Rifle Scopes Serious Question

[Deleted member 113831]

I have been going back and reading some older threads on reticles. So...serious question...

How is it that this reticle sucks:

But this reticle is so awesome:

 

[pmclaine]

I just got car sick........

 

[Harman117]

I have been going back and reading some older threads on reticles. So...serious question...

How is it that this reticle sucks:
View attachment 7300892

But this reticle is so awesome:
View attachment 7300893

Name brand, haha

I just got car sick........

No one cares

 

[Rob01]

If you look at the first, which is a mil reticle, there are only 3 dots between full mils in the christmas tree and out from the center to the first mil. .25 mil marks suck. Not well thought out. Second wouldn't be my favorite but it's more workable than the first. Both suck in that you don't have a lot of hold under in the reticle.

edited to correct early morning math mistake.

 

[lash]

If you look at the first, which is a mil reticle, there are only 3 dots between full mils in the christmas tree and out from the center to the first mil. .33 mil marks suck. Not well thought out. Second wouldn't be my favorite but it's more workable than the first. Both suck in that you don't have a lot of hold under in the reticle.

Good point about the three dots between full mils, but math says that is .25 mil demarcations, not .33 mils.

I could work with .25 mils. It’s better than the .5 mil marks on an older reticle.

P.S. I don’t like either reticle and think the second one sucks, for my use.

 

[ken226]

If you look at the first, which is a mil reticle, there are only 3 dots between full mils in the christmas tree and out from the center to the first mil. .33 mil marks suck. Not well thought out. Second wouldn't be my favorite but it's more workable than the first. Both suck in that you don't have a lot of hold under in the reticle.

Wouldn't having 3 points between mil dots mean,

1 mil, 1.25 mil, 1.5 mil, 1.75 mil then 2 mils.

Quarter mil increments?



Edited to add:
Lash beat me to it by a couple seconds.

 

[spife7980]

I have been going back and reading some older threads on reticles. So...serious question...

How is it that this reticle sucks:
View attachment 7300892

But this reticle is so awesome:
View attachment 7300893

What makes you think that its not both that suck?

But I agree, changing subtension increments mid axis is a dumb idea.

 

[supercorndogs]

I wouldn't want either too. Beauty is in the eye if the beer holder.

 

[Gohring65]

What made the first suck (Arken) for me, is the center dot disappeared on certain targets and if the steel plate has several impacts on it the dot disappeared on it too.

 

[Rob01]

Good point about the three dots between full mils, but math says that is .25 mil demarcations, not .33 mils.

I could work with .25 mils. It’s better than the .5 mil marks on an older reticle.

P.S. I don’t like either reticle and think the second one sucks, for my use.

You are 100% right. I just woke up lol Either way .25 is not good either.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

What made the first suck for me, is the center dot disappeared on certain targets and if the steel plate has several impacts on it the dot disappeared on it too.

I thought floating dots were supposed to be preferred.

 

[ken226]

I recently read an ancient parable from a wise man:

No. I don’t like scopes with gay ass names.

?

 

[Deleted member 113831]

You are 100% right. I just woke up lol Either way .25 is not good either.

So...1/4 mil is bad...but 1/5 mil is good?

 

[ken226]

So...1/4 mil is bad...but 1/5 mil is good?

Everybody knows that!

Who's is that first reticle anyway? It from IOR? Is that why it sucks so bad?

 

[Deleted member 113831]

What makes you think that its not both that suck?

I have my opinions, but am actually interested in the thought process of others on this.

 

[Rob01]

So...1/4 mil is bad...but 1/5 mil is good?

Yup as mils should be in tenths of a mil breakdowns.

 

[Rob01]

Who's is that first reticle anyway? It from IOR? Is that why it sucks so bad?

Arken. That was the first thing I noticed when they started posting reticle pics here when they came out. Big flaw.

 

[spife7980]

I thought floating dots were supposed to be preferred.

A floating dot that doesnt disappear among a plethora of other dots is preferred (by some), if you are losing your aim point then its not serving its role as the aim point very well is it?

So...1/4 mil is bad...but 1/5 mil is good?

Yeah. Turrets are in .1 increments
1/5 means .2 which coincides with a marking on the turret. It lines up and you dont need to decide.
1/4 leaves puts you in between the turret marks on every other dot. You have to make a mental decision on which way to go.
(obviously you can interpolate for anything, just because its possible doesnt mean its as simple as it otherwise could be. I like to not needlessly complicate things for myself)

But the most egregious error is the changing of its spacing mid reticle, not consistent. Having to remember that the middle is .25 and the rest of it is .2

 

[ken226]

So, is the consensus actually that the Arken reticle sucks and the ZCO reticle is good?

Or does the Arken reticle suck because they copied the ZCO reticle and didn't pay royalties or something?

 

[spife7980]

So, is the consensus actually that the Arken reticle sucks and the ZCO reticle is good?

Or does the Arken reticle suck because they copied the ZCO reticle and didn't pay royalties or something?

Its all opinion. There is no right or wrong answer.

That said, at least the zcomp reticle is consistently and uniformly marked.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

A floating dot that doesnt disappear among a plethora of other dots is preferred (by some), if you are losing your aim point then its not serving its role as the aim point very well is it?



Yeah. Turrets are in .1 increments
1/5 means .2 which coincides with a marking on the turret. It lines up and you dont need to decide.
1/4 leaves puts you in between the turret marks on every other dot. You have to make a mental decision on which way to go.
(obviously you can interpolate for anything, just because its possible doesnt mean its as simple as it otherwise could be. I like to not needlessly complicate things for myself)

But the most egregious error is the changing of its spacing mid reticle, not consistent. Having to remember that the middle is .25 and the rest of it is .2

What does dialing wind have to do with holding?

 

[Rob01]

As I said I don't like the second much either. If it lost the vertical dots in the Christmas tree then I would like it a little more. No need for grid patterns. But yup it's a lot of personal preference as long as the reticle is marked correctly.

 

[spife7980]

(obviously you can interpolate for anything, just because its possible doesnt mean its as simple as it otherwise could be. I like to not needlessly complicate things for myself)

But the most egregious error is the changing of its spacing mid reticle, not consistent. Having to remember that the middle is .25 and the rest of it is .2

What does dialing wind have to do with holding?

I addressed this, you can interpolate anything, just because you can doesnt mean I want to

What does dialing wind have to do with holding?

So: Directly, nothing.

Indirectly though its just one more consideration to weigh on your mind. Not just what am I looking at but what and where on the reticle am I looking at it. Is it centered and thus requires one scale or is it further out and requires a second scale to consider?
Your tape measure or protractor doesnt suddenly change its unit increments in the middle, why would you want your reticle to do the same?

Unlike classic rock I just dont think a key change in the middle is very cool.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Yup as mils should be in tenths of a mil breakdowns.

So you are saying that if I need ,say...0.3 wind...it's easier to hold between 0.2 and 0.4 than between 0.25 and 0.5.

 

[Rob01]

So you are saying that if I need ,say...0.3 wind...it's easier to hold between 0.2 and 0.4 than between 0.25 and 0.5.

Yup. More accurate.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

I addressed this, you can interpolate anything, just because you can doesnt mean I want to


So: Directly, nothing.

Indirectly though its just one more consideration to weigh on your mind. Not just what am I looking at but what and where on the reticle am I looking at it. Is it centered and thus requires one scale or is it further out and requires a second scale to consider?
Your tape measure or protractor doesnt suddenly change its unit increments in the middle, why would you want your reticle to do the same?

Unlike classic rock I just dont think a key change in the middle is very cool.

Are talking about the difference between the main reticle and the wind holds below? Cause I'm only seeing .25 on the tree for wind.

 

[Dthomas3523]

For me, it’s the ease of reference with the mpct3.

I don’t like all the .2 lines being the same. I also don’t like them just being graduated all the way up (gen3xr)

The mpct3 uses several things that help me pick up the correct value without counting. .5 on windage and circles on full mils.

So while to many those two reticles look very much alike, there are small differences that in turn make them completely different for me.

 

[Dthomas3523]

For example, with the gen3xr I found myself having to count the hashes to make sure I was on the right one. This especially bites me in the ass on moving targets.

With mpct2 I never have to count as the different size hashes at .2/.8 and .4/.6 are more intuitive for me. My hits on say a mover where you only get three passes go up exponentially when using the mpct2 vs gen3xr.

The above mpct3 takes it a few steps further.

 

[spife7980]

Are talking about the difference between the main reticle and the wind holds below? Cause I'm only seeing .25 on the tree for wind.

And the dots directly in the middle aim point. But pretty much for that arken reticle. The dots are quarter increment, the dashes are actually tenths instead of 2 tenths like most other popular reticles, but still a difference in the reticles marked units itself.

As for why I like a .2 mil increments instead of .1? With a .2 it is fine enough that you can easily discern the middle of the gap for a .1 increment.
With the size of our targets thats all the resolution that I need.
In a .1 increment reticle I could eye the gap and find each .5 mil spacing for even finer resolution but I dont need that extra resolution when the targets are .2-.5 mils wide which is usually the smallest youll encounter. So any finer reticle resolution isnt needed for the type of shooting these scopes are geared towards.

As to why not .25 instead of .2? If mils reticles and turrets were by default standard were split into quarters, like moa is, then I would have no issue with it at all and we wold all be oblivious to the difference. But the mil standard is tenth increments so having something that bisects that every other spot just isnt standard and is itself an outlier. Its that extra different thing to consider. I just dont like different if it can easily be avoided.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Yep. Just noticed the first reticle as .1.

That’s even worse for me personally. .1 and all the same size.

Then the tree goes to .2.


That’s asking for trouble. Most guys will dial mostly. They will get accustomed to using .1. Then when they are forced to use their tree they will subconsciously be thinking the dots are in .1 instead of the actual .2

 

[A&8's]

When the Mpct3 1st came out, I didn't like the looks of it. However, after more thought, I do like open full mil marks. I would prefer the tunnel of death moved off to one side of the other and add 1 more mil of hold under. Even considering the last 2, I could deal with it. I only own 1 ZCO, so I don't think I'd swap from the mpct2 to the mpct3 (if that is even an option.) However, I intend on picking up another zco this year and I'll end up getting it with the mpct3.

 

[Rob01]

Open full mil marks aren't anything new. The S&B H2CMR had them about a decade ago. I liked them in the H2CMR.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

I'm surprised no one has yet commented on the "V" up top.

That had quite a few comments when first seen. Yet ZCO seems to also have a take on it.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Open full mil marks aren't anything new. The S&B H2CMR had them about a decade ago. I liked them in the H2CMR.

SWFA has had them (diamonds though) for a long time as well. Interestingly, they have been the most criticized part of that reticle.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Open full mil marks aren't anything new. The S&B H2CMR had them about a decade ago. I liked them in the H2CMR.

H2cmr is my favorite of the schmidt reticles.

This seems to be a h2cmr/amr/h59 hybrid.

 

[Rob01]

The V at top is just some tacticool thing to me. Not taking down bad guys in the field so I would rather have more hold under than that ranging V.

Yup H2CMR is my favorite S&B reticle.

 

[Dthomas3523]

I took a demo Mpct3 to a match. Had probably +/- 100 people look at it. Most either didn’t notice the V above the first time looking through the optic, or the ones that did commented that it didn’t obstruct much when actually looking at it in person.

I figured it would have gotten much more criticism in real life than it did.

Surprisingly the biggest “complaint” I heard was the circles at 1 mil in the space between the crosshairs and the tree.

 

[Diver160651]

For me, my ZCO MPCT2 is as busy as I want. It is fast, great wind holds with variable lines that allow me quickly to bisect the values and know were I am without error or too much thought. I don't care if it is .2 or .25 etc. as long as it is easy to get to where I want to be without getting lost.

On 12x I want to be able to see a 6mm impact and miss signatures.. The MPCT3 with it's ranging, and enhanced hold grid might be great for minute of man, and trying to get a spot in SOCOM, but not for how I use a scope.

 

[Lowlight]

I have shot the reticle above,

You lose the target and fine aiming as it's "too hollow'

The entire center can get a little weird and hard to focus on proper placement

 

[Long Range 338]

At first glance the Arken would seem more pleasing to my eye in that it feels less busy. The ZCO initially feels very busy but with the hollow circles it gives easy identification of full mils. Also not a big fan of filling in the "grids" on the ZCO but in practical use it may be very useful with a little time behind the scope. So I guess my opinion is that to pick up and use the scope for the first time, the Arken would probably be more intuitive but with a little time behind it the ZCO becomes a better tool, and honestly not likely to ever buy either.

 

[Dthomas3523]

For me, my ZCO MPCT2 is as busy as I want. It is fast, great wind holds with variable lines that allow me quickly to bisect the values and know were I am without error or too much thought. I don't care if it is .2 or .25 etc. as long as it is easy to get to where I want to be without getting lost.

On 12x I want to be able to see a 6mm impact and miss signatures.. The MPCT3 with it's ranging, and enhanced hold grid might be great for minute of man, and trying to get a spot in SOCOM, but not for how I use a scope.

View attachment 7301015

Surprisingly, with the circles and dots, I find the 3 less busy than the 2. The tree “disappears” when I’m not looking for it.

 

[Steel head]

Its all opinion. There is no right or wrong answer.

That said, at least the zcomp reticle is consistently and uniformly marked.

The V at top is just some tacticool thing to me. Not taking down bad guys in the field so I would rather have more hold under than that ranging V.

Same

 

[ICU22250]

So, is the consensus actually that the Arken reticle sucks and the ZCO reticle is good?

Or does the Arken reticle suck because they copied the ZCO reticle and didn't pay royalties or something?

Arken actually came out with their reticle first, ZCO was probably a month or so later. As to the ops question, I think I posted a similar question in the ZCO thread when they came out with the new reticle.. If one of them suck to you, then they both should suck.

 

[Lowlight]

Raise your hand if you actually shot with both reticles vs looking at a picture

 

[ForgeValley]

For me, they both suck. I admit I used the T3 for awhile for the wind dots, and I still have an ebr2c that I really like... But I finally admitted I wasn't one of the cool kids and preferred to dial and switched to the MSR2.

My name is CavScout, and I'm a dialer... ?

 

[264win]

I doubt many people ( including myself ) have both ZCO and Arken. I can’t afford one and don’t want the other, lol
From the pictures both are to busy for me to want in a comp scope

 

[Diver160651]

I have shot the reticle above,

You lose the target and fine aiming as it's "too hollow'

The entire center can get a little weird and hard to focus on proper placement

Are you talking about the ZCO MPCT2?

 

[Dthomas3523]

Raise your hand if you actually shot with both reticles vs looking at a picture

I can only raise half a hand....

 

[brianf]

Question.

On the mp3 and in other tree rets I notice one specific “milling” area has finer substentions for ranging. Understandable.

But they see to put a “milling” Mil above and below, left and right of the crosshairs/center.

Wouldn’t it make it cleaner to just take one vertical mil and one horizontal mil , instead or randomly dropping them in?

 

[Lowlight]

Are you talking about the ZCO MPCT2?

No the Arken

the Zco is different, the Arken with the dots opens up and disappears a bit based on the background and target

the Zco doesn’t suffer from this