Re: Opinions on Pride-Fowler RR-900
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: henschman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">redmanss, you're telling me it's quicker to let go of your rifle, lase the target, then re-acquire sight picture, figure out the sight correction, and then either hold off or dial down than it is to just pick which stadia line is closest to the width of your target, put it on him, and take the shot? Have you ever used an ACOG or an Elcan or any kind of scope that uses this ranging method? Let me tell you, it is FAST, as in 5 seconds or less, and is plenty accurate for torso hits at battle rifle ranges.
DP, Where did YOU miss the part where I said this is for a battle rifle, not a sniper rifle or anything else? I know lots of people on here are into long range precision and their remarks would be colored with that experience, so that's why I emphasized that this is not for that kind of role. This will not be used with a laser rangefinder, a dope chart, a calculator, or any of that. I agree with your opinion on reticles when it comes to a sniper rifle. But with this one I'm not interested in coldbore headshots at 700m with hand-loads or match ammo... I am interested in QUICK hits on torso-sized targets under 800m or so -- mostly WELL under that distance -- and will be doing it with nothing but the 147 grain surplus that this reticle is based on. I want an optic that facilitates this type of shooting with as little thinking and calculation as possible, so it can be done quickly under stress.
I find the ACOG to be very effective at this role way beyond 400m. I have shot unknown distance silhouettes out to 700 yards with it, and it works extremely well. I agree that you would not normally need to take a shot at 10x with a battle rifle, but I like having the power available for spotting. For typical field use the scope would probably be left somewhere around 4 or 5x. I like how it can go down to 2.5x for shorter range. And with the big illuminated center reticle, it could be used with the occluded eye method for close quarters in a pinch, just like the ACOG.
So let's assume for a minute that the reticle isn't an issue. What can you guys tell me about the quality of these optics compared to some of the other names out there?
</div></div>
Battle rifle-
That is my point exactly- there is no need for a full milling reticle in a battle rifle. So why clutter your sight picture with a TON of reticle crap that is not applicable. And btw, 800m is NOT battle rifle range- that is 100% into DM range. Hell, that's max effective range on the M24 w/ M118SB. You're talking area target at that range w/ battle rifle, not point target. 800m w/ .308, using the unknown human body for ranging and a BDC reticle, your hit to miss ratio would likely not be better than 50/50 at best- and that is a serious stretch. The 147gr loads are almost all subsonic at that range, giving more of a pattern than a grouping, so the slightest error in aiming will have a large impact on hit percentage... BDC's are not 100% correct, they are a close approximation.
If you agree on my opinion with LR reticles, I don't understand why you don't agree also with my opinion on BDC reticles and the fact that an attempt to combine them is a horrible idea. I'm not saying a BDC reticle is useless- what I'm saying is it is marginal at best past 500m and has no business being placed on top of a full milling reticle.
As far as ranging goes- yes, a LRF is much faster. I don't know anyone who can do the mil-relation formula in their head, and as any trained sniper will tell you, ranging off of a human is not very accurate unless you actually know their measurements. This is one of the reasons BDC reticles really have no place past 500m. Keep in mind, silhouettes are uniform in size, and that size is generally almost exactly what the ACOG is calibrated for. Human targets very widely. The question I have for you is, how effective have you been, or have you observed others being in delivering effective fire on actual human targets using an ACOG past even 500m? It's not even close to effective fire. As a matter of fact, assuming the lack of MG support and a DM,, not under effective fire, I would almost always attempt to get my element closer before engaging. Simple fact is, with rifleman using ACOG's at that distance, the chance of the enemy getting away without a scratch is pretty damn high. Now put a trained DM in there with an EBR or M110, you've totally changed the outlook.
As for quality, I really have no idea- these are not a very widely used brand as far as i know. But honestly, If they were the best optic out there, I still wouldn't buy it due to that reticle. Let me stress this again- there is a reason USO, NF, SB, PR and the like do not make a reticle similar to this. Pride-Fouler didn't just manage to come up with some kind of "game changer" of a reticle that none of the high-end mainstream companies have missed out on. Battle rifle, keep it 6x and below, BDC reticle. DM or precision, go milling reticle and just remember your holds. Anyway, as redmanss mentioned, NF offers a decent intermediate optic with a good reticle- I would avoid this "PF" simply because the reticle looks like an explosion of markings and symbols. It really does sound like the NF Velocity reticle would fit what you want much, much better than this one.
One last thing, then I'm done with this- You're getting advise from guys who have actually used rifles in combat from ranges of slap someone in the face close, to 1k meters+. Don't you think our opinions are based on practical application and real-world experience? I love new, effective ideas- I started off on mil-dot, and mil-dot alone, and while it's still a very effective reticle, I have no undying allegiance to it just because it's what I learned on and have known the longest. We are the first to get giddy about new designs and ideas that prove more effective... But that is not what this design is. Listen to us, or make up your own mind- but why do you come on here asking for opinions on it, then argue counter to the opinions you get? That indicates someone who already made up their mind. I don't know, maybe you were looking for reassurance that it's the right choice, but still... if you're going to argue counter to our opinions that you asked for, it's apparent you don't need reassurance, you are already 100% set on it. Just go buy the damn thing, get some use out of it and write up a review. All you're doing right now is wasting your time; the longer you wait to order it while defending it as a choice on here, the less time you get to actually use it... and in reality, you using it and enjoying it is what's important, not if everyone on the hide agrees with you.
Good luck, and when you do order it, please, do write a review; PF products see almost zero attention on here and in the name of diversity, a review on it's quality would be beneficial to the knowledge available here on the hide. Try to do it in video form if possible so people can actually "see" the product.
