LRR ret from SB not yet in state side..comparing the two,i like the center dot on both but im liking the msr2 and looks like it suit my purpose better...but 700.00? Hmmm
Rifle Scopes New MSR 2 Reticle from FinnAccuracy
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
Not sure about how the accounting is handled between Finnaccuracy and Kahles, but two or three years ago - just prior to Swaro taking over US distribution - I had my K312 sent to Austria to get an MSR-K installed and it was $350. Not sure what the deal would be today...
Schmidt has taken their sweet time with the LRR-Mil and still no indication when it will be available. Regarding reticle swaps, at what point does it make more sense to simply sell your scope with the current reticle and buy a new scope with the new reticle? Anything north of $500 seems like it's getting close to the used price of the scope itself.
I have one my self i would be interested if they have a reticle swap services
I am happy to inform that both Kahles k318i and k525i will be available with new MSR
http://www.kahles.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Presse_K318i_DE_03012018.pdf
http://www.kahles.at/us/news/single-news/news/detail/News/new-kahles-k525i/
http://www.kahles.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Presse_K318i_DE_03012018.pdf
http://www.kahles.at/us/news/single-news/news/detail/News/new-kahles-k525i/
Sorry for late reply, but I just noticed this:
No, Steiner does not offer reticle swaps. There has been discussion about the topic, especially since more scopes are being built in Colorado (although the M series is still German built). I believe the main questions are around cost, quality control, and available licensed reticle options. It's very likely that only the highest end scopes appeal to customers who are willing to bear the cost -- and that means a pretty small audience.
I work in marketing for both Steiner and Burris brands.
i have the M series. if the cost is not 1/2 of the scope cost, it will still draw some owner attention even ship it back to germany
Any chance a Burris scope will get the MSR2 reticle?
3-27 has small exception. Due to technical etching limitations in 3-27, we were forced to remove
0.2mrad "half-hasmarks", ones that are 1mrad left and right from center. Otherwise it is identical compared to
all S&B and Steiner MSR2 reticles.
Lenny- one interesting but not well known aspect is Stener M5Xi 5-25x56 *excellent* twilight performance.
0.2mrad "half-hasmarks", ones that are 1mrad left and right from center. Otherwise it is identical compared to
all S&B and Steiner MSR2 reticles.
Lenny- one interesting but not well known aspect is Stener M5Xi 5-25x56 *excellent* twilight performance.
Hey JL, what are the difference(s) with the 3-27 High power versus the original MSR 2 subtensions? I'm assuming all other brands/models are approximately the same subtensions as your provided picture/PDF. Glad to hear it's available, I've got EuroOptic waiting for Schmidt to give them the part # for the ordering process for the MSR2 reticle. Wanting two 3-20 US's and a 3-27 High Power
Thanks
Could I have this reticle in a 4-16X50 Schmidt PM11?
I have seen the MSR-2 in the Steiner scopes, which will be released to the market in the Summer. I like it alot. I am confused, however: On the Finnaccuracy Website, they have an MSR "gen 4" and it is not the MSR2. And then Kahles has the MSRK. I assume the latter is their own design.
All MSR reticles are under Finnaccuracy license. Kahles wanted some unique tweaks, those are named slightly different simply because they are not identical to other MSR/MSR2 reticles. Like MSR-K.
Original MSR "Gen4" is related to reticle generations generally: Original mildot = gen 1, then mildot gen2, then line-hashmark reticles as P4 or MP8 = gen3. So nothing officially standardized, but basically 4th evolution of reticle designs generally.
Original MSR "Gen4" is related to reticle generations generally: Original mildot = gen 1, then mildot gen2, then line-hashmark reticles as P4 or MP8 = gen3. So nothing officially standardized, but basically 4th evolution of reticle designs generally.
Shortly said, no.
Each reticle lens is etched to match individual scope focal lenght. Lens must also be mechanically fit to each scope model. Starting with new reticle with each scope model has certain initial cost - which is much higher than most realize.
In practice, not all scopes can be covered.
There are no plans, but I can pass the suggestion along.
Keep in mind that every SKU variation really increases product management complexity. That's fine for a Steiner M-series, which are practically made to order anyway. It's harder for a company like Burris that wants to get products out to distributors and stores across the country: now they need to stock the illuminated and non-illuminated, plus versions of each reticle and each color. And, offering the MSR2 reticle would mean a partnership with FinnAccuracy since Burris and Steiner are separate companies. So lots of moving pieces involved. I'm just pointing out some more reasons, in addition to JL's points, why every company doesn't offer every option.
Really a nice-looking reticle. I would be interested to know what drove the decision for the minor hashmarks on the elevation line to be .15 mils instead of .2. So holding on the end of the line would be .075 mils of wind instead of .1 mils. Just kind of an odd number - unless I'm just reading the diagram wrong. Honestly, I really like the overall design and I think it would look fantastic on target.
That makes sense for sure. I thought because Steiner and Burris shared the SCR reticle they might do the same with the MSR2, but makes sense that it will be a Steiner only option for now.
Minor 0.5mrad hasmark dimensions are balanced purely based on clear overall look and feel: Dimensions were made so that 1mrad deviation hashes are clearly dominant and 0.5mrad smaller hashmarks should not clutter clear and light feel - but are still just big enough to pop out as soon as eye focuses on them.
So principle is very simple but surpringly hard to balance in practice. May sound over-complicated explanation as it is essentially just a straight line with several short lines intersecting it. But we did try many longer and thinner / shorter and thicker alternatives, even different shapes instead of lines. Result, as it is in final reticle and original MSR already, just felt right.
Same principle was used again for MSR2 when balancing 0.2mrad half-hashmarks next to center. Idea with those too was to keep them as small as possible to keep center-area look clean, but still big enough to see them well as soon as they are actually needed.
So principle is very simple but surpringly hard to balance in practice. May sound over-complicated explanation as it is essentially just a straight line with several short lines intersecting it. But we did try many longer and thinner / shorter and thicker alternatives, even different shapes instead of lines. Result, as it is in final reticle and original MSR already, just felt right.
Same principle was used again for MSR2 when balancing 0.2mrad half-hashmarks next to center. Idea with those too was to keep them as small as possible to keep center-area look clean, but still big enough to see them well as soon as they are actually needed.
Last edited:
I must have communicated my question poorly. I wasn't debating whether to have minor hashmarks at .2 versus .5. I think having .2 mil hashmarks up to 1 mil of wind and then .5 after that is great. My SWFA mil quad has .5 the whole way and it works just fine, but having .2 hashmarks before I get to a mil would be a bonus.
What I was trying to ask is why the length of the minor hashmark itself was .15 instead of .2. Like I said, I could just be reading the subtensions incorrectly, but that's what it looks like to me.
Apologies for being unclear!
0.15mrad long 0.5mrad minor hashmark line dimensions were determined by their look/feel balance relatively to hairline and 1mrad hashes.
As said, it just felt right after trying several other dimensions too, even shapes.
Target was clear and dominant 1mrad stepped basic deviation look, but 0.5mrad minors are still clearly there when looked at it.
Edit:
See image- narrow 0.5mrad minor hash as it is on MSR/MSR2 vs slightly wider 0.2mrad minor hash for reference.
Feel difference on seeing 1mrad stepped principle better is clear.
Difference is even bigger in real life when looking trough scope. When background has various geometric shapes making whole view much busier.
Attachments
Last edited:
I guess you could say that.
But principle idea of using certain type of reticle only certain way is a rule full of exceptions.
Generally speaking,
I have witnessed very experienced guys hammering 1st round hits at very very rapid pace from 300...1000yds+ without touching turrets at all- by using classic and original mildot reticle.
In another hand, I have seen ex-mil snipers and combat vets getting overloaded with ballistic wrist computer and extremely complex reticle paired with it, shooting all misses in modest (for them) 600yds range. All because they need to process so much different type of things in a hurry that they missed basic fundamentals: branches/bush 5yds away from firing point.
So each shooter is individual person. We all can process certain amount of things in certain time. Optimal way of handling task on hand varies between different people. And this is not really about intelligence or smartness, people are just different.
Personally I think that when in doubt, clarity always wins. This is also one of the main reasons we have been hesitating with tree designs, although I naturally see principle benefits it can offer over classic crosses. But trees also have their downsides, as any reticle type has.
We do have several tree-types drawn already, designs also having some very unique differences compared to any tree reticle on market. We will see, maybe some day.
Last edited:
I like this reticle very much and will be saving up for an eventual purchase that will include it. That gives me plenty of time to decide which actual scope I will get. So many great choices.
I agree JL, different schools of thought and different design criteria for different purposes; however, our ability to overcome deficiencies allows us to utilize tools even if they aren't idea for the situation. Getting to know your reticle and understand how best to use it in different situations should be high priority when you purchase a new scope. Granted some are "easier" to understand or have a quicker learning curve than others, but even the simplest of mil hash reticles these days are useful. The original MSR built upon this concept of taking the mil hash to the next level and providing more information with the ranging and grid sections and while most are able to get by with .5 mil divisions along the horizontal/vertical stadia and being able to figure out where .2, .6, .8, etc. are in between, the new .2 mil division can further assist without being too cluttered especially for those who hold wind. I do wish you would have put the .2 mil ticks along the vertical stadia as well near the center cross but with the inverted milling L and the .1/.2 mil ticks at the 2-3 mil section above the center cross these should be close enough to easily measure splash.I guess you could say that.
But principle idea of using certain type of reticle only certain way is a rule full of exceptions.
Generally speaking,
I have witnessed very experienced guys hammering 1st round hits at very very rapid pace from 300...1000yds+ without touching turrets at all- by using classic and original mildot reticle.
In another hand, I have seen ex-mil snipers and combat vets getting overloaded with ballistic wrist computer and extremely complex reticle paired with it, shooting all misses in modest (for them) 600yds range. All because they need to process so much different type of things in a hurry that they missed basic fundamentals: branches/bush 5yds away from firing point.
So each shooter is individual person. We all can process certain amount of things in certain time. Optimal way of handling task on hand varies between different people. And this is not really about intelligence or smartness, people are just different.
Personally I think that when in doubt, clarity always wins. This is also one of the main reasons we have been hesitating with tree designs, although I naturally see principle benefits it can offer over classic crosses. But trees also have their downsides, as any reticle type has.
We do have several tree-types drawn already, designs also having some very unique differences compared to any tree reticle on market. We will see, maybe some day.
I understand there are competitive stages which do not allow dialing on the scope and the Christmas tree design holds an advantage for some in these situations. When the Kahles SKMR first came out I had a couple long discussions with Jeff Huber about the design and I agreed that for my purposes cleaner was better, it's nice to hear that you have some ideas for a Christmas tree design, but I like the way you think when it comes to keeping the reticle clean but usable and I'm sure you will put that into play should you choose to release that kind of design. One of the best "clean" Christmas tree designs I've seen is the Minox MR4 reticle, by using the dots instead of solid lines the Christmas tree portion does not take a dominant role within the FOV but is still usable should the need arise. I used a similar design a couple years ago when for fun I designed my own reticle, I have many different versions from no Christmas tree, to Christmas tree and ranging grids and such, in fact, it's funny because I see a very similar design with Schmidt's new LRR-Mil and my original vertical ranging grid.
I am also curious as to when these will be available from S&B
I would like to get a reticle swap to this from the old MSR in a 3-20 US as well. $700 is kind of steep for a swap but at least they'll do it.
Ouch, is that what Schmidt has said for the 3-20 Ultra Short, $700? And I'd imagine it has to go back to Germany for the swap or will they do it here in the states?
I'm just guessing based off of what was posted in previous threads on changing to the LRR reticle when it becomes available. I haven't emailed Jerry yet.
I heard the Steiner M7Xi is delayed for the 4-28x56 with MSR2 reticle. Was really hoping to see this in the field by now. Any updates on when the M7Xi or Schmidt US 3-20 might show up with the MSR2?
I sent an email to FinnAccuracy on June 3 this what they said: " 3-20 UltraShort will be first. It is in pipeline already, 2-3 months.
3-27 HighPower will follow right after, then rest. Meaning 5-25 and 5-45." I also emailed S&B the same afternoon they also said about 3 months.
Another note Finn Accuracy was very responsive and really fast to respond. Answered all my questions and was very good to deal with thus far.
3-27 HighPower will follow right after, then rest. Meaning 5-25 and 5-45." I also emailed S&B the same afternoon they also said about 3 months.
Another note Finn Accuracy was very responsive and really fast to respond. Answered all my questions and was very good to deal with thus far.
That's fantastic news on the Schmidt, thank you for the update
Latest news for US release of the M7Xi is October. That's for the non-IFS version.
Euro release may be sooner.
Have these been out in the wild yet? Seems where I have been looking are still on back order for S&B’s? Anyone have any new intel on these?
whiskeytower, I've got one on my Schmidt Ultra Short 3-20, they started shipping about a week ago or so... I will try and get some through the scope images but I really like it, wish the .2 mil hashes went about a mil further but in actual use it may not make much of a difference. Love the reticle but do not like the 18 mil turrets on the Ultra Short so will likely put it up on the classifieds but will take those pics beforehand... Just think of the MSR but better with .2 mil hash marks, thinner L milling section and a center dot, I do wish the center dot was thicker, I'd say it's about the size of the dot on my SKMR3 but many will like the tiny dot and the crosshair section goes close to the dot so when magnification is a bit lower it looks more like a crosshair with open center which is nice, illumination is such that only the center cross illuminates which some will like and some will gripe that it's not the entire reticle - as with all scopes there's going to be some things shooters like and some they don't, just the nature of the game.
Last edited:
Awesome Wjm308, I really like the look of it. I have been waiting on a 5x25, I signed up for notifications from Euro Optics. Glad to hear you have got your hands of one. By the sound of it you are quite pleased with it! Thanks again for the intel amigo!!!
If you check out Finn Accuracy they have been posting up some info and pics with the MSR2 in the new Steiner M7Xi with the IFS in it. Sweet!
Did some through the scope pics, please do not judge the image quality of the scope based on these images - the image through the scope was stellar for both scopes and any distortion you might notice is due to the position of my camera/lens bot being perfectly aligned with the scopes glass as well as the distortion inherent in camera lenses through other optical lens elements. I tried my best to focus on the reticle and get a clear image of how it looks at each magnification.
At 3x it is barely usable and very thin, but in the right conditions looks like a duplex.
At 5x it is a bit better and more usable but still fairly thin.
At 10x things really start to improve and you can even clearly see the .2 mil hash ticks but center dot is still somewhat lost, acts more like a crosshair with open center.
15x is completely usable and clear to see everything the reticle has to offer including the center dot.
18x is perfectly usable
18x is perfectly usable
I also took some pics through my Kahles K318i with SKMR3 reticle but did not want to derail the thread in comparison so will try and figure out where to post those.
At 3x it is barely usable and very thin, but in the right conditions looks like a duplex.
At 5x it is a bit better and more usable but still fairly thin.
At 10x things really start to improve and you can even clearly see the .2 mil hash ticks but center dot is still somewhat lost, acts more like a crosshair with open center.
15x is completely usable and clear to see everything the reticle has to offer including the center dot.
18x is perfectly usable
18x is perfectly usable
I also took some pics through my Kahles K318i with SKMR3 reticle but did not want to derail the thread in comparison so will try and figure out where to post those.
Unfortunately, with Schmidt and Bender they don't have the best daylight illumination and during cloud cover situations it was very hard to see the reticle at low power even with illumination maxed out; however, in shadow or low light situations this will definitely help.
Great pics WJM308! It's good to see the reticle at various magnifications. Huge help for me.
Official MSR2 user manual is here:
finnaccuracy.com
Current version is 1.4.1 - if revised version should come, direct PDF link below dies as file name changes:
MSR2 reticle user manual
After longest wait, first official MSR reticle manual is ready for publishing. Note: manual is intended for all: beginners, advanced shooters and professionals - as MSR2 is designed to fit for various uses and skill levels. Some of explained features are obvious to most precision shooters, some...
finnaccuracy.com Current version is 1.4.1 - if revised version should come, direct PDF link below dies as file name changes:
Best reticle
???
???
