the 17X and 10X are totally different reticles and can't be used in other scopes(FFP). Now, a RFP reticle can be used for maybe two different powers. If you have a MIL-Dot that was used on a 10X RFP scope at highest power, then you could use it in a 17X, but you would have to turn the magnification down to 10X to make it accurate.
John III
RAF-
No, the 17X and 10X are totally different reticles and can't be used in other scopes(FFP). Now, a RFP reticle can be used for maybe two different powers. If you have a MIL-Dot that was used on a 10X RFP scope at highest power, then you could use it in a 17X, but you would have to turn the magnification down to 10X to make it accurate.
John III
USO Dual-Focal-Plane reticle
Thanks for the clarification, John.
That makes sense to me.
Latest Dual-Focal-Plane reticle images here:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6141&Number=388475#Post388475
Thanks for the clarification, John.
That makes sense to me.
Latest Dual-Focal-Plane reticle images here:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6141&Number=388475#Post388475
Re: Roman Numerals vs Arabic
Doc, I don't doubt that your ranging is correct in those pics, but I don't see it. But if someone else can range to 1/4 or less, then it is worth doing.
Thanks for the correction. Always willing to learn.
Doc, I don't doubt that your ranging is correct in those pics, but I don't see it. But if someone else can range to 1/4 or less, then it is worth doing.
Thanks for the correction. Always willing to learn.
Re: Roman Numerals vs Arabic
Bret,
I wasn't poking at you. Alot of folks don't believe the necessity to dividing the reticle down to 1/10's even in IPHY or MOA. As Lindy mentioned past 700 yds on UKD that level of precision is mandatory to get even close to a first round hit. Some of the lasers out there "might" be able to shoot through to better advantage but when running a 308 20 yards can be a huge factor at distance.
FWIW those photo's don't do the milling part justice.
Cheers, Doc
Bret,
I wasn't poking at you. Alot of folks don't believe the necessity to dividing the reticle down to 1/10's even in IPHY or MOA. As Lindy mentioned past 700 yds on UKD that level of precision is mandatory to get even close to a first round hit. Some of the lasers out there "might" be able to shoot through to better advantage but when running a 308 20 yards can be a huge factor at distance.
FWIW those photo's don't do the milling part justice.
Cheers, Doc
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Well I haven't read this thread until now but now that I've read all 6 pages straight through I really like this concept. I also have a headache now
A ways back someone mentioned leaving out the tick marks on the upper crosshair. I like having ticks marks, even if only small ones, along the entire length of the crosshair for reference purposes when shooting very long range. For all practical purposes you will probably never be shooting past 1000yds (talking .308 here) but sometimes it fun just to lob stuff out there to see what you can hit, and some small ticks marks all the way down would be handy. Obviously everyone has there personal preferences so I don't expect anyone to agree with me Another nice thing about full tick marks is that it gives you the option to zero at 500yds for example and still do hold-unders for ranges less than 500. If they were small they wouldn't be distracting or add to the clutter, it would just give you more options overall. Does that make sense?
I’ve got some ideas in my head and will post them up once I get them on paper and fine tuned.
Edited to add: Well after thinking about this awhile I have a couple ideas: Why not keep the 10 IPHY marks the same size as the 5's to clean up the image a little. It's just as easy to count in fives and doubt you'll get confused if they are the same size.
Extend the 1 IPHY marks out farther to give you at least 50, so our .223 shooting brethren will have enough extra hold overs to play with.
Add small marks either double sided or single sided (GAP style) along the entire crosshair say, maybe, every 10 IPHY, for reference purposes as stated above.
Square up the top right corners of the roman numerals to correspond with the intersection of the corresponding tick marks to it's right and above. This may look awkward and hard to reference...but Im just thinking out loud here.
I think it was already mentioned in the past but towards the outside beyond the initial 40 or 50 IPHY lines thicken the crosshair up duplex style for quicker acquisition at low power/low light.
I'll attempt to draw this up in the morning, when I have a little more time to play with an image editor. I'm open to critisism
Well I haven't read this thread until now but now that I've read all 6 pages straight through I really like this concept. I also have a headache now
A ways back someone mentioned leaving out the tick marks on the upper crosshair. I like having ticks marks, even if only small ones, along the entire length of the crosshair for reference purposes when shooting very long range. For all practical purposes you will probably never be shooting past 1000yds (talking .308 here) but sometimes it fun just to lob stuff out there to see what you can hit, and some small ticks marks all the way down would be handy. Obviously everyone has there personal preferences so I don't expect anyone to agree with me
I’ve got some ideas in my head and will post them up once I get them on paper and fine tuned.
Edited to add: Well after thinking about this awhile I have a couple ideas: Why not keep the 10 IPHY marks the same size as the 5's to clean up the image a little. It's just as easy to count in fives and doubt you'll get confused if they are the same size.
Extend the 1 IPHY marks out farther to give you at least 50, so our .223 shooting brethren will have enough extra hold overs to play with.
Add small marks either double sided or single sided (GAP style) along the entire crosshair say, maybe, every 10 IPHY, for reference purposes as stated above.
Square up the top right corners of the roman numerals to correspond with the intersection of the corresponding tick marks to it's right and above. This may look awkward and hard to reference...but Im just thinking out loud here.
I think it was already mentioned in the past but towards the outside beyond the initial 40 or 50 IPHY lines thicken the crosshair up duplex style for quicker acquisition at low power/low light.
I'll attempt to draw this up in the morning, when I have a little more time to play with an image editor. I'm open to critisism
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Some interesting thoughts there, Luke. I am thankful for your interest and enthusiasm towards this project.
A few thoughts and questions back at you......
When looking at this pic, remember that you are looking at two reticles, one fine cross-hair(SFP) and one with(so far) only thick and thin tic marks and the Roman "1's"(FFP).
On the subject of making it duplex-style, I assume you mean the areas outside the FFP tic marks? This could certainly be done and I have considered it. It might be negated by your wanting more tic marks past 40 in the lower vertical line. This can be very useful for a snap-shot at low power but it can also obscure peripheral view in a low-power situation when you want all the field of view you can get. I would be interested in hearing everyone's view on the subject of thicker lines in the FFP perimeter.
Personally, I prefer different lengths on the 5 and 10 tics, for differentiation. While I am not the most skilled scope driver, I have lost count a few times with similar markings and find this reticle more intuitive. Certainly it blocks some of the peripheral view at high power, but I am not yet convinced that the compromise is too great as targets and bad-guy's are proportionally larger at high power too. The stark contrast between the 1, 5, and 10 marks is also a great reminder of the fact that you are no longer counting "1" marks when at low power.
This last point, above, is something I am pretty concerned about. Am I making too much of this point?
One small item to note is that the SFP cross-hair to be used for this is in-process right now per my specs, just a thin x-hair of .125" or MOA at full power. We have already discussed the potential for numerous choices for both FFP and SFP, and this is the one I chose to start with. We had to start somewhere. It may not be ideal for all shooters, but I really like a thin SFP x-hair and I bet the F-class and other precision-target shooters will like it. I also chose this SFP because I figured it could be used along with the standard FFP offerings, without interfering too much with them, if USO chose to save the cost of a new FFP for the prototype in this project.
Also, one can always dial-on 20 or 30 IPHY or MOA before trying your "artillery" experiment using the holdover points that already exist.
Thoughts?
_______________
Latest Dual-Focal-Plane reticle images here:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6141&Number=388475#Post388475
Some interesting thoughts there, Luke. I am thankful for your interest and enthusiasm towards this project.
A few thoughts and questions back at you......
When looking at this pic, remember that you are looking at two reticles, one fine cross-hair(SFP) and one with(so far) only thick and thin tic marks and the Roman "1's"(FFP).
On the subject of making it duplex-style, I assume you mean the areas outside the FFP tic marks? This could certainly be done and I have considered it. It might be negated by your wanting more tic marks past 40 in the lower vertical line. This can be very useful for a snap-shot at low power but it can also obscure peripheral view in a low-power situation when you want all the field of view you can get. I would be interested in hearing everyone's view on the subject of thicker lines in the FFP perimeter.
Personally, I prefer different lengths on the 5 and 10 tics, for differentiation. While I am not the most skilled scope driver, I have lost count a few times with similar markings and find this reticle more intuitive. Certainly it blocks some of the peripheral view at high power, but I am not yet convinced that the compromise is too great as targets and bad-guy's are proportionally larger at high power too. The stark contrast between the 1, 5, and 10 marks is also a great reminder of the fact that you are no longer counting "1" marks when at low power.
This last point, above, is something I am pretty concerned about. Am I making too much of this point?
One small item to note is that the SFP cross-hair to be used for this is in-process right now per my specs, just a thin x-hair of .125" or MOA at full power. We have already discussed the potential for numerous choices for both FFP and SFP, and this is the one I chose to start with. We had to start somewhere. It may not be ideal for all shooters, but I really like a thin SFP x-hair and I bet the F-class and other precision-target shooters will like it. I also chose this SFP because I figured it could be used along with the standard FFP offerings, without interfering too much with them, if USO chose to save the cost of a new FFP for the prototype in this project.
Also, one can always dial-on 20 or 30 IPHY or MOA before trying your "artillery" experiment using the holdover points that already exist.
Thoughts?
_______________
Latest Dual-Focal-Plane reticle images here:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6141&Number=388475#Post388475
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Well after getting down to it and playing with it on an image editor I can see how you ended up where you did. It's a solid design though, no doubt about it. The duplex design really does limit your options so I see the err of my ways and I scratched that idea. The only way it might work is to put the thicker part of the duplex in the FFP but that just creates more design headaches. If you have to take a close-range snap-shot at a moving target with a brushy background you're either going to (a.) Center the target in the middle of the sight picture and let one rip (b.) transition to a more appropriate weapon (M4, pistol, etc.). Whether or not you have a duplex crosshair will most likely be the last of your worries.
I do however still think you should extend the tic marks along the entire length of the crosshair. As long as you have that line floating in the middle of your field of view you might as well put it to work and make it hold up some measuring lines. Otherwise it's like having a yardstick with only the last 12 inches marked out. They could be very small and only on one side (GAP style), or you could simply extend the current 5 or 10 (or both) tics out the whole way. It even handy for small tasks where you need large measurements; how far is it from building A to building B?, how tall is that building/wall/tower?, how far off was that artillery round I need to adjust?, how fast is that vehicle going? (counting time as it cross your FOV), etc.
Whatcha think?
Well after getting down to it and playing with it on an image editor I can see how you ended up where you did. It's a solid design though, no doubt about it. The duplex design really does limit your options so I see the err of my ways and I scratched that idea. The only way it might work is to put the thicker part of the duplex in the FFP but that just creates more design headaches. If you have to take a close-range snap-shot at a moving target with a brushy background you're either going to (a.) Center the target in the middle of the sight picture and let one rip (b.) transition to a more appropriate weapon (M4, pistol, etc.). Whether or not you have a duplex crosshair will most likely be the last of your worries.
I do however still think you should extend the tic marks along the entire length of the crosshair. As long as you have that line floating in the middle of your field of view you might as well put it to work and make it hold up some measuring lines. Otherwise it's like having a yardstick with only the last 12 inches marked out. They could be very small and only on one side (GAP style), or you could simply extend the current 5 or 10 (or both) tics out the whole way. It even handy for small tasks where you need large measurements; how far is it from building A to building B?, how tall is that building/wall/tower?, how far off was that artillery round I need to adjust?, how fast is that vehicle going? (counting time as it cross your FOV), etc.
Whatcha think?
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Luke;
I gotta tell you that my approach to this reticle has changed many times. Part of this is a lack of understanding with something so new....it's not like we have dual-plane examples to work from. This is another reason to go ahead with a design and get the first one built so we can perfect it.
The current reticle is the result of spending alot of time talking to people and not even putting anything on paper or the computer.
I sat down over Thanksgiving weekend and knocked out this thing from scratch between attending Thanksgiving dinner, entertaining family, and attending my Nephew's Wedding. Doc saw sample drawings via email every day and he provided tweaks on the sizes of things.
I am convinced there are better ways to make it work, just have not come up with any revelations. The input is appreciated.
I would like to hear more from others on the thickness of the SFP croshair. If it seems small to many, I may redo the FFP components so it will work better with a thicker SFP on future scopes others wish to order.
The hope is that this FFP can be used with more than one SFP design, and vice-versa. Saves money, provides more options to buyers.
I see your point on having more tics all the way out at low powers, I also see it in other ways:
The fact that they stop at a point where they are still visible at high powers reminds you at lower powers that the last mark is 40. I fear that continuing marks further out has little use but the marks could be misinterpreted as 1's. I like the concept that the FFP "window" is always 80 increments in size, helping remind you where you are.
I also see your point on making full use and not having "a yardstick with only 12" marked".
As I type this I am working my way towards your line of thinking on the extended marking.
Your example of "how far from building A to building B" makes a ton of sense to me. Great example.
I gotta let this one sink-in to my small mind.
Good stuff, Luke!
__________________________
Latest Dual-Focal-Plane reticle images here:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6141&Number=388475#Post388475
Luke;
I gotta tell you that my approach to this reticle has changed many times. Part of this is a lack of understanding with something so new....it's not like we have dual-plane examples to work from. This is another reason to go ahead with a design and get the first one built so we can perfect it.
The current reticle is the result of spending alot of time talking to people and not even putting anything on paper or the computer.
I sat down over Thanksgiving weekend and knocked out this thing from scratch between attending Thanksgiving dinner, entertaining family, and attending my Nephew's Wedding. Doc saw sample drawings via email every day and he provided tweaks on the sizes of things.
I am convinced there are better ways to make it work, just have not come up with any revelations.
I would like to hear more from others on the thickness of the SFP croshair. If it seems small to many, I may redo the FFP components so it will work better with a thicker SFP on future scopes others wish to order.
The hope is that this FFP can be used with more than one SFP design, and vice-versa. Saves money, provides more options to buyers.
I see your point on having more tics all the way out at low powers, I also see it in other ways:
The fact that they stop at a point where they are still visible at high powers reminds you at lower powers that the last mark is 40. I fear that continuing marks further out has little use but the marks could be misinterpreted as 1's. I like the concept that the FFP "window" is always 80 increments in size, helping remind you where you are.
I also see your point on making full use and not having "a yardstick with only 12" marked".
As I type this I am working my way towards your line of thinking on the extended marking.
Your example of "how far from building A to building B" makes a ton of sense to me. Great example.
I gotta let this one sink-in to my small mind.
Good stuff, Luke!
__________________________
Latest Dual-Focal-Plane reticle images here:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6141&Number=388475#Post388475
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Luke;
I am pretty swamped right now and have to work through the weekend, but I will try tinkering with some concepts for the "beyond 40" tic marks over the next few days. Thinking of making them unmistakenly different than the balance of the marks ang giving them larger labels.....after all they only appear at lower powers.
I have a few ideas.
BTW....
Losing the reticle on low power was one of the biggest reasons for going with the SFP cross-hair over just a plain FFP setup. In your opinion, has this goal been lost? It's not a hard thing to do to create thick posts in the perimeter of the FFP, not hard at all. Early in this thread I was half-joking that this reticle system would turn a 3-17 power scope into a CQB setup with a twist of the wrist. The "duplex" arrangement may not be all bad....still thinking.
Also, are you the same "Luke" who used to be a real regular here.... about the time I registered?
Luke;
I am pretty swamped right now and have to work through the weekend, but I will try tinkering with some concepts for the "beyond 40" tic marks over the next few days. Thinking of making them unmistakenly different than the balance of the marks ang giving them larger labels.....after all they only appear at lower powers.
I have a few ideas.
BTW....
Losing the reticle on low power was one of the biggest reasons for going with the SFP cross-hair over just a plain FFP setup. In your opinion, has this goal been lost? It's not a hard thing to do to create thick posts in the perimeter of the FFP, not hard at all. Early in this thread I was half-joking that this reticle system would turn a 3-17 power scope into a CQB setup with a twist of the wrist. The "duplex" arrangement may not be all bad....still thinking.
Also, are you the same "Luke" who used to be a real regular here.... about the time I registered?
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Definitely a lot to think about. I drew up a couple examples just to get a better mental image of what it might look like to have a fine SFP crosshair, and then your tic marks and thick duplex on the FFP. The drawings are most definitely not to scale since all I have to edit with is MS Paint, so they are only a rough idea.
Crosshair prototype LOW POWER
Crosshair prototype MID POWER
Yep, as far as I know I'm the only Luke around here. I used to post quite a bit when I was in high school but since I joined the Army in '04 I haven't had as much time to get on. If you could call any one place on the internet "home" this would be mine. I am extremely thankful for all the friendships, opportunities, and knowledge this site has provided. If you're reading this, thanks Frank!
Anyways take a gander at those pictures and let me know what you think.
Definitely a lot to think about. I drew up a couple examples just to get a better mental image of what it might look like to have a fine SFP crosshair, and then your tic marks and thick duplex on the FFP. The drawings are most definitely not to scale since all I have to edit with is MS Paint, so they are only a rough idea.
Crosshair prototype LOW POWER
Crosshair prototype MID POWER
Yep, as far as I know I'm the only Luke around here. I used to post quite a bit when I was in high school but since I joined the Army in '04 I haven't had as much time to get on. If you could call any one place on the internet "home" this would be mine. I am extremely thankful for all the friendships, opportunities, and knowledge this site has provided. If you're reading this, thanks Frank!
Anyways take a gander at those pictures and let me know what you think.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
I guess alot depends on what you use the reticle for just how handy certain features are. Some of course will depend on how well ya can range guess with the mil/moa system.
Havin the hash system extend to the edges of the len helps those of us who use the Mil/moa system for more than measurin a particular target. Course distortion of the lens can play havoc with proper spacin so some attention to anal detail must be done by the optic source.
Havin the reticle be a 'duplex' style sure has come in handy for me. Ya can 'push' the thicker lines in to make an 'aperture' for poor light shootin. That has come in handy a time 'er two.
I dunno about additional features outside the center of the scope lens for precise measurin. I kinda like center if for no other reason than in the center would be where the scale would have less chance of distortion.
While its difficult to imagine without some trainin with someone who understands Mildot, I really dunt see most 'improvements' as that. Once the half mil hash was added it can be argued the non laser range findin system is at its pinnacle with the GenII type hybrid mildot.
ya can figure out what MOA scale works but in reality that system mimics Mil in value of the spacings. The waves of new reticles come n go. Seems a few years ago there was a dozen MOA designs bein posted, some even bein done as 'Hide Specials'. They aint spoken of much these days.
Mil/cm is the latest rage. Time will tell, actually if ya use 3.5" = 1Mil n 1" = 1moa ya will do pretty good out in a pasture near you. it isnt that difficult to use the ballistic program in the computer bolted atop yur shoulders if ya work on it some.
Funny how as complex as ya can make something on paper, the human brain can reduce it to a simple workable system if ya let it do what it was designed to do. Find the patterns n reduce it to a least common demoninator.
Justa thought before I go split some more firewood.
I guess alot depends on what you use the reticle for just how handy certain features are. Some of course will depend on how well ya can range guess with the mil/moa system.
Havin the hash system extend to the edges of the len helps those of us who use the Mil/moa system for more than measurin a particular target. Course distortion of the lens can play havoc with proper spacin so some attention to anal detail must be done by the optic source.
Havin the reticle be a 'duplex' style sure has come in handy for me. Ya can 'push' the thicker lines in to make an 'aperture' for poor light shootin. That has come in handy a time 'er two.
I dunno about additional features outside the center of the scope lens for precise measurin. I kinda like center if for no other reason than in the center would be where the scale would have less chance of distortion.
While its difficult to imagine without some trainin with someone who understands Mildot, I really dunt see most 'improvements' as that. Once the half mil hash was added it can be argued the non laser range findin system is at its pinnacle with the GenII type hybrid mildot.
ya can figure out what MOA scale works but in reality that system mimics Mil in value of the spacings. The waves of new reticles come n go. Seems a few years ago there was a dozen MOA designs bein posted, some even bein done as 'Hide Specials'. They aint spoken of much these days.
Mil/cm is the latest rage. Time will tell, actually if ya use 3.5" = 1Mil n 1" = 1moa ya will do pretty good out in a pasture near you. it isnt that difficult to use the ballistic program in the computer bolted atop yur shoulders if ya work on it some.
Funny how as complex as ya can make something on paper, the human brain can reduce it to a simple workable system if ya let it do what it was designed to do. Find the patterns n reduce it to a least common demoninator.
Justa thought before I go split some more firewood.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Mike D.: As to the first half of your post "distortion" should be a non issue since the lines are in the FFP and 99% of them are in the main field view. Mind you we're talking about putting this in USO glass, not some $50 Simmons wal-mart scope.
As to the second half; no, it's not an improvement it's just different and I'm sure many people find it easier. If your brain can spit out numbers in increments of 3.5 faster than I can spit out multiples of 10 so be it. Just so happens you're in luck and nearly every scope company makes a mil-dot reticle for ya
Mike D.: As to the first half of your post "distortion" should be a non issue since the lines are in the FFP and 99% of them are in the main field view. Mind you we're talking about putting this in USO glass, not some $50 Simmons wal-mart scope.
As to the second half; no, it's not an improvement it's just different and I'm sure many people find it easier. If your brain can spit out numbers in increments of 3.5 faster than I can spit out multiples of 10 so be it. Just so happens you're in luck and nearly every scope company makes a mil-dot reticle for ya
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Luke-
Steady up there, I aint sayin 50 dollah Simmons but several 'woo-hoo' scopes had distortion issues when first trotted out. N I was talkin about a series of roman numerals down some side, or one of those comparison scales off in the lower corner.
3.5 aint that difficult, n the fact Mil-Dot is so widely used should tell ya something, especially since most 'new n improved' reticles barely make a dent in the market.
All around versatility. Thats the Mildot/GenII strong suit. from measurin targets, to measurin exposure gaps for possible engagements. I'm sure other reticles fill other niches nicely. If ya want a different reticle go for it young man.
I was givin my opinion based on what I have done...
No need to get snippy.
Luke-
Steady up there, I aint sayin 50 dollah Simmons but several 'woo-hoo' scopes had distortion issues when first trotted out. N I was talkin about a series of roman numerals down some side, or one of those comparison scales off in the lower corner.
3.5 aint that difficult, n the fact Mil-Dot is so widely used should tell ya something, especially since most 'new n improved' reticles barely make a dent in the market.
All around versatility. Thats the Mildot/GenII strong suit. from measurin targets, to measurin exposure gaps for possible engagements. I'm sure other reticles fill other niches nicely. If ya want a different reticle go for it young man.
I was givin my opinion based on what I have done...
No need to get snippy.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Not being snippy at all. Either way my point is if this proposed scope had distortion around the edge I wouldn't even be considering it to begin with.
I'm not saying the GenII is a bad reticle. I own one myself and like it a lot. That being said there's definitely room for improvement; one of which being that the mils get very very small when you bump it down to 3.5X. Ideally you're going to have a scope where your crosshairs and knobs match (MIL reticle/CM adjustments, MOA reticle/MOA adjustment). Since the vast majority of people around here were born and raised using inches and not centimeters, we naturally gravitate towards what we already know. You could get down to arguing whether metric or imperial is better but you'd be better off arguing whether 12 is better than 1 dozen.
Not being snippy at all. Either way my point is if this proposed scope had distortion around the edge I wouldn't even be considering it to begin with.
I'm not saying the GenII is a bad reticle. I own one myself and like it a lot. That being said there's definitely room for improvement; one of which being that the mils get very very small when you bump it down to 3.5X. Ideally you're going to have a scope where your crosshairs and knobs match (MIL reticle/CM adjustments, MOA reticle/MOA adjustment). Since the vast majority of people around here were born and raised using inches and not centimeters, we naturally gravitate towards what we already know. You could get down to arguing whether metric or imperial is better but you'd be better off arguing whether 12 is better than 1 dozen.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
MOA and milliradians are both measurements of <span style="font-weight: bold">angles</span>.
Neither has anything to do with any system of linear measurement. You can use either with targets measured in either inches or centimeters, and range in meters or in yards - makes no difference.
One milliradian subtends an arc whose length is 1/1000th of the distance away the target is. It makes no difference whether that distance is measured in inches, feet, centimeters, meters, yards, or atto-parsecs.
If you're shooting something close enough to require the field of view of a scope set on 3.5 power, you don't need a reticle to hold from - all you need is the center crosshairs.
People need to get the hell over the notion that linear measurement systems have something to do with the measurement of angles. That's complete and utter bullshit.
MOA and milliradians are both measurements of <span style="font-weight: bold">angles</span>.
Neither has anything to do with any system of linear measurement. You can use either with targets measured in either inches or centimeters, and range in meters or in yards - makes no difference.
One milliradian subtends an arc whose length is 1/1000th of the distance away the target is. It makes no difference whether that distance is measured in inches, feet, centimeters, meters, yards, or atto-parsecs.
If you're shooting something close enough to require the field of view of a scope set on 3.5 power, you don't need a reticle to hold from - all you need is the center crosshairs.
People need to get the hell over the notion that linear measurement systems have something to do with the measurement of angles. That's complete and utter bullshit.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
I understand what you're saying Lindy. Essentially what I was trying to say is most people use inches, so therefore it's kinda handy having your scope adjustment in inches, and it's even handier if your reticle has lines on it that correspond to 1 inch at 100 yards.
I understand what you're saying Lindy. Essentially what I was trying to say is most people use inches, so therefore it's kinda handy having your scope adjustment in inches, and it's even handier if your reticle has lines on it that correspond to 1 inch at 100 yards.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Its not complete and utter bullshit.
APPLYIN the angular measurement requires linear solutions. While Vulcans can think in terms of parsecs most humans apply a linear value to the firin problem. I suppose some think in pure angular terms but most of us speak in linearese. We may say MOA but we are thinkin inches not 1.047. We use 3.5" not a 'pure' 3.4__ whatever for a Mil n dunt see the adjustment as 1 Mil unless a mil scale is infront of us.
See a bullet strike on the very right edge of steel n ya will automatically think so many inches that are spoken as 'Left 2MOA' or 'Left 1/2 Mil'. Both get ya back COM n unless its F-Class ya be GTG.
I suppose ya can train yur brain to be Milish, but seems more for show than go...
Luke-
If some MOA scale on both the elevation n reticle works for you, have at it. Many have been suggested, most got a luke warm greetin... get it luke warm????
Ahhh anyways, the GenII works very well over a braod application for both target n area measurements. If ya are savvy ya can 'lift n shift' from one target to another usin it. But that borders on bendin a bullet around an obstacle n I aint goin there.
Its not complete and utter bullshit.
APPLYIN the angular measurement requires linear solutions. While Vulcans can think in terms of parsecs most humans apply a linear value to the firin problem. I suppose some think in pure angular terms but most of us speak in linearese. We may say MOA but we are thinkin inches not 1.047. We use 3.5" not a 'pure' 3.4__ whatever for a Mil n dunt see the adjustment as 1 Mil unless a mil scale is infront of us.
See a bullet strike on the very right edge of steel n ya will automatically think so many inches that are spoken as 'Left 2MOA' or 'Left 1/2 Mil'. Both get ya back COM n unless its F-Class ya be GTG.
I suppose ya can train yur brain to be Milish, but seems more for show than go...
Luke-
If some MOA scale on both the elevation n reticle works for you, have at it. Many have been suggested, most got a luke warm greetin... get it luke warm????
Ahhh anyways, the GenII works very well over a braod application for both target n area measurements. If ya are savvy ya can 'lift n shift' from one target to another usin it. But that borders on bendin a bullet around an obstacle n I aint goin there.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">APPLYIN the angular measurement requires linear solutions.</div></div>
Perhaps it does - for you.
But if you see your bullet splash off the left side of your target, and you see in your lovely Gen II reticle that it's 0.5 mils from the center of your target, do you have to say to yourself, "Lessee, the target is 800 yards away, so a half mil at 800 yards is 14.4 inches, so I better hold 14.4 inches more to the right"?
If you habitually use metric linear measurements, do you say, "Lessee, the target is 800 meters away, so a half mil at 800 meters is 40 centimeters, so I better hold 40 centimeters more to the right"?
Perhaps you do - but it's much faster to just correct a half mil to the right using the reticle, and pull the trigger.
If the impact was a half mil low, dial up 5 clicks on a scope with 0.1 mil clicks, if you're trying to get exact dope, or, if you just want to hit the target, hold a half mil high.
No linear thinking required. Just angles.
That's why scopes which adjust in the same units as the reticle is graduated in make life so much easier - whether those increments are in MOA, milliradians, or IPHY.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">APPLYIN the angular measurement requires linear solutions.</div></div>
Perhaps it does - for you.
But if you see your bullet splash off the left side of your target, and you see in your lovely Gen II reticle that it's 0.5 mils from the center of your target, do you have to say to yourself, "Lessee, the target is 800 yards away, so a half mil at 800 yards is 14.4 inches, so I better hold 14.4 inches more to the right"?
If you habitually use metric linear measurements, do you say, "Lessee, the target is 800 meters away, so a half mil at 800 meters is 40 centimeters, so I better hold 40 centimeters more to the right"?
Perhaps you do - but it's much faster to just correct a half mil to the right using the reticle, and pull the trigger.
If the impact was a half mil low, dial up 5 clicks on a scope with 0.1 mil clicks, if you're trying to get exact dope, or, if you just want to hit the target, hold a half mil high.
No linear thinking required. Just angles.
That's why scopes which adjust in the same units as the reticle is graduated in make life so much easier - whether those increments are in MOA, milliradians, or IPHY.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Damn. You guys have been busy.
I am too tired to get involved in the entire discussion, but would like to comment on a few things. Long day at work.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA and milliradians are both measurements of <span style="font-weight: bold">angles</span>..................
If you're shooting something close enough to require the field of view of a scope set on 3.5 power, you don't need a reticle to hold from - all you need is the center crosshairs................
</div></div>
I won't argue that they have almost nothing to do with each other but for the introduction of linear objects into the mix.
Noone has ever set up angular targets for me, and they are normally measured in inches the few times I have been out to a range. In this case, my comfort with inches makes for added comfort with IPHY. Not better, just a personal preference of late.
That's a good point about not needing angular tics at very low powers though I think you can use them in some situations and I don't feel that the ones I drew harm the sight picture and are useful if you do wish to take a longer shot at low power. The only use for the outer extreme markings I can think of is the one Like pointed out about "how far between buildings", but this has little to do with shooting, more to do with observing.
Shall I consider any of the other points in this 3-way discussion as suggestions on this design, other than that maybe it doesn't need to be built?
I am still pondering the duplex thickness coming in outside the 40IPHY marked area in my drawing, with maybe some notches along them at 10IPHY intervals or so... for the purpose stated.
Damn. You guys have been busy.
I am too tired to get involved in the entire discussion, but would like to comment on a few things. Long day at work.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MOA and milliradians are both measurements of <span style="font-weight: bold">angles</span>..................
If you're shooting something close enough to require the field of view of a scope set on 3.5 power, you don't need a reticle to hold from - all you need is the center crosshairs................
</div></div>
I won't argue that they have almost nothing to do with each other but for the introduction of linear objects into the mix.
Noone has ever set up angular targets for me, and they are normally measured in inches the few times I have been out to a range. In this case, my comfort with inches makes for added comfort with IPHY. Not better, just a personal preference of late.
That's a good point about not needing angular tics at very low powers though I think you can use them in some situations and I don't feel that the ones I drew harm the sight picture and are useful if you do wish to take a longer shot at low power. The only use for the outer extreme markings I can think of is the one Like pointed out about "how far between buildings", but this has little to do with shooting, more to do with observing.
Shall I consider any of the other points in this 3-way discussion as suggestions on this design, other than that maybe it doesn't need to be built?
I am still pondering the duplex thickness coming in outside the 40IPHY marked area in my drawing, with maybe some notches along them at 10IPHY intervals or so... for the purpose stated.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Nah, Raf - we're just chattering, probably cause we've got nothing better to do.
I think the more choices people have, the better. Something which is optimum for a highly experienced person is not always the best thing for someone with relatively little.
I think an IPHY reticle is a good idea, assuming the scope has IPHY clicks.
Nah, Raf - we're just chattering, probably cause we've got nothing better to do.
I think the more choices people have, the better. Something which is optimum for a highly experienced person is not always the best thing for someone with relatively little.
I think an IPHY reticle is a good idea, assuming the scope has IPHY clicks.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
LOL You need to come help me at work....idle hands and all.
I do have "some" experience.....more than I stated in my last post. Certainly not as much as yourself, or Mike, or Luke...from the sound of things. That's why I am glad you guy's are posting.
I would rather you tell me it's a POS than to just be nice.
I already knew you were capable of being nice.
LOL You need to come help me at work....idle hands and all.
I do have "some" experience.....more than I stated in my last post. Certainly not as much as yourself, or Mike, or Luke...from the sound of things. That's why I am glad you guy's are posting.
I would rather you tell me it's a POS than to just be nice.
I already knew you were capable of being nice.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Yeah, common reticle markings and adjustments are my thing too.
No sense in complicating things. SF340's idea of 1/3 IPHY clicks has me interested too since with my current 1/4 clicks I get 22.5 IPHY per rev and the 1/3 would give me 30 IPHY per rev.
Laziness tells me adding a number to 30 is faster than adding it to 22.5.
Plans are, if enough are interested, to do a Milliradian version.
I think JBW would prefer that, but he's has whiney brat's(me)
bugging him for IPHY.
Yeah, common reticle markings and adjustments are my thing too.
No sense in complicating things. SF340's idea of 1/3 IPHY clicks has me interested too since with my current 1/4 clicks I get 22.5 IPHY per rev and the 1/3 would give me 30 IPHY per rev.
Laziness tells me adding a number to 30 is faster than adding it to 22.5.
Plans are, if enough are interested, to do a Milliradian version.
I think JBW would prefer that, but he's has whiney brat's(me)
bugging him for IPHY.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
If it looks like I am trolling for free advise, I am.
I have felt like crap the last few days. I hope I am not coming down with something! Feel like sleeping for a few days!
If it looks like I am trolling for free advise, I am.
I have felt like crap the last few days. I hope I am not coming down with something! Feel like sleeping for a few days!
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
1/3 IPHY clicks - 0.33 inches at 100 yards - would be very close to 0.1 mil clicks - 0.36 inches at 100 yards - which I've found to be fine enough for good adjustment.
1/3 IPHY clicks - 0.33 inches at 100 yards - would be very close to 0.1 mil clicks - 0.36 inches at 100 yards - which I've found to be fine enough for good adjustment.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
How about the reticle(s)?
How about the reticle(s)?
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Luke;
I saw your pic's, thats a good example of what we were both thinking.
Am wondering what others think of the duplex heavy lines in the FFP. Not hard to do at all, at least as I understand the manufacturing process.
Luke;
I saw your pic's, thats a good example of what we were both thinking.
Am wondering what others think of the duplex heavy lines in the FFP. Not hard to do at all, at least as I understand the manufacturing process.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Rafael: FWIW If you look back on page 6 I posted a couple links to pictures I drew up of a duplex style reticle. Should give you an idea of what it might look like. Edited to add: Whoops beat me to it...
To be honest I'm still leaning heavily towards a scope with 0.1 mil clicks. The only thing holding me back is for ranging purposes I'm not proficient at all judging target size in metric. I could continue to use the standard method of: target size (inches)*27.778/target size (mils), but that is still relatively slow and requires a good deal of math. I could always totally immerse myself in metric and become proficient at estimating things in centimeters and meters but that would require a good deal of effort. Although in the long run that just might pay off more.
I'm still on the fence...
Rafael: FWIW If you look back on page 6 I posted a couple links to pictures I drew up of a duplex style reticle. Should give you an idea of what it might look like. Edited to add: Whoops beat me to it...
To be honest I'm still leaning heavily towards a scope with 0.1 mil clicks. The only thing holding me back is for ranging purposes I'm not proficient at all judging target size in metric. I could continue to use the standard method of: target size (inches)*27.778/target size (mils), but that is still relatively slow and requires a good deal of math. I could always totally immerse myself in metric and become proficient at estimating things in centimeters and meters but that would require a good deal of effort. Although in the long run that just might pay off more.
I'm still on the fence...
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1/3 IPHY clicks - 0.33 inches at 100 yards - would be very close to 0.1 mil clicks - 0.36 inches at 100 yards - which I've found to be fine enough for good adjustment. </div></div>
I completely agree and would have never thought of it until mentioned by SFDRIVER. One of the things that drove (drives) me nuts on the 1/4 IPHY EREK is going past 22.5. I'm for anything with a whole number at the end of a revolution. Moving things roughly the diameter of a 308 bullet is kinda easy to figure out too. The absolute worst you can be off from an absolute zero is .165 IPHY which is well within my capability.
I think RAF and I are just wanting to get one of these in our hands to see if all the theories work in application. Once the engeneering is completed and functional, swapping/redesigning reticles will be easy. If this does work as designed it's gonna be the shnitz
Cheers, Doc
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1/3 IPHY clicks - 0.33 inches at 100 yards - would be very close to 0.1 mil clicks - 0.36 inches at 100 yards - which I've found to be fine enough for good adjustment. </div></div>
I completely agree and would have never thought of it until mentioned by SFDRIVER. One of the things that drove (drives) me nuts on the 1/4 IPHY EREK is going past 22.5. I'm for anything with a whole number at the end of a revolution. Moving things roughly the diameter of a 308 bullet is kinda easy to figure out too. The absolute worst you can be off from an absolute zero is .165 IPHY which is well within my capability.
I think RAF and I are just wanting to get one of these in our hands to see if all the theories work in application. Once the engeneering is completed and functional, swapping/redesigning reticles will be easy. If this does work as designed it's gonna be the shnitz
Cheers, Doc
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Doc;
What do you say to the thick cross-hairs in the FFP outside the 40/80 IPHY ranging area?
I am on the fence over it. It would give a good reflective surface for the illumination at low power!
Doc;
What do you say to the thick cross-hairs in the FFP outside the 40/80 IPHY ranging area?
I am on the fence over it. It would give a good reflective surface for the illumination at low power!
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
I think I would be more inclined to run the 5 and 10 marks to the outer edges than I would the thicker X-hair. Illumination works both ways especially with NVG's (your gonna see what I mean when we test it), too much illumination reflection will white out the eyeball. If anything I would consider making the outer portion of the crosshair 2 - 3 IPHY thick and not 7 - 8 as drawn.
We need to get together this weekend and finalize this and get it to John. Other than Sat & Sun AM I'm clear. Call me.
Cheers, Doc
I think I would be more inclined to run the 5 and 10 marks to the outer edges than I would the thicker X-hair. Illumination works both ways especially with NVG's (your gonna see what I mean when we test it), too much illumination reflection will white out the eyeball. If anything I would consider making the outer portion of the crosshair 2 - 3 IPHY thick and not 7 - 8 as drawn.
We need to get together this weekend and finalize this and get it to John. Other than Sat & Sun AM I'm clear. Call me.
Cheers, Doc
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Well, I was supposed to work the entire weekend.
Just got home from work and it looks like I have the weekend free. I will call you.
Latest Dual-Focal-Plane reticle images here:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6141&Number=388475#Post388475
Well, I was supposed to work the entire weekend.
Just got home from work and it looks like I have the weekend free. I will call you.
Latest Dual-Focal-Plane reticle images here:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6141&Number=388475#Post388475
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Still working on it.
Still working on it.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Bump for retaining interest.
Latest Dual Focal Plane reticle images can be seen here:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6141&Number=388475#Post388475
Bump for retaining interest.
Latest Dual Focal Plane reticle images can be seen here:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6141&Number=388475#Post388475
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Yeah, barry. One of these day's.....!
I am a bit nervous about some of the particulars working out:
Reticle alignment, proper focus of both reticles, lighting solutions. Lighting can wait until after the prototype for all I care. The only way to know is to try. Me and my wallet are both prepared to give this thing a whirl.
Latest Dual Focal Plane reticle images can be seen here:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6141&Number=388475#Post388475
Yeah, barry. One of these day's.....!
I am a bit nervous about some of the particulars working out:
Reticle alignment, proper focus of both reticles, lighting solutions. Lighting can wait until after the prototype for all I care. The only way to know is to try. Me and my wallet are both prepared to give this thing a whirl.
Latest Dual Focal Plane reticle images can be seen here:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=6141&Number=388475#Post388475
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
I am still prodding JBW about this.
I am still prodding JBW about this.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
Yes, sir!
It couldn't hurt if those interested could post one more time.
Numbers speak.
Yes, sir!
It couldn't hurt if those interested could post one more time.
Numbers speak.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
You guys do realize that with this sort of optical set-up you would require two different focus mechanisms, right? And one of them would have to actually articulate one of the two reticles.
How you would synchronize the movements of both reticles for windage and elevation adjustments is another mystery.
I think that what you want could be much more easily achieved by digitizing the image and overlaying a computer-generated reticle pattern.
You guys do realize that with this sort of optical set-up you would require two different focus mechanisms, right? And one of them would have to actually articulate one of the two reticles.
How you would synchronize the movements of both reticles for windage and elevation adjustments is another mystery.
I think that what you want could be much more easily achieved by digitizing the image and overlaying a computer-generated reticle pattern.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
We have discussed this idea at length with John at U.S. Optics over the last two years. He believes the idea is doable, and that the reticle's will move together. He has mentioned that one of the reticles will have to be installed precisely at the pivot point of the erector to achieve this. Both will be mounted in the erector assembly, unlike the Shepard scopes. We have also discussed focus, but he does not see it as an issue so far.
Of course, I have never built a scope, but am confident he has.
We have discussed this idea at length with John at U.S. Optics over the last two years. He believes the idea is doable, and that the reticle's will move together. He has mentioned that one of the reticles will have to be installed precisely at the pivot point of the erector to achieve this. Both will be mounted in the erector assembly, unlike the Shepard scopes. We have also discussed focus, but he does not see it as an issue so far.
Of course, I have never built a scope, but am confident he has.
Re: FFP ranging reticle with static-size cross-hair? Any interest?
No kidding? That'll really be something to see, then!
No kidding? That'll really be something to see, then!
Similar threads
