Just mounted a MK4 6.5x20 FFP Leupold with Hollands Mil based reticle and .2 Mil elevation and windage knobs. One revolution nets 4 mils (as markeed) of adjustment which equals 13.75 MOA and not the 15 MOA Leupold advertises. I assume the values of the Leupold adjusments are IPHY and not MOA, but more testing to follow. I wonder how many folks dial their come-ups in MOA and wonder why the shot went low?
Rifle Scopes Hollands ART reticle
- Thread starter Wireman
- Start date
Re: Hollands ART reticle
That's very odd. .2 Mil clicks is very coarse, what will you be using the scope for? Also Leupold knobs are typically 60 clicks per rev (or 50 for the M5) which should give you 12 Mils (or 10) per turn.... Any chance you could take a picture of these? I don't see them on Holland's site.
That's very odd. .2 Mil clicks is very coarse, what will you be using the scope for? Also Leupold knobs are typically 60 clicks per rev (or 50 for the M5) which should give you 12 Mils (or 10) per turn.... Any chance you could take a picture of these? I don't see them on Holland's site.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
http://www.hollandguns.com/index.html click on Advanced Reticle Technology...
http://www.hollandguns.com/index.html click on Advanced Reticle Technology...
Re: Hollands ART reticle
Jon
I wasn't very clear, but there are 3 clicks between every .2 mil hashmark on the knobs. Last major mark is 3.8 with 2 clicks left for a full revolution. It appears that Holland simply re-marked an M-1 knob that has 60 clicks per revolution. 60 .25 MOA clicks should be pretty close to 15 MOA. 15 inches divided by 3.6 is pretty close to 4 mil. So I think the Leupold click values are .25 IPHY.
I'd like to have the M5 knobs.
Rory
Jon
I wasn't very clear, but there are 3 clicks between every .2 mil hashmark on the knobs. Last major mark is 3.8 with 2 clicks left for a full revolution. It appears that Holland simply re-marked an M-1 knob that has 60 clicks per revolution. 60 .25 MOA clicks should be pretty close to 15 MOA. 15 inches divided by 3.6 is pretty close to 4 mil. So I think the Leupold click values are .25 IPHY.
I'd like to have the M5 knobs.
Rory
Re: Hollands ART reticle
Wireman... I would optically check your scope and verify the clicks...
I've had Leupy's that were 1/4 MOA and some that were 1/4"...
Not sure if Darrels turrets are exact as well... Would be interesting to know...
Wireman... I would optically check your scope and verify the clicks...
I've had Leupy's that were 1/4 MOA and some that were 1/4"...
Not sure if Darrels turrets are exact as well... Would be interesting to know...
Re: Hollands ART reticle
EHG
Preparing to shoot the D&l shoot in Aug and was given this scope to try. My USO with Gen 2 XR is dead nuts reliable, but the 20x is tempting. Some folks say I don't shoot for shit because of the 17x and my old eyes. The numbered holdovers are pretty cool as I loose my place sometimes when counting in a hurry. The glass is absolutely great IMO but there's more to a good scope than glass. Will check it out for tracking and mil spacing soon.
Rory
EHG
Preparing to shoot the D&l shoot in Aug and was given this scope to try. My USO with Gen 2 XR is dead nuts reliable, but the 20x is tempting. Some folks say I don't shoot for shit because of the 17x and my old eyes. The numbered holdovers are pretty cool as I loose my place sometimes when counting in a hurry. The glass is absolutely great IMO but there's more to a good scope than glass. Will check it out for tracking and mil spacing soon.
Rory
Re: Hollands ART reticle
Trough the scope pics??
Trough the scope pics??
Re: Hollands ART reticle
I'm sorry, I did misunderstand. If they're really just re-marked knobs, that would be disappointing. If you're right and they are 15 IPHY, that's closer to 4 Mils but it's still off by over 4% which is enough to screw you up at long range.
Definitely measure to see what they are--collimator, yardstick at 100 yds, etc. Even if they were <span style="font-style: italic">supposed</span> to be .25 IPHY clicks, who knows what they really are.
I'm sorry, I did misunderstand. If they're really just re-marked knobs, that would be disappointing. If you're right and they are 15 IPHY, that's closer to 4 Mils but it's still off by over 4% which is enough to screw you up at long range.
Definitely measure to see what they are--collimator, yardstick at 100 yds, etc. Even if they were <span style="font-style: italic">supposed</span> to be .25 IPHY clicks, who knows what they really are.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wireman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">EHG
Preparing to shoot the D&l shoot in Aug and was given this scope to try. My USO with Gen 2 XR is dead nuts reliable, but the 20x is tempting. Some folks say I don't shoot for shit because of the 17x and my old eyes. The numbered holdovers are pretty cool as I loose my place sometimes when counting in a hurry. The glass is absolutely great IMO but there's more to a good scope than glass. Will check it out for tracking and mil spacing soon.
Rory </div></div>
My buddy Ernie's gonna be there shooting his "handguns" too. He will be using a Holland reticle as well--probably MOA.
I also have that exact optic you're using, and love mine for hunting. I don't twist turrets, but do have the .2 mil turret as well. 1st shot at a game animal out of that optic was a 435-yd. coyote with a 6.5 WSM XP-100 handgun. Interesting that he refers to it as the "Ultimate Mil Reticle". If he'd have just broke one mil unit down into .2 mil at the ends both vertically and horizontally then it would have been unquestionably...for me.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wireman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">EHG
Preparing to shoot the D&l shoot in Aug and was given this scope to try. My USO with Gen 2 XR is dead nuts reliable, but the 20x is tempting. Some folks say I don't shoot for shit because of the 17x and my old eyes. The numbered holdovers are pretty cool as I loose my place sometimes when counting in a hurry. The glass is absolutely great IMO but there's more to a good scope than glass. Will check it out for tracking and mil spacing soon.
Rory </div></div>
My buddy Ernie's gonna be there shooting his "handguns" too. He will be using a Holland reticle as well--probably MOA.
I also have that exact optic you're using, and love mine for hunting. I don't twist turrets, but do have the .2 mil turret as well. 1st shot at a game animal out of that optic was a 435-yd. coyote with a 6.5 WSM XP-100 handgun. Interesting that he refers to it as the "Ultimate Mil Reticle". If he'd have just broke one mil unit down into .2 mil at the ends both vertically and horizontally then it would have been unquestionably...for me.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
The ART reticle is that useful or some kind of wierd gimmick ?
The ART reticle is that useful or some kind of wierd gimmick ?
Re: Hollands ART reticle
It's no gimmick--Darrell has put a lot of time and effort into making these reticles as user-friendly as possible. Fact is he's the only one i know that's figured out that to get the best reticle-rangefinding accuracy possible from line reticles is to subtract one line thickness, since people tend to bracket (and interpolate) between line stadia instead of from center to center, and will make a difference at distance.
It's no gimmick--Darrell has put a lot of time and effort into making these reticles as user-friendly as possible. Fact is he's the only one i know that's figured out that to get the best reticle-rangefinding accuracy possible from line reticles is to subtract one line thickness, since people tend to bracket (and interpolate) between line stadia instead of from center to center, and will make a difference at distance.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
I have it on my Sako with the Leupold MK4 8.5-25X50, and I had no problems out to 600yds over this passed week-end. I don't have a range that is over 600.
I have it on my Sako with the Leupold MK4 8.5-25X50, and I had no problems out to 600yds over this passed week-end. I don't have a range that is over 600.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
There are better rangefinding reticles available from several scope manufacturers and I don't think Darrell was the first to learn how to range with them, but it is a useful reticle. I think the knobs are stricly marketing BS.
Rory
There are better rangefinding reticles available from several scope manufacturers and I don't think Darrell was the first to learn how to range with them, but it is a useful reticle. I think the knobs are stricly marketing BS.
Rory
Re: Hollands ART reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wireman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> One revolution nets 4 mils (as markeed) of adjustment which equals 13.75 MOA and not the 15 MOA Leupold advertises. </div></div>
This scope is clearly marked one full revolution is 4 mills come up. Why would you say that is not as advertised?
My Leupolds are the MOA dial models and at 500 yards the retical moves exactly 15 minutes per revolution. So far my longest cold bore shot is 1388 yards and it was withing 4" of the aiming point. It was a 4mph sidewind and I clearly put in a bit too much correction but the elevation was right there. All 32 minutes worth.
Did it ever occur that maybe your scope designed to move 4 mills per turn has a different thread pitch in the turrets than a scope set to adjust in MOA?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wireman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> One revolution nets 4 mils (as markeed) of adjustment which equals 13.75 MOA and not the 15 MOA Leupold advertises. </div></div>
This scope is clearly marked one full revolution is 4 mills come up. Why would you say that is not as advertised?
My Leupolds are the MOA dial models and at 500 yards the retical moves exactly 15 minutes per revolution. So far my longest cold bore shot is 1388 yards and it was withing 4" of the aiming point. It was a 4mph sidewind and I clearly put in a bit too much correction but the elevation was right there. All 32 minutes worth.
Did it ever occur that maybe your scope designed to move 4 mills per turn has a different thread pitch in the turrets than a scope set to adjust in MOA?
Re: Hollands ART reticle
Gentlemen,
Greetings,
Thanks for the interesting comments regarding our reticle design and knob adjustments. Here is a little insight behind what I've done.
Holland's Ultimate Mil Reticle ( HUMR ) is superior to "other mil reticles" in the following ways.
1) Our graduations are numbered for FAST referencing, if you can count and read numbers there should never be "oops" because you had to shoot quickly and were on the wrong mil graduation.
2) The 2 Mil hold-off's provide enough windage correction for most shots encountered in the field. To be specific, one can shoot a 175 SMK at 2650 fps and have enough windage using the reticle in a F/V 10 mph to 850 yards before you need to touch a windage knob.
3) The reticle provides a unique internal yardstick should you miss-calculate your first shot, simply note the aiming reference and point of impact using the retilce, add or subtract the mil correction and the second shot is spot on.
4) Superior ranging capabilities. Using our bar-graph reticle pattern and ULTIMATE DATA CARD SOFTWARE ( that comes with each scope or reticle conversion) the shooter is provided with a more accurate range to target than any other Mil reticle.
5) The 2 Mil hold-offs also provide a fast and accurate walking lead for engaging moving targets in the field and does so in an uncluttered field of view compared to the screen door reticle patterns.
6) Windage Elevation knobs. Yes the knobs are in .2 Mil graduations. At the time we developed this reticle pattern at the request of Military and L/E individuals for an improved Mil Reticle, Leupold did not offer any Mil graduated click values. I felt it imperative to make the reticle and adjustments speak the same language. A 1/10 mil grad equals .360" and a 2/10 grad would be .720, utilizing the only click values available Leupold had .250 moa clicks, 3-.250 clicks equated to .750 which is close enough when used to supplement the reticle for aiming references.
Yes, I understand that if you were to dial 10 mils using the elevation knob the accumulated stack would result in an error at long range. Why dial, when we can use the reticle to make the shot and never experience a full rotational error. When engaging multiple targets the shooter using the reticle is much faster, more accurate and fool proof than a "Dialer". Hmmm.... One had better give more thought to using the retilce????
Note: Etched reticles never change, suffer no backlash, are faster and over the long haul more accurate than dialing. For those individuals who say that 2/10's click values are too "coarse" for field work when supplementing the reticle, should consider using the finer MOA scale anyway. I've yet to see a shooter however that can shoot under field conditions to a 1/10 mil correction anyway???
Thanks for the opportunity to share ideas concerning our reticle designs, we believe we have provided the shooting community with a better mouse trap that is easy and fast to use if you prefer MILS over MOA.
To all of our servicemen overseas, be safe and shoot straight.
Respectfully,
Darrell Holland Advanced Reticle Technology.....
Gentlemen,
Greetings,
Thanks for the interesting comments regarding our reticle design and knob adjustments. Here is a little insight behind what I've done.
Holland's Ultimate Mil Reticle ( HUMR ) is superior to "other mil reticles" in the following ways.
1) Our graduations are numbered for FAST referencing, if you can count and read numbers there should never be "oops" because you had to shoot quickly and were on the wrong mil graduation.
2) The 2 Mil hold-off's provide enough windage correction for most shots encountered in the field. To be specific, one can shoot a 175 SMK at 2650 fps and have enough windage using the reticle in a F/V 10 mph to 850 yards before you need to touch a windage knob.
3) The reticle provides a unique internal yardstick should you miss-calculate your first shot, simply note the aiming reference and point of impact using the retilce, add or subtract the mil correction and the second shot is spot on.
4) Superior ranging capabilities. Using our bar-graph reticle pattern and ULTIMATE DATA CARD SOFTWARE ( that comes with each scope or reticle conversion) the shooter is provided with a more accurate range to target than any other Mil reticle.
5) The 2 Mil hold-offs also provide a fast and accurate walking lead for engaging moving targets in the field and does so in an uncluttered field of view compared to the screen door reticle patterns.
6) Windage Elevation knobs. Yes the knobs are in .2 Mil graduations. At the time we developed this reticle pattern at the request of Military and L/E individuals for an improved Mil Reticle, Leupold did not offer any Mil graduated click values. I felt it imperative to make the reticle and adjustments speak the same language. A 1/10 mil grad equals .360" and a 2/10 grad would be .720, utilizing the only click values available Leupold had .250 moa clicks, 3-.250 clicks equated to .750 which is close enough when used to supplement the reticle for aiming references.
Yes, I understand that if you were to dial 10 mils using the elevation knob the accumulated stack would result in an error at long range. Why dial, when we can use the reticle to make the shot and never experience a full rotational error. When engaging multiple targets the shooter using the reticle is much faster, more accurate and fool proof than a "Dialer". Hmmm.... One had better give more thought to using the retilce????
Note: Etched reticles never change, suffer no backlash, are faster and over the long haul more accurate than dialing. For those individuals who say that 2/10's click values are too "coarse" for field work when supplementing the reticle, should consider using the finer MOA scale anyway. I've yet to see a shooter however that can shoot under field conditions to a 1/10 mil correction anyway???
Thanks for the opportunity to share ideas concerning our reticle designs, we believe we have provided the shooting community with a better mouse trap that is easy and fast to use if you prefer MILS over MOA.
To all of our servicemen overseas, be safe and shoot straight.
Respectfully,
Darrell Holland Advanced Reticle Technology.....
Re: Hollands ART reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3) The reticle provides a unique internal yardstick should you miss-calculate your first shot, simply note the aiming reference and point of impact using the retilce, add or subtract the mil correction and the second shot is spot on.</div></div>
Nothing unique about that. A Horus reticle has far more reference points for that sort of correction. Nor is it necessary to "subtract the mil correction". Put the scope on the original aiming point, and note where on the reticle the point of impact was. Place the POI on the center of the target and smoothly press the trigger to the rear. No math required.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">4) Superior ranging capabilities. Using our bar-graph reticle pattern and ULTIMATE DATA CARD SOFTWARE ( that comes with each scope or reticle conversion) the shooter is provided with a more accurate range to target than any other Mil reticle.</div></div>
I'm afraid that turns out not to be the case. Several reticles have 0.2 mil grid marks, the Nightforce MLR and the Leupold TMR for example, while the finest gradation on your reticle shown above is 0.5 mil. Calculation with a Mildot Master is quick and painless - no software required.
As far as the inaccuracies of the clicks go, a 10 mil hold will work in many situations. In fact, I never dial elevation inside 700 yards.
But click accuracy becomes critical at longer distances where 10 mils of hold is not enough.
Certainly that limitation can be overcome through calculation when you know what the actual click values are, and there are software packages which allow you to specify the actual click value so the program output is the value which must actually be dialed - but it's better and faster not to need to do that.
There are several scopes which offer reticles with extended hold-over abilities, and whose adjustment systems are much closer to their nominal values.
Perhaps now that Leupold is offering scopes with 0.1 mil clicks, you'll put your reticle in those, rather than having to use a rather awkward kludge.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3) The reticle provides a unique internal yardstick should you miss-calculate your first shot, simply note the aiming reference and point of impact using the retilce, add or subtract the mil correction and the second shot is spot on.</div></div>
Nothing unique about that. A Horus reticle has far more reference points for that sort of correction. Nor is it necessary to "subtract the mil correction". Put the scope on the original aiming point, and note where on the reticle the point of impact was. Place the POI on the center of the target and smoothly press the trigger to the rear. No math required.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">4) Superior ranging capabilities. Using our bar-graph reticle pattern and ULTIMATE DATA CARD SOFTWARE ( that comes with each scope or reticle conversion) the shooter is provided with a more accurate range to target than any other Mil reticle.</div></div>
I'm afraid that turns out not to be the case. Several reticles have 0.2 mil grid marks, the Nightforce MLR and the Leupold TMR for example, while the finest gradation on your reticle shown above is 0.5 mil. Calculation with a Mildot Master is quick and painless - no software required.
As far as the inaccuracies of the clicks go, a 10 mil hold will work in many situations. In fact, I never dial elevation inside 700 yards.
But click accuracy becomes critical at longer distances where 10 mils of hold is not enough.
Certainly that limitation can be overcome through calculation when you know what the actual click values are, and there are software packages which allow you to specify the actual click value so the program output is the value which must actually be dialed - but it's better and faster not to need to do that.
There are several scopes which offer reticles with extended hold-over abilities, and whose adjustment systems are much closer to their nominal values.
Perhaps now that Leupold is offering scopes with 0.1 mil clicks, you'll put your reticle in those, rather than having to use a rather awkward kludge.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sscoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fact is he's the only one i know that's figured out that to get the best reticle-rangefinding accuracy possible from line reticles is to subtract one line thickness, since people tend to bracket (and interpolate) between line stadia instead of from center to center...</div></div>Or, those who choose to Mil targets incorrectly could simply learn how to properly Mil a target under different light conditions.
Using a correct method, or using an incorrect method and performing a correct subtraction, yield the same result. But the former is faster and more consistent with less chance each time of making a mistake.
For me, holding the correct elevation is rarely the problem. Wind, however, is another matter entirely: my wind holds, and even some of my miscalculations in high winds, when holding eight or ten mils of elevation would be occasionally more than two Mils to the side of that scale.
To me, the reticle looks like a cross between the Gen II XR and the Horus, but without the advantage of the Horus's .2 Mil gradiations.
What are the specs of this reticle at 6.5 and 20x and how thick are the lines?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sscoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fact is he's the only one i know that's figured out that to get the best reticle-rangefinding accuracy possible from line reticles is to subtract one line thickness, since people tend to bracket (and interpolate) between line stadia instead of from center to center...</div></div>Or, those who choose to Mil targets incorrectly could simply learn how to properly Mil a target under different light conditions.
Using a correct method, or using an incorrect method and performing a correct subtraction, yield the same result. But the former is faster and more consistent with less chance each time of making a mistake.
For me, holding the correct elevation is rarely the problem. Wind, however, is another matter entirely: my wind holds, and even some of my miscalculations in high winds, when holding eight or ten mils of elevation would be occasionally more than two Mils to the side of that scale.
To me, the reticle looks like a cross between the Gen II XR and the Horus, but without the advantage of the Horus's .2 Mil gradiations.
What are the specs of this reticle at 6.5 and 20x and how thick are the lines?
Re: Hollands ART reticle
That's a good question, Graham, especially in light of the fact that many of the SFP factory Leupolds which I and others have tested have power rings incorrectly calibrated so that they do not range correctly at the specified power. We have encountered significant errors in both directions.
That's a good question, Graham, especially in light of the fact that many of the SFP factory Leupolds which I and others have tested have power rings incorrectly calibrated so that they do not range correctly at the specified power. We have encountered significant errors in both directions.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's a good question, Graham, especially in light of the fact that many of the SFP factory Leupolds which I and others have tested have power rings incorrectly calibrated so that they do not range correctly at the specified power. We have encountered significant errors in both directions.
</div></div>
I have also seen this in their Varmint Hunter reticle that uses the RES system of rangefinding for a 16" back to brisket deer. The ranging part of their power ring is incorrectly cald. on my 4.5-14x VX-III.
Graham i don't understand what you're saying about light conditions affecting line stadia subtension? I thought the math was pretty straight forward. Subtension is always the same regardless of lighting conditions and so is interpolation, at least from my experience.
I wish he would've divided 1 unit vertically and horizontally into .2 mil graduations to get better rangefinding accuracy, like the TMR.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's a good question, Graham, especially in light of the fact that many of the SFP factory Leupolds which I and others have tested have power rings incorrectly calibrated so that they do not range correctly at the specified power. We have encountered significant errors in both directions.
</div></div>
I have also seen this in their Varmint Hunter reticle that uses the RES system of rangefinding for a 16" back to brisket deer. The ranging part of their power ring is incorrectly cald. on my 4.5-14x VX-III.
Graham i don't understand what you're saying about light conditions affecting line stadia subtension? I thought the math was pretty straight forward. Subtension is always the same regardless of lighting conditions and so is interpolation, at least from my experience.
I wish he would've divided 1 unit vertically and horizontally into .2 mil graduations to get better rangefinding accuracy, like the TMR.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
Different lighting conditions make targets appear different dimensions... Bright targets appear larger, dark targets appear smaller, and will affect the way a person ranges them.
It is the same as the target being at an angle to the shooter, unless you are directly in front of a target, looking at it square, the target will take on a different appearance. Which can cause something to be incorrectly ranged.
A 12" target isn't always going to appear 12" and will thus affect the end result.
Different lighting conditions make targets appear different dimensions... Bright targets appear larger, dark targets appear smaller, and will affect the way a person ranges them.
It is the same as the target being at an angle to the shooter, unless you are directly in front of a target, looking at it square, the target will take on a different appearance. Which can cause something to be incorrectly ranged.
A 12" target isn't always going to appear 12" and will thus affect the end result.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
Oh yes, i see. I thought he may have been saying that. Has anyone here actually done research to get hard data for reticle-rangefinding accuracy and precision in various lighting conditions? Is there a factor that is applied?
Seems to me that subtension and interpolation would still be a "constant" and the tgt. size would be the variable and that the "milling" would still be performed the same.
Oh yes, i see. I thought he may have been saying that. Has anyone here actually done research to get hard data for reticle-rangefinding accuracy and precision in various lighting conditions? Is there a factor that is applied?
Seems to me that subtension and interpolation would still be a "constant" and the tgt. size would be the variable and that the "milling" would still be performed the same.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sscoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh yes, i see. I thought he may have been saying that. Has anyone here actually done research to get hard data for reticle-rangefinding accuracy and precision in various lighting conditions?</div></div>
Ya, it's called actually going out and doing it... reticle ranging is a legacy skill set and should only be used a last resort. As you move past 600 yards, even beyond 800 yards it become less and less reliable by a huge factor. It's where people make the greatest mistakes in UKD shooting, actually ranging the target.
Ranging small targets is very difficult, and a person proficient at ranging with a reticle will do so to the 100th. If you think you can accurately range a target around 800 yards using .6 and not .58 or .63 you haven't been ranging enough to understand what you are looking at.
it's a perishable skill set and something that most people do not practice correctly.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sscoyote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh yes, i see. I thought he may have been saying that. Has anyone here actually done research to get hard data for reticle-rangefinding accuracy and precision in various lighting conditions?</div></div>
Ya, it's called actually going out and doing it... reticle ranging is a legacy skill set and should only be used a last resort. As you move past 600 yards, even beyond 800 yards it become less and less reliable by a huge factor. It's where people make the greatest mistakes in UKD shooting, actually ranging the target.
Ranging small targets is very difficult, and a person proficient at ranging with a reticle will do so to the 100th. If you think you can accurately range a target around 800 yards using .6 and not .58 or .63 you haven't been ranging enough to understand what you are looking at.
it's a perishable skill set and something that most people do not practice correctly.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ranging small targets is very difficult, and a person proficient at ranging with a reticle will do so to the 100th. If you think you can accurately range a target around 800 yards using .6 and not .58 or .63 you haven't been ranging enough to understand what you are looking at. </div></div>
Of course--it's easy to see that from the math itself. I never range using a reticle when tgt. size is smaller and subtension is large (or magnification is low) anyway. This is one of the reasons that i prefer a smaller unit of subtension such as the .2 mil TMR (-1 line stadia subtension) that i have used, that allows for interpolative accuracy to ~.02 mil. That's as accurate as i'll ever expect to be able to get with any optic that's sitting on top of my rigs.
I will make note of Graham's point and see if it affects my calcs. the next time i go out. I don't have the reticle-rangefinding experience that many have here. Thanks.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ranging small targets is very difficult, and a person proficient at ranging with a reticle will do so to the 100th. If you think you can accurately range a target around 800 yards using .6 and not .58 or .63 you haven't been ranging enough to understand what you are looking at. </div></div>
Of course--it's easy to see that from the math itself. I never range using a reticle when tgt. size is smaller and subtension is large (or magnification is low) anyway. This is one of the reasons that i prefer a smaller unit of subtension such as the .2 mil TMR (-1 line stadia subtension) that i have used, that allows for interpolative accuracy to ~.02 mil. That's as accurate as i'll ever expect to be able to get with any optic that's sitting on top of my rigs.
I will make note of Graham's point and see if it affects my calcs. the next time i go out. I don't have the reticle-rangefinding experience that many have here. Thanks.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
In a standard Mil Dot Reticle, the dot itself is usually .2 Mils, so half the Mil Dot is .1, and you can move forward from there... Nowadays almost every type of reticle has a few different values from at least .2 to .5 to help break the reticle down for ranging, it is just a matter of knowing the reticle subtensions.
As Lindy said, the NF MLR has the reticle broken down, as does the TMR, the P4, and a host of others.
The issue we find, with grid type reticles, like with the reticle pictured above, depending on the line thickness, it usually blocks the shooter from seeing their impact, and will causes an issue in lower lighting conditions. Granted you can turn on a lit reticle, if it illuminates the entire reticle, but most of the time, it's during that in-between time and this will have issue when moving from an area of normal visibility to limited visibility where the grids tend to cause confusion.
Not to mention most targets are not full value, the dumb ones tend to die off fast. The point of the precision rifle shooter is for those target that are higher priority and less than full value. A partially obscured target, maybe just a shoulder and half a head, with a rifle.
Grid based reticles are great for beginners and people who are learning, but who will quickly want less and less reticle to block what is happening downrange. It's why the GEN II and Klein are so successful, everything you need and nothing you don't. The only thing that keeps the grids in business is the lobbying done by people like Horus, who invest large amounts of capital in trying to convince people they need the grid to be effect.
In a standard Mil Dot Reticle, the dot itself is usually .2 Mils, so half the Mil Dot is .1, and you can move forward from there... Nowadays almost every type of reticle has a few different values from at least .2 to .5 to help break the reticle down for ranging, it is just a matter of knowing the reticle subtensions.
As Lindy said, the NF MLR has the reticle broken down, as does the TMR, the P4, and a host of others.
The issue we find, with grid type reticles, like with the reticle pictured above, depending on the line thickness, it usually blocks the shooter from seeing their impact, and will causes an issue in lower lighting conditions. Granted you can turn on a lit reticle, if it illuminates the entire reticle, but most of the time, it's during that in-between time and this will have issue when moving from an area of normal visibility to limited visibility where the grids tend to cause confusion.
Not to mention most targets are not full value, the dumb ones tend to die off fast. The point of the precision rifle shooter is for those target that are higher priority and less than full value. A partially obscured target, maybe just a shoulder and half a head, with a rifle.
Grid based reticles are great for beginners and people who are learning, but who will quickly want less and less reticle to block what is happening downrange. It's why the GEN II and Klein are so successful, everything you need and nothing you don't. The only thing that keeps the grids in business is the lobbying done by people like Horus, who invest large amounts of capital in trying to convince people they need the grid to be effect.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
Gentlemen,
Regarding reticle accuracy and software; Our ULTIMATE BALLISTIC DATA CARD SOFTWARE creates a custom data card with MIL or MOA subtension to the nearest 1/100th graduation. Most importantly, we integrated a constant of 29.0 v/s 27.78 when calculating range using the mil-radian scale. No one else in the industry has ever taken into account the fact that we MIL or MOA targets from the top edge to the bottom edge of the stadia wire. This results in an error relative to the stadia wire subtension. This equates to roughly a 5% error in ranging depending on the reticle encountered.
Bottom line: When Mil-ed precisely, our bar-graph reticle and software does produce a more accurate rangefinder than conventional methods, Mil-dot Master included. These subtension factors are included in your data card as well as drop in MOA or MILS, wind deflection in MOA or MILS and any four angles uphill/downhill ( your choice) auto-calculated in direct read and fire correction in MOA or MILS based on your time of flight and gravity.
Data cards are in 3 different formats, a hunter card from 100-600 yds. standard card from 25-1000 yds in 25 yd. increments and a long range card from 1000-1500 yds in 10 yd. increments. The shooter can print these cards in 3 different sizes according to their vision needs.
Someone asked about our reticle subtension, it is .2 MOA or roughly 1/20th of a MIL. per 100 yds. This subtension allows the shooter to find the reticle in poor light or against a wooded or brushy background. Something that is hard to do with screen door type reticles. Our numbered aiming references subtend 1.6 MOA making them very fast to locate and shoot quickly without confusion.
Note to New Shooters:
MIL-ing or MOA-ing a target is important in case your laser R/F vapor locks due to fog, rain, sleet, snow, high humidity/mirage or poor reflectivity. Ranging a target with your reticle has its limitations, it is very difficult to accurately range 18 inch targets ( mule deer) past the 650 yard mark. Target size variation plus or minus an inch can result in a miss depending on target size. Reticle ranging is far more accurate than Mark 1 eyeball, but it has its practical limitations. Practice, be as precise as possible, know your target size and most importantly do not shoot at game animals beyond your limitations.
While every reticle will have its detractors, we feel that our system works very well, it's simple, easy to use, offers practical solutions to shooter's needs and provides an uncluttered field of view.
Take our Memorial Day Challenge:
On Tuesday June 1st, I will give away 10 ULTIMATE DATA CARD software packages as well as our Ballistic Gold Cards, limit one package per caller. Give it a workout and let me know your thoughts? I think you'll be impressed with what we have to offer....
Most respectfully, yours in shooting....
Darrell Holland Advanced Reticle Technology
Gentlemen,
Regarding reticle accuracy and software; Our ULTIMATE BALLISTIC DATA CARD SOFTWARE creates a custom data card with MIL or MOA subtension to the nearest 1/100th graduation. Most importantly, we integrated a constant of 29.0 v/s 27.78 when calculating range using the mil-radian scale. No one else in the industry has ever taken into account the fact that we MIL or MOA targets from the top edge to the bottom edge of the stadia wire. This results in an error relative to the stadia wire subtension. This equates to roughly a 5% error in ranging depending on the reticle encountered.
Bottom line: When Mil-ed precisely, our bar-graph reticle and software does produce a more accurate rangefinder than conventional methods, Mil-dot Master included. These subtension factors are included in your data card as well as drop in MOA or MILS, wind deflection in MOA or MILS and any four angles uphill/downhill ( your choice) auto-calculated in direct read and fire correction in MOA or MILS based on your time of flight and gravity.
Data cards are in 3 different formats, a hunter card from 100-600 yds. standard card from 25-1000 yds in 25 yd. increments and a long range card from 1000-1500 yds in 10 yd. increments. The shooter can print these cards in 3 different sizes according to their vision needs.
Someone asked about our reticle subtension, it is .2 MOA or roughly 1/20th of a MIL. per 100 yds. This subtension allows the shooter to find the reticle in poor light or against a wooded or brushy background. Something that is hard to do with screen door type reticles. Our numbered aiming references subtend 1.6 MOA making them very fast to locate and shoot quickly without confusion.
Note to New Shooters:
MIL-ing or MOA-ing a target is important in case your laser R/F vapor locks due to fog, rain, sleet, snow, high humidity/mirage or poor reflectivity. Ranging a target with your reticle has its limitations, it is very difficult to accurately range 18 inch targets ( mule deer) past the 650 yard mark. Target size variation plus or minus an inch can result in a miss depending on target size. Reticle ranging is far more accurate than Mark 1 eyeball, but it has its practical limitations. Practice, be as precise as possible, know your target size and most importantly do not shoot at game animals beyond your limitations.
While every reticle will have its detractors, we feel that our system works very well, it's simple, easy to use, offers practical solutions to shooter's needs and provides an uncluttered field of view.
Take our Memorial Day Challenge:
On Tuesday June 1st, I will give away 10 ULTIMATE DATA CARD software packages as well as our Ballistic Gold Cards, limit one package per caller. Give it a workout and let me know your thoughts? I think you'll be impressed with what we have to offer....
Most respectfully, yours in shooting....
Darrell Holland Advanced Reticle Technology
Re: Hollands ART reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No one else in the industry has ever taken into account the fact that we MIL or MOA targets from the top edge to the bottom edge of the stadia wire.</div></div>
I don't know who "we is", but I don't. So, I would recommend that the industry focus on properly training the shooter to measure targets correctly, rather than trying to compensate for the efforts of improperly trained or untrained users.
And that's what <span style="font-style: italic">we</span> do when we train shooters.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No one else in the industry has ever taken into account the fact that we MIL or MOA targets from the top edge to the bottom edge of the stadia wire.</div></div>
I don't know who "we is", but I don't. So, I would recommend that the industry focus on properly training the shooter to measure targets correctly, rather than trying to compensate for the efforts of improperly trained or untrained users.
And that's what <span style="font-style: italic">we</span> do when we train shooters.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: xphunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Someone asked about our reticle subtension, it is .2 MOA or roughly 1/20th of a MIL. per 100 yds. This subtension allows the shooter to find the reticle in poor light or against a wooded or brushy background. Something that is hard to do with screen door type reticles. Our numbered aiming references subtend 1.6 MOA making them very fast to locate and shoot quickly without confusion.</div></div>I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm confused. And I understand this stuff, although not nearly as well as Lindy does.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: xphunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it is very difficult to accurately range 18 inch targets ( mule deer) past the 650 yard mark. Target size variation plus or minus an inch can result in a miss depending on target size...</div></div>If that is true, then how can your described milling method be more accurate than the correct method?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No one else in the industry has ever taken into account the fact that we MIL or MOA targets from the top edge to the bottom edge of the stadia wire.</div></div>That might be because there are good reasons why it's an incorrect method. With one exception: If the (lack of) quality of the glass in my scope prevents me from being able to see a defined edge on a small target, then I might attempt to compensate for that equipment limitation by using a less accurate milling method like the one you describe. That way I could accomplish an assigned task if provided with poor equipment, and I might even get a hit. But I still fail to see how this method would work accurately under anything other than ideal environmental conditions and on a static range when no targets are at angles to the shooter.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: xphunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Someone asked about our reticle subtension, it is .2 MOA or roughly 1/20th of a MIL. per 100 yds. This subtension allows the shooter to find the reticle in poor light or against a wooded or brushy background. Something that is hard to do with screen door type reticles. Our numbered aiming references subtend 1.6 MOA making them very fast to locate and shoot quickly without confusion.</div></div>I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm confused. And I understand this stuff, although not nearly as well as Lindy does.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: xphunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it is very difficult to accurately range 18 inch targets ( mule deer) past the 650 yard mark. Target size variation plus or minus an inch can result in a miss depending on target size...</div></div>If that is true, then how can your described milling method be more accurate than the correct method?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No one else in the industry has ever taken into account the fact that we MIL or MOA targets from the top edge to the bottom edge of the stadia wire.</div></div>That might be because there are good reasons why it's an incorrect method. With one exception: If the (lack of) quality of the glass in my scope prevents me from being able to see a defined edge on a small target, then I might attempt to compensate for that equipment limitation by using a less accurate milling method like the one you describe. That way I could accomplish an assigned task if provided with poor equipment, and I might even get a hit. But I still fail to see how this method would work accurately under anything other than ideal environmental conditions and on a static range when no targets are at angles to the shooter.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the (lack of) quality of the glass in my scope prevents me from being able to see a defined edge on a small target, then I might attempt to compensate for that equipment limitation by using a less accurate milling method like the one you describe. That way I could accomplish an assigned task if provided with poor equipment, and I might even get a hit. But I still fail to see how this method would work accurately under anything other than ideal environmental conditions and on a static range when no targets are at angles to the shooter. </div></div>
Graham, Darrell's saying that people tend to interpolate between line stadia instead of from centers. This sounds logical to me and something i happened onto myself sevral years ago while attempting to reticle-range a buck antelope with a Burris Ballistic Plex reticle, where the line stadia are much thicker than say a TMR. I found myself bracketing from the lower edge of the line stadia, not consciously saying to myself, OK, i need to try and center the line on top of the object. Besides that i believe that most people by nature interpolate between the stadia as well. You are saying that this is "the incorrect method", and is actually less accurate than the currently accepted systems. The math seems to support our observations, so please show me where it's wrong. I respect the experience that this site has, but I want the folks here to give me the most correct info possible, of course, and to explain to me where i'm wrong when i'm wrong. Thanks.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the (lack of) quality of the glass in my scope prevents me from being able to see a defined edge on a small target, then I might attempt to compensate for that equipment limitation by using a less accurate milling method like the one you describe. That way I could accomplish an assigned task if provided with poor equipment, and I might even get a hit. But I still fail to see how this method would work accurately under anything other than ideal environmental conditions and on a static range when no targets are at angles to the shooter. </div></div>
Graham, Darrell's saying that people tend to interpolate between line stadia instead of from centers. This sounds logical to me and something i happened onto myself sevral years ago while attempting to reticle-range a buck antelope with a Burris Ballistic Plex reticle, where the line stadia are much thicker than say a TMR. I found myself bracketing from the lower edge of the line stadia, not consciously saying to myself, OK, i need to try and center the line on top of the object. Besides that i believe that most people by nature interpolate between the stadia as well. You are saying that this is "the incorrect method", and is actually less accurate than the currently accepted systems. The math seems to support our observations, so please show me where it's wrong. I respect the experience that this site has, but I want the folks here to give me the most correct info possible, of course, and to explain to me where i'm wrong when i'm wrong. Thanks.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
When people do things on their own with little or no training it is very easy to see where mistakes are made, as in using the edges of a stadia, instead of the center. However when people are taught to do it correctly, they quickly see the error in using the edges and will compensate by doing it right the very next time.
If you are talking about layman doing it wrong, then you are correct, adjusting the math for them doing it incorrectly is a way to compensate. However the correct way is clearly teaching them the "right" way of doing things.
Precision rifle shooting isn't nor should it be about catering to the lowest common denominator -- ie. people doing something wrong, so adjusting the numbers to fit them. Instead, you should be teaching people to do it right, which is why Sniper Schools have a very high failure rate... not everyone should be a one if you are not smart enough to do things correctly.
Its not hard to see a mistake and fix it... but you have to understand it is mistake in the first place.
When people do things on their own with little or no training it is very easy to see where mistakes are made, as in using the edges of a stadia, instead of the center. However when people are taught to do it correctly, they quickly see the error in using the edges and will compensate by doing it right the very next time.
If you are talking about layman doing it wrong, then you are correct, adjusting the math for them doing it incorrectly is a way to compensate. However the correct way is clearly teaching them the "right" way of doing things.
Precision rifle shooting isn't nor should it be about catering to the lowest common denominator -- ie. people doing something wrong, so adjusting the numbers to fit them. Instead, you should be teaching people to do it right, which is why Sniper Schools have a very high failure rate... not everyone should be a one if you are not smart enough to do things correctly.
Its not hard to see a mistake and fix it... but you have to understand it is mistake in the first place.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
LL, thanks for the clarification. Do they actually teach those concepts in the sniper schools--bracketing from centers instead of from edge to edge, and teaching the students to learn to interpolate from center to center? Over the years i've seen many mistakes made regarding use of subtension for rangefinding and downrange zeroing, even with optics companies and police sniper instructors, but maybe the instructors are this versed in the math now to understand the difference. I'm a hunter--not a sniper.
LL, thanks for the clarification. Do they actually teach those concepts in the sniper schools--bracketing from centers instead of from edge to edge, and teaching the students to learn to interpolate from center to center? Over the years i've seen many mistakes made regarding use of subtension for rangefinding and downrange zeroing, even with optics companies and police sniper instructors, but maybe the instructors are this versed in the math now to understand the difference. I'm a hunter--not a sniper.
Re: Hollands ART reticle
Most Snipers will "float" the reticle from the top of the head to the belt line, they are not "ranging" to the degree people who are not active in that profession are doing. Lasers, map, range cards, are more prevalent so again, ranging is sort of a last resort. Certainly to the degree civilians and tactical competitors will do it. Like a hunter they don't have an absolute number on the size of the target to begin with, so they are using an approximation already. Is the guy 6', 5'10", or do you just say, 36" for a torso and go... if you are bearing in on the math to get it right you're not doing your job.
But clearly it is taught center to center, as Lindy as stated. As well, as I discussed understanding that when practicing if you read the reticle as being .5 and you see the reverse answer is .55 or .6 you know you made a mistake by not incorporating the edges.
In an urban hide, you designate reference points for range. You are not able to dictate the time the enemy appears or from where, so you have to be able to "know" how far away "intersection" T3 is from your position, suspect walks through intersection, he is 300 yards away... Out in the mountains you have the contour lines on a map to tell you how far things are for reference.
Are there exceptions to the rules, of course, there are a lot of shooters with mil based scopes in the military and only so much real training to go around. So there is always an exception, that however should not dictate the rules.
But we clearly explain that each person must understand the reticle they are using and what it subtends so they can successfully mil range a target. If you are coming up short in your mil reading you're probably reading off the edge. Not to mention we use the reticle (a ruler) in everything else we do from leads, to holds to corrections, it is important to understand when the spotter asks for a .2 a mil correction what that means, or when I say the target is 4.3 mils from the sign where that is.
If I was a hunter I would be using a laser more than my reticle, or at least able to use my eye inside 300 yards. If you are serious about it, you know what effects the laser and how to compensate for it. I have no issue tapping an object well off the target that would give me a better return so I have an idea of what range I am looking at. We also go into much more detail in how to use a laser, beyond point and shoot.
There is a lot of finesse that never gets spoke about so many will try to fill in the blanks, or compensate for common errors, never realizing it is covered in detail and practiced over and over.
Most Snipers will "float" the reticle from the top of the head to the belt line, they are not "ranging" to the degree people who are not active in that profession are doing. Lasers, map, range cards, are more prevalent so again, ranging is sort of a last resort. Certainly to the degree civilians and tactical competitors will do it. Like a hunter they don't have an absolute number on the size of the target to begin with, so they are using an approximation already. Is the guy 6', 5'10", or do you just say, 36" for a torso and go... if you are bearing in on the math to get it right you're not doing your job.
But clearly it is taught center to center, as Lindy as stated. As well, as I discussed understanding that when practicing if you read the reticle as being .5 and you see the reverse answer is .55 or .6 you know you made a mistake by not incorporating the edges.
In an urban hide, you designate reference points for range. You are not able to dictate the time the enemy appears or from where, so you have to be able to "know" how far away "intersection" T3 is from your position, suspect walks through intersection, he is 300 yards away... Out in the mountains you have the contour lines on a map to tell you how far things are for reference.
Are there exceptions to the rules, of course, there are a lot of shooters with mil based scopes in the military and only so much real training to go around. So there is always an exception, that however should not dictate the rules.
But we clearly explain that each person must understand the reticle they are using and what it subtends so they can successfully mil range a target. If you are coming up short in your mil reading you're probably reading off the edge. Not to mention we use the reticle (a ruler) in everything else we do from leads, to holds to corrections, it is important to understand when the spotter asks for a .2 a mil correction what that means, or when I say the target is 4.3 mils from the sign where that is.
If I was a hunter I would be using a laser more than my reticle, or at least able to use my eye inside 300 yards. If you are serious about it, you know what effects the laser and how to compensate for it. I have no issue tapping an object well off the target that would give me a better return so I have an idea of what range I am looking at. We also go into much more detail in how to use a laser, beyond point and shoot.
There is a lot of finesse that never gets spoke about so many will try to fill in the blanks, or compensate for common errors, never realizing it is covered in detail and practiced over and over.
Similar threads
