Rifle Scopes Thin reticles. I don’t like em.

[wade2big]

It seems that most everyone prefers thin reticles. Not me. I like reticles that are on the thicker side. A perfect example would be the SWFA mil quad reticle in their ffp scopes. I also like the reticle thickness in the night force SHV F1 4-14x50. The Steiner M5x1 msr reticle works as well. These reticle could be slightly thicker and I still wouldn’t mind the. Most every other scope I think the reticle is too thin. The vortex razor gen ii reticle is almost useless on 10x and below while the mil quad reticle is very usable on 6x.

I understand the thinner reticle on an elr rifle but anything else I feel like it takes away some of the usefulness of the scope/rifle. Does anyone else feel the same?

 

[patriot07]

I run the SWFA 5-20 HD as my main scope. I liked the mil-quad less in the store than I like it in use. In real-life shooting, it's actually a pretty useful reticle.

The .07 dot on the Gen3XR actually seems to look really nice in the through-scope view, and I thought that might be a deal-breaker on the new TT.

So in short, the further I get into shooting that isn't 100% benchrest, the more I agree with your statement.

 

[Just Macca]

I agree.

I really like the reticle in my LRHS 3-12. I could tolerate, or even prefer, thin inner stadia around the aiming point. But at the least make the outer stadia .75mil or more.
The LRHS has 1mil thick outer stadia and it’s fantastic for snap shots on 3 power.

 

[Temper]

Thicker crosshairs with an open center seems like a good compromise.

 

[Rob01]

If you buy a 4.5-27x scope and use most of the time under 10x then you bought the wrong scope. It's about picking the right tool for the job.

That said I use my 2C retice under 10x at matches without issue. I very rarely go below 8x though and if I do it's on very close targets where the reticle subtensions aren't used anyways and I turn on the illumination to help make the shot. No one else shooting matches has issues with similar reticles. Again about picking the right scope for the job at hand.

 

[flatland1]

I had four of Athlon's pre-BTR Cronus scopes before selling a couple of them to customers. Though the thinner BTR reticle still works well, I prefer the thicker pre-BTR one, especially when shooting movers. And I much prefer the + aiming point to the tiny little floating dot reticle of the new Ares ETR & Midas TAC. Though I'm very pleased with the 6-24x50 Midas TAC I put on a new V-22 Ranch, I'd really like to see Athlon make this same scope available with the older + aiming point reticle. Since they still sell the Ares BTR with that reticle, it shouldn't be that difficult to make it available in the Midas TAC.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Agree with Rob in that you likely have the wrong optic if you’re using a gen 2 razor on 6x for much more than target identification.

I personally prefer the .035 mil of the skmr and skmr3. .025 on the LRR reticle was a bit too small and .05 is about the largest I can deal with before its getting too big.

In short, just because an optic has a low end of 4 or 6, doesn’t mean it was intended to be able to use the subtensions at that power. Mainly for indentification/scanning or making a quick shot where the subtensions don’t matter anyway.

 

[wade2big]

I agree.

I really like the reticle in my LRHS 3-12. I could tolerate, or even prefer, thin inner stadia around the aiming point. But at the least make the outer stadia .75mil or more.
The LRHS has 1mil thick outer stadia and it’s fantastic for snap shots on 3 power.

I have this scope as well and like the reticle. It’s on my tikka ctr I use for hunting. (Edit: mines the 3-18x42)

If you buy a 4.5-27x scope and use most of the time under 10x then you bought the wrong scope. It's about picking the right tool for the job.

That said I use my 2C retice under 10x at matches without issue. I very rarely go below 8x though and if I do it's on very close targets where the reticle subtensions aren't used anyways and I turn on the illumination to help make the shot. No one else shooting matches has issues with similar reticles. Again about picking the right scope for the job at hand.

I agree with what you are saying 100%. I usually shoot around 12-18x with my razor. I just adjust until I like what I see and it falls within this range. My thoughts were if the reticle where slightly thicker it would increase the usability of the scope. Not only would it work well on high magnification, but it will be useable on lower magnification as well.
I do understand that scopes like the razor are geared more toward target shooting and playing games.

I don’t feel like a thick reticle gives up anything over a thin one in fact they are easier to pick up in less than ideal lighting conditions. It does cover more of the target at distance but so does the spread of your rifle. Being pinpoint accurate with a reticle at 1000 yards doesn’t mean much when a good shooter with a good rifle would be doing great to lay down a 15” grouping at that distance unless shooting from a special built bench rest.

 

[Rob01]

I agree with what you are saying 100%. I usually shoot around 12-18x with my razor. I just adjust until I like what I see and it falls within this range. My thoughts were if the reticle where slightly thicker it would increase the usability of the scope. Not only would it work well on high magnification, but it will be useable on lower magnification as well.
I do understand that scopes like the razor are geared more toward target shooting and playing games.

I don’t feel like a thick reticle gives up anything over a thin one in fact they are easier to pick up in less than ideal lighting conditions. It does cover more of the target at distance but so does the spread of your rifle. Being pinpoint accurate with a reticle at 1000 yards doesn’t mean much when a good shooter with a good rifle would be doing great to lay down a 15” grouping at that distance unless shooting from a special built bench rest.

It comes down to what you are shooting. A thick reticle can cover targets that a thin one wouldn't. Shooting 4" targets at 650 yards you want a precise aiming point. You make a reticle too think where its great to see on all powers then it would be too thick. Again right tool for the job.

And if you are shooting 15" groups at 1000 then a better load and practice are needed LOL Laying with a bipod and rear bag hitting 10" steel at that range shouldn't be a problem. No special bench rests. You want a precise aiming point. Aim small, miss small. Not a big crosshair covering the whole target but again it goes back to right tool for the job.

 

[supercorndogs]

I agree.

I really like the reticle in my LRHS 3-12. I could tolerate, or even prefer, thin inner stadia around the aiming point. But at the least make the outer stadia .75mil or more.
The LRHS has 1mil thick outer stadia and it’s fantastic for snap shots on 3 power.

The G3 addressed the somewhat thick center in the G2H. I like the LRTS line. They also went to a 100 spline turret, so you don't end up having to set your turret cover .1 off.

The thickness of reticle I like depends greatly on what I am shooting at. Small targets, the G2H is tougher to use than some of the thinner reticles. 1/4" dots at 100y a very find dot reticle is very nice.

 

[trob_205]

I have this scope as well and like the reticle. It’s on my tikka ctr I use for hunting. (Edit: mines the 3-18x42)

I agree with what you are saying 100%. I usually shoot around 12-18x with my razor. I just adjust until I like what I see and it falls within this range. My thoughts were if the reticle where slightly thicker it would increase the usability of the scope. Not only would it work well on high magnification, but it will be useable on lower magnification as well.
I do understand that scopes like the razor are geared more toward target shooting and playing games.

I don’t feel like a thick reticle gives up anything over a thin one in fact they are easier to pick up in less than ideal lighting conditions. It does cover more of the target at distance but so does the spread of your rifle. Being pinpoint accurate with a reticle at 1000 yards doesn’t mean much when a good shooter with a good rifle would be doing great to lay down a 15” grouping at that distance unless shooting from a special built bench rest.

You probably would have liked the EBR-2B reticle used in the 5-20 Gen 1 Razor. I personally love the EBR-2c reticle. Definitely my favorite.

 

[steve123]

I had four of Athlon's pre-BTR Cronus scopes before selling a couple of them to customers. Though the thinner BTR reticle still works well, I prefer the thicker pre-BTR one, especially when shooting movers. And I much prefer the + aiming point to the tiny little floating dot reticle of the new Ares ETR & Midas TAC. Though I'm very pleased with the 6-24x50 Midas TAC I put on a new V-22 Ranch, I'd really like to see Athlon make this same scope available with the older + aiming point reticle. Since they still sell the Ares BTR with that reticle, it shouldn't be that difficult to make it available in the Midas TAC.

I feel the exact same way. Well we do have old eyes, I wonder if we'd see it differently going 20 years in reverse?!

I'm at 12x-16x during a match most of the time, it was hard for me to see the thin + on the Cronus BTR, though it's fine at higher magnification. I'd forget to turn the illume on til it was too late. That mistake would cost me.

Furthermore, in the reticle layout, I don't like .2 mils mixed with .5 mils, please for all that is right and good, give me either or, but I favor .2's round about. Which is a reason I like the Ares BTR the most right now and why the Talos BTR gets a lot of use. Both have reticles at medium thickness which to me is preferred.

Putting the APLR3 reticle in the Midas TAC would make me want to sell most of my other scopes. The price point to build quality ratio of the TAC is the sweet spot in the scope industry right now.

I had a IOR with a .1 mil thick reticle, too me it was too thick, well maybe not for hunting and seeing the reticle on the lowest magnification.

Seems like .05 mil thick is about right for me.

 

[texag0842]

Guess I prefer the thicker reticle as well

Gen3XR and the SWFA 5-20 Mil-Quad seem to be my favorites right now.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Guess I prefer the thicker reticle as well

Gen3XR and the SWFA 5-20 Mil-Quad seem to be my favorites right now.

The dot is the only thing large on the gen3xr. The main reticle is .025

 

[texag0842]

@Dthomas3523

Guess that just goes to show in practice it doesnt matter much

 

[candyx]

I need thin reticles for my astigmatism

 

[JaoeyP]

I use scopes with both thick and thin reticles depending on the purpose of the rifle.

My deer hunting scope is a Zeiss V4. Has a SFP MOA reticle. Shot this year's deer at 60 yards, less than 10 seconds after I saw him. Had I waited another second the opportunity would have passed. Scope stayed on 4x power. Had that been an FFP, may not have been able to pick up the deer or reticle. Same issue can apply with low light.

My 22-250 has a VX-3 with Varmint reticle. Very thin, but perfect for aiming at very small game in bright sunlight. I've hunted then with the same V4 scope that's on my deer rifle and honestly it was a bit too thick for that purpose.

On an FFP scope it can be really hard for the MFR to balance the reticle. Visible at low power can make it too thick at high power, good thickness at high power can make it hard to see on low power.

The sentiments that a thicker reticle with an open center would be good. Maybe a reticle with multi thickness levels would be good too. Thicker on the outside, but the very middle instead of being completely open being a bit finer/thinner.

 

[lennyo3034]

Also prefer thicker reticles. I was all set on buying a Razor AMG until I used one. The center dot on it was so thin it was unusable for me.

 

[Shanerbanner10]

Gen2XR is one of my favorite reticles of all time. Its pretty thin, but the new Schmidt reticle (LRR) is just silly thin.