Why are football shaped Mildots disappearing on new scopes? Is it because of the glass etched vs. wire reticles? Ease of use? Is one type better than another? Why?
I don't know how "true" it is like a lot of stuff on the Internet; but the source is reported to be Chris Thomas of Premier Reticles; in any event it makes for an interesting read.
I have used round mil-dots, football mil-dots, and mil-lines. Of the three I liked the football style the least and so did most others I was trained with. If they stop being made, I for one will not be disappointed at all.
I like the round mil with a hash between to note the .5 mils. I have that with a reticle like the Falcon with short hashes for the .5 and longer hashes for the full mils I can occassionaly have problems using hold over in matches when working against the clock. Every once in a while I will use the wrong hash mark and that will put you off the target trying to hit a plate at 600 plus.
I learned on the footballs, so using them is natural for me, but they are definitely antiquated with many better options available today.... I'd take the TMR over the dots anyday now!!
Speaking of which, do any of the steel safari-type competitions prohibit the use of LRFs? Seems like it would be cool. I'm usually against arbitrary restrictions, but I don't know, I think in this case it would add a real element of "knowing your gear" that I'd find pretty appealing.
Prohibiting things is rarely cooler than the alternative. Their use can be addressed through course design. The higher quality courses of fire don't prohibit rangefinder use, but make it impossible to get a correct reading from them.
The Allegheny Sniper Challenge prohibits use of lasers.
As Graham says, good course design will permit them, but make the targets difficult to acquire with them. That forces the shooters to think, which is always a good thing, even if they hate doing so.
Gen II mil dots are very nice to us guys that don't stare through the scope every day. A bit easier to see partial mils instead of guessing what part of a full mil a target is. Hope some of that makes sense. Like how some reticles have 1/10 areas somewhere in the view. More crowded, yes, but for lots easier. Haven't been able to figure into the equation the size of the dot themselves. More training needs to be in the future.
Chad
What's the dimension of the "short" side of the football mil dot?
Being a guy who started with a vernier micrometer long before messing with calipers, and having read a whole heap of vernier readings on calipers, I'm okay with estimating .1 increments between hash marks.
But I also believe it could be very useful to have .25, .125 and other fractions and tenths available in various parts of the reticle's topology.
Any idea why the Army started out with that .22 mil figure?