Thinking out loud, a reticle for the OEM crew

[ma smith]

This is better IMHO on the horizontaltal wind hold, don't make newbies count all all the way across very fine lines
This style would break it up justa little like and no worries just better design...

Problem with wind is you need to sometimes adjust spontaneously wind hold while looking thru the glass..

On the Y axis I see less need because newbies can dial and count before the shot for dope since its off a chart

Just my $0.02

 

[Baron23]

View attachment 7595257

I think a reticle that goes 3 Mils above horizontal is nice and I really like an applicable Ranging System like what is on the Zero Compromise line that allows to quickly range shoulder length. Xmas Tree is okay as long as it starts narrow (not as much need at closer ranges) but pushes out wide in the higher MILs.

Just my thoughts... I love the floating dot, or open area.. don't like floating T...

Just me but since this reticle design discussion is aimed to the new shooter (to quote Jack....imagine your 3rd best friend's wife's sister), personally I think emulating the ZCO MPCT3 would be a move in the wrong direction.

 

[Pvt.Donut]

Personally, I only end up using the ranging 0.1 marks when I'm zeroing a rifle. Rarely for anything else. It seems like something optic maker feel they have to keep in their designs but if I had a scope without it, I don't think I'd be at a disadvantage with how I shoot.

 

[opeagle]

I tend to agree with Ma Smith here. A different tick mark is easy to explain. Odds up, Evens down is an easy concept. 2 tenths across on the bottom and 5 tenths across on the top. Simple and easy.

And while I know we’re saying new shooter, who wouldn’t get one to try out? I’m not saying make it more complicated, rather let’s embrace simplicity with the ability to grow with it and make it something that’s not lacking either.

 

[iceng]

The main design being thrown around here is for NEW shooters. Think "old range Fudd who has been duplex f-Class for 20+ years" or neighbours cousin from UK who has never seen a gun before".

Perhaps a SHC-1 (snipers hide community version 1) reticle, and a more complex with more hash marks as a SHC-2 for people wanting a bit more ? Save the -2 for extra hash, funnel of death ZCO ranger, 3mil hashes for hold under, etc..

 

[Model6520]

I like the design above (Jack Masters) both with and without the circle.

The circle would be useful at low power assuming that it is not too "heavy" at high mag. <Duh>

Also, a moderate "per unit" royalty (relative to Horus) may ultimately prove to be more profitable due to volume.

Sniper's Hide is an outstanding brand with built-in credibility. The strength of your brand is a huge asset. Assuming apples-to-apples quality, brand strength bridges the gap between preference and indifference.

Watch out, Horus!

 

[jinxx4ever]

on page 2 i didn't know if i was a fan, but after reading thru this all and digesting it, i've grown to really like it. I know my wife would love it. The ZCO MPCT3 in my book is one of the worst reticles designs i've seen in years. Any idea of how long it would take if decided on, to bring this scope to frutation?

 

[John?]

I like the reticle in post 140, with the circle.

I’m probably representative of your new shooter target audience. I would buy that reticle in a quality FFP scope under $1K. 4-16x, 5-25x, or even a Fixed power would work for me

I spent a lifetime with the service rifle, from the M16A1 to the M4. Irons, red dots, ACOG. Hunting rifle is a 6.5x55 with an old school SWFA 10x mil dot.

Not long ago I put a Nixon FX1000 on a Savage Rimfire to learn more about ELR technique. The combination works ok and was within my budget. The reticle is ok and good for learning to dial elevation and hold wind. Not perfect, but good.

So I like the proposed reticle in post 140. It would be useful to me for shooting across cornfields or targets. My main concern for a scope with that reticle would be good repeatable dialing and optical clarity.

 

[Lowlight]

the issue I see is the OEMs are behind right now due to Covid and the delays with shipping stuff overseas

The shipping domestic is not an issue, but overseas in certain places it still is,

Maybe I can cut a deal with someone I would have to reach out, next week I have a class in TX, gonna drive there, so I might make calls on the ride

 

[6cmShooter]

Would you shoot this reticle? let us know what you think.

So after talking with frank and having a quick design meeting this is where we ended up. We added 2 small wind dots at the 1 mil holdover. This tree will handle most centerfire cartridge wind calls up to 20ish mph winds but still keep the reticle cleared up around the center aiming point.

We also kept the center circle. It draws the eye to it quickly as well as gives a defined 0.2 aiming cross to the right and the left of the center dot. It will also make the reticle easier to use on lower powers.

This reticle design is intended for newer shooters. We need something simple without the bells, whistles, and whizzbangs. I think we are getting there.

View attachment 7594459
View attachment 7594458

I would definitely put a scope with that reticle on one of my rifles. Love the reticle design.

 

[gopherslayer]

Keep the circle. It would be great for hunting also. It’s the reason I’m looking at the 2-12 Helos.

 

[iceng]

It's advisable to offer a "simple" reticle for free, or at most a one off fee for the first 500 sales, after that royalty fees kick in. Don't want it to be a flop and not adopted because of price.

I legit won't buy a H59 /Horus / tremor3 for this reason. It's not $400 better to me.

I still think 2 versions. A free/super cheap one (like $5) as designed here, and a more complex / comprehensive one for $10 to be designed in the future. Get people addicted and wanting more

 

[brianf]

design aside...pure business discussion.

I might have missed it but what is the companies target market

If they are marketing to mall ninjas then you need different colors and a busy ret...to hunters something different...

Creating a product that doesn’t match the target market/demographic of the product doesn’t create revenue...and that’s all that counts.

personally I would sit with the marketing team and see what they want.

If your compensation is based on sales volume then your best course of action is to target their market so you get the biggest return.


Edit:deleted double line

 

[ma smith]

What if $XYZ dollars gets taken out of the turrets/repeatability?

 

[brianf]

Depending on the contract/relationship a designer of a particular component does not influence the finished good.

That is up to frank to assess and determine if the project is worth attaching his brand to.

There are no guarantees in business.

 

[deersniper]

Winner! And not just for the new shooter. I am not a competitive shooter or a new shooter. I like this reticle a lot. I’m going to be purchasing a new scope soon (probably a TT or another ZCO). If this reticle was offered from either of them, I would buy it.

If you get a ZCO just get the mpct3. Works great

 

[Hornvacuum]

I’m a fairly new shooter and have 2 Burris XTRII’s with the SCR mil reticle in them and quite like them for I do with them but I have a couple of cousins that swear by their nightforces with the tremor3 reticle and man I can’t wrap my head around the madness inside that thing I feel that it is way too busy for my taste. When I heard on the everyday sniper podcast that frank was considering designing a simple Christmas tree reticle for us new guys I was excited and so I found this thread and I gotta say I’m very excited about the one that jackmaster created with the circle. It checks off all the things I would ever need in a reticle for just about everything from hunting to shooting steel and paper. I would definitely buy 2 scopes with that reticle today if it were available. Keep the circle in there! Thanks Frank and Ted!

 

[Mr.BR]

One thing to keep in mind with reticle pricing, a 1000$ MSRP optic ,costs at OEM 200-300$ range so 50$ is asking a lot for a mass-produced reticle.Brand selling scopes with SH reticle will charge more extra for the reticle choice than 50$ royalty. If it sells well OEM will make a derivative reticle for free. And target market likely doesn't care .

I would suggest offering SH reticle for a symbolic 1-5$ then it might be interesting to folks branding the scopes, end of the day budget scopes are made in large numbers.

*Years back i had a small batch of affordable FFP spotters made in China with my own reticle so can somewhat relate to how its done and how the OEM price - to MSRP ratios stand .

 

[iceng]

but I have a couple of cousins that swear by their nightforces with the tremor3 reticle and man I can’t wrap my head around the madness inside that thing I feel that it is way too busy for my taste.

If you spend $300 on a special bag, or $500 on a good tripod, or $X on (insert bit of gear here) of corse they are going to say it's the bestest thing eva which gets them a longer kill on moose or more points in a f-Class match or more impacts in a PRS match, that's how confirmation bias works.

I'm guilty of it, as are you. Bias to what you are using now, and saying tremor3 is too cluttered.

"I paid top dollar for this, so it must be good". Fear the person with one gun.. etc..

 

[ma smith]

If you spend $300 on a special bag, or $500 on a good tripod, or $X on (insert bit of gear here) of corse they are going to say it's the bestest thing eva which gets them a longer kill on moose or more points in a f-Class match or more impacts in a PRS match, that's how confirmation bias works.

I'm guilty of it, as are you. Bias to what you are using now, and saying tremor3 is too cluttered.

"I paid top dollar for this, so it must be good". Fear the person with one gun.. etc..

Tremor 3 isn't cluttered if you are shooting movers and using wind dots as standard procedure

but its 'too busy' for shooting plain paper at 100m

 

[RanchRifle]

Surprisingly similar to the Vortex EBR-2D reticle.

$570 for the 3-15 PST 2 with the above reticle is about as new shooter friendly as one is likely to get.

 

[Brettmparker1]

Fuckin win, dude! Thats it!

agreed.. I hate the Christmas tree reticles but this one I would use.

 

[opeagle]

Surprisingly similar to the Vortex EBR-2D reticle.

$570 for the 3-15 PST 2 with the above reticle is about as new shooter friendly as one is likely to get.

All tree reticles will have a lot of base similarities. The one proposed and displayed by Jack Master has been simplified to degrees.

 

[drewthebrave]

Keep the circle. It would be great for hunting also. It’s the reason I’m looking at the 2-12 Helos.

Agreed. As a relative n00b, I really like the simple MRAD tree and the circle to draw the eye at any magnification. It reminds me of the SWFA "Diamond" in their 1-4x and 3-15x SFP scopes, which are very fast & useful. Although I'm leaning more towards FFP optics these days.

 

[beetroot]

I like the proposed reticle, definitely like the circle.
Only change would be to make the .2mil hashes different (height or above/below etc) so it's easy to pick them apart from each other.

Main thing would be if offering the reticle in multiple magnification ranges, have the main line thickness to suit,
I hate having the same thickness reticle in a 3-15 as a 5-25.
.06mil for a 3-15ish and .04mil for a 5-25ish would be about right.

New shooters don't need a super fine reticle that's only useful at 25x, especially if it's a 3-15....

 

[MakeSawdust]

I feel like a majority of people that jump in here are competition shooters. I used to do really well in matches with a Gen 2 mil dot. Now there are a few small targets on separator stages that can knock you down several places. Equipment to win matches has become very specialized. If you have the time, resources, and dedication, you can win matches with less specialized stuff, but the specialized comp gear makes it a TON easier.

On to my point. This reticle is AWESOME! The reticles designed for competition are shit for hunting/speed shooting at normal sized targets. Dedicated shooters that shoot several thousand rounds a year of precision rifle can pretty much make any reticle work. When you want to pick up a rifle and have the reticle be intuitive, simple is the answer. This reticle that Ted posted is good. It will only hold you back on targets that are smaller than 1 moa. It will be very effective on those as long as you can dial. With a LOT of practice, as with anything, it will not hold you back at all and you will be able to use hold overs and shoot tiny targets. It is a great design for a crossover reticle or new shooters. It was never intended as a specialty comp reticle.

 

[TacticalPlinker]

I run illum in the day more than at night

depends on a host of factors not any single one, and some Reticles benefit from it more than others

but the majority of my illumination use is dayligh

Frank - Any chance you you can get Bushnell to run a limited production of the XRS2 with the CIRCLE layout with the Close Range option (25y parallax) and illumination. Lots of Bushnell shooters know the illumination on these scopes is excellent with no bleed out and very bright. Suitable for some daylight use. GAP is doing a limited run with the LRHS2.

 

[Anointed1]

Do not get rid of the circle lol. Geez...I had to skip the last couple pages in this thread to say a few things before it might be too late...not even knowing now what might have already been decided. Listen...I am hands down the exact person you are targeting with this reticle design thread...I'll qualify that by saying this...the only scope I have ever looked thru was my dads 4 power weaver he bought back in the 50's I think ?...I'm 60 years old and am on a path to jump in to PRS. I've been a bow hunter all my life and the only rifle I've ever shot was an M16 in bootcamp with iron sights. In the first few pages I did get thru...where others stated they were relatively new to this type of stuff too and were offering their opinions....I can tell you right now they're not truly new or as new as I am simply by the comments they made within their posted statements...they revealed knowledge or experience far beyond my own...what I'm trying to say is...I truly AM the one you want to be asking questions too about this reticle design in that I know nothing about anything having to do with scopes in any way, and I am the guy looking to buy my very first scope and the exact type of person you're targeting this reticle design for. So let me weigh in without you guys chewing me to pieces because I really am your target audience =)

With that said...as I've started trying to figure out which scope to buy...I read here on the hide what I think is the most important thing for someone that's truly new...and that was to buy the scope that has the reticle in it that you like the most. Now with just a basic 3 or 4 week old understanding from reading of what all those lines and dots mean to begin with and are used for...holdover and bullet impact for adjustment is what I'm referring too...liking a reticle can only mean one or two things...like as far as the way it looks when you look at it in the scope...or like it as far as using it while shooting...well for a new guy like me it can't mean as far as using it because obviously I've never used one...so then it must mean like as far as what my eyes see...well that circle is exactly that...I like how it looks and it does to my eyes exactly what some have said...it draws my vision right to it immediately...how it looks and what happens with magnification I have no experience with and can only try and visualize what you guys say...but I really like how it "looks". And that's what I'm wanting to tell you...as a total newb with zero experience I really like the way the reticle in post 53 looks....A LOT. It seems to have what I think I want/need without all the clutter like the myriad of other reticles out there contain. Some of those reticles are ridiculous for a new guy...even trying to figure out what all that crap is even used for and how to use it is beyond how much time I want or have to invest in this in the beginning. Later on if I ever rise to the level of experience that justifies using some of that stuff that might be a different story. Can any of you honestly even remember what it was like when you had zero understanding of any of this ? That might be as far back as grade school for some of you...just saying. As far as stuff in the reticle to measure distance with...for me as a newby I say forget it lol...I did read how to do it and wrote down the formula...but as I was watching a video on it and practicing I was thinking I'll never use this because that's what a rangefinder is for. That and I also read how even those that have developed the skill and do it all the time...as distance become greater their ability to determine distance accurately diminishes considerably. I think I read it here...

How Much Does Accurate Ranging Matter?

As long-range shooters, we tend to obsess over every little detail. After all, we’re trying to hit r...

precisionrifleblog.com

The one thing I can't help you with or forsee is growth. How much and how quickly will I or any other new person grow and desire other things maybe that this reticle doesn't offer...impossible for me to know but that's where your guy's experience comes in...you guys could probably guess pretty accurately about that.

Just wanted to throw my two cents in as someone who truly is about as new as you could possibly get. I'd be more than happy to help and answer any question you might have as far as "seen thru the eyes of a newb" =)

 

[steve123]

What a roller coaster of opinions.

Circle. Definately circle. New shooters will love it, and weirdly for a cheaper rifle setup I'd use it. Put it in a strike eagle or an Arken, and I'm there.

Seriously. Place the little circle over the thing you want to hit, squeeze the button stick part, hang on. New shooters and even some seasoned shooters will use this.

Most on this site don't dial windage for a reason and that reason is there is likely no time to dial for wind during a stage. The first thing any new shooter will realise when they get past 200Y is that rarely will there be "no wind" and often will there be windage needed between a .5 to 1 mil holdoff. So having that circle and placing a target in it has the most benefit from 50Y to 250Y, but getting farther away in distance will require aiming outside the circle and this will be the norm.

I like circles and dots so the SH reticle would be something I'd try for the heck of it. Never been a fan of mixing .5's and .2's in a reticle but at least the vertical crosshair isn't mixed.

 

[J.Boyette]

So, after looking that the Riton, Arken, et al, recently I really dislike some of the reticles they use.

I get asked by the OEMs all the time about a SH reticle and normally the thinking is, nah, I don’t want my stuff in low cost scopes, but then after mulling over it for a few days I was thinking, what if, we helped them early and they didn’t have to sweat a reticle

I am thinking a simplistic hold over, well laid out, I have a plan, but not overly complec, no trying to reinvent the wheel.

I know what it should like like, do you think they it would be something along with a minor fee, no Horus $400, more like $50 and call it good

If you think about it further, when IOR used Scott to design a reticle on here it‘s all those years ago, it’s still used today, this site did a floating dot before any other scope outside the few benchrest versions with a dot.

I was and still am proud of the A5 reticle I did for the IOR in 2006-07 that you bring up.

I think the first question is the power range, is this for a 3x, 4x, 5x? Once we understand that, then the stadia should drive the design.

 

[Anointed1]

The first thing any new shooter will realise when they get past 200Y is that rarely will there be "no wind" and often will there be windage needed between a .5 to 1 mil holdoff. So having that circle and placing a target in it has the most benefit from 50Y to 250Y, but getting farther away in distance will require aiming outside the circle and this will be the norm.

Huh...never thought about that...but now that you've said it that makes perfect sense. So then I was thinking well it would still work/be used most of the time hunting as I was thinking about my dad and the distances he would shoot animals at...but then that probably doesn't hold water either these days because I'm thinking you guys and/or proficient new guys hunt farther than 250 yards /shrug

 

[Anointed1]

Obviously I don't know crap...but I think I know enough to know what I'm about to say is not possible since reticles are etched on glass I think ? and for a bunch of other reasons I'm sure too but...too bad in this day and age of modern technology you can't just change reticles in a scope at will. Different ones for different uses/purposes. Like discs that would slide in from the side of a scope. Make that a reality with the quality of ZCO or the other high end one you guys like...TT ?...how many would you sell and how much money would you make =)

 

[iceng]

I think the first question is the power range, is this for a 3x, 4x, 5x? Once we understand that, then the stadia should drive the design.

This is an interesting point I had not concidered, but do all the time. (E)LR I am right up there on zoom. 28+, but in range use I'm barely over 15, usually 12-13x region.

I tell new shooters to not "over scope" and stay below 16x, no matter how much they think they need it. Many shooters associate zoom with accuracy.

Designing a reticle to be usable at 10-16x zoom is a really good point. Probably why I like it. It's not overly detailed, which you loose on 12x, but still enough info for accuracy testing at 25x when paper punching, or making calls on gongs at 1km.

 

[J.Boyette]

This is an interesting point I had not concidered, but do all the time. (E)LR I am right up there on zoom. 28+, but in range use I'm barely over 15, usually 12-13x region.

I tell new shooters to not "over scope" and stay below 16x, no matter how much they think they need it. Many shooters associate zoom with accuracy.

Designing a reticle to be usable at 10-16x zoom is a really good point. Probably why I like it. It's not overly detailed, which you loose on 12x, but still enough info for accuracy testing at 25x when paper punching, or making calls on gongs at 1km.

Here is the deal, riflescope reticles are 100% related to the optic's field of view.

As a quick example:
Stadia of .1 MIL
FOV of 100 inches at 100yds

The reticle stadia will cover up 0.036% of the visual plane.

Stadia of .1 MIL
FOV of 50 inches at 100yds

The reticle stadia will cover up 0.072% of the visual plane.

This ratio of reticle thickness is the single critical point. Suppose one is to design a reticle that FFP .05 MIL stadia. Then that spec only applies to the chosen magnification range. A 3x, a 4x, a 5x. Because the magnification range controls the Field of view's scale.

 

[Mr.BR]

Even on most high end scopes most reticles are garbage at the bottom end of the magnification , as for some reason everyone is making reticles with something like 10mil scale allround . Have been looking through a bunch of optics for a specific project only to find that most 3-XX optics are useless on the bottom end.

 

[TacticalPlinker]

Just waiting for MARCH to offer a PRS DUAL FOCAL PLANE scope using a MIL XT clone that works across the mag range without being tight in the eyebox/parallax. They figured out dual Focal . JS

 

[J.Boyette]

Even on most high end scopes most reticles are garbage at the bottom end of the magnification l as for some reason everyone is making reticles with something like 10mil scale allround . Have been looking through a bunch of optics for a specific project only to find that most 3-XX optics are useless on the bottom end.

I think end users need to understand what is useful. At 6x and under, why even try to hold / range? It's not really practical.

Most will point to the 3.5x/4x ACOG as a example of low magnification and BDC that works. Well, the ACOG does this with a very tight FOV. Back to my first post and point.

When I designed the A5 reticle for Liberty Optics my stadia is .1 mil. Many at the time laughed at the thickness.

Over the last 14 years in the market place I think that mindset is gone now.

 

[supercorndogs]

I think he is probably talking about trying find the center of the reticle to shoot.

 

[J.Boyette]

I think he is probably talking about trying find the center of the reticle to shoot.

Good point,

That's the whole idea behind a duplex reticle. Use the bolder edges to center up the sight picture in low light/ low magnification use.

Some designs keep this element

 

[TacticalPlinker]

Good point,

That's the whole idea behind a duplex reticle. Use the bolder edges to center up the sight picture in low light/ low magnification use.

Some designs keep this element

 

[Mr.BR]

Indeed most reticles do not offer anything to find the center. Something that should be easy enough to do. First the lines are getting thiner and second the thick posts are moving further from the center.

March 3-24for example is easy even a 3 ,but many new reticles have the thick lines further than 5mil mark some even at 10mil mark so you are looking at lot of empty space .

FML-1 reticle uses in my opinion better solution than adding the thick horseshoe or circle, some come by with illuminated dot but still it seems reticles are somewhat generic, many not well-tailored to the magnification range of the scope .

As for milling features , i think they should closer to the center than most have , outboard of the 2 mill mark is close to ideal. Closer to the reticle edge harder its to use.

At 24x

 

[steve123]

Indeed most reticles do not offer anything to find the center. Something that should be easy enough to do. First the lines are getting thiner and second the thick posts are moving further from the center.

March 3-24for example is easy even a 3 ,but many new reticles have the thick lines further than 5mil mark some even at 10mil mark so you are looking at lot of empty space .

FML-1 reticle uses in my opinion better solution than adding the thick horseshoe or circle, some come by with illuminated dot but still it seems reticles are somewhat generic, many not well-tailored to the magnification range of the scope .

As for milling features , i think they should closer to the center than most have , outboard of the 2 mill mark is close to ideal. Closer to the reticle edge harder its to use.

At 24x

This is a good simple reticle except for those huge numbers which are ridiculous. I'd rather have their FML instead even though it only has holds to 5 mil. I do like the tapering bar on low mag in the FML1.

I wish Ilya's FML-TR1 tree reticle was available back when I bought my FX 5-40x56!

Mentioning also that the mil reticle in my old IOR 6-24 FFP was IMHO too thick. Sure it'd be better suited when using low mag because of the line thickness but I learned I liked mid to high mag in a 24x scope. The few times I was dialed down to 6 power was when I was shooting through the chrono.

In a medium magnification FFP mil scope like a 3-18 and 4-16 a line thickness of .06-.07 is about right because most would assume a guy buys these kind of scopes to use on lower mag otherwise they might as well have bought a scope with higher magnification.

 

[iceng]

Here is the deal, riflescope reticles are 100% related to the optic's field of view.

As a quick example:
Stadia of .1 MIL
FOV of 100 inches at 100yds

The reticle stadia will cover up 0.036% of the visual plane.

Stadia of .1 MIL
FOV of 50 inches at 100yds

The reticle stadia will cover up 0.072% of the visual plane.

This ratio of reticle thickness is the single critical point. Suppose one is to design a reticle that FFP .05 MIL stadia. Then that spec only applies to the chosen magnification range. A 3x, a 4x, a 5x. Because the magnification range controls the Field of view's scale.

Fully aware of this. I was more pointing out I had not thought of it in those terms, I was taking it for granted. Thanks for the math info however, always good to get it squared away in my head.

 

[JaoeyP]

So, after looking that the Riton, Arken, et al, recently I really dislike some of the reticles they use.

I get asked by the OEMs all the time about a SH reticle and normally the thinking is, nah, I don’t want my stuff in low cost scopes, but then after mulling over it for a few days I was thinking, what if, we helped them early and they didn’t have to sweat a reticle

I am thinking a simplistic hold over, well laid out, I have a plan, but not overly complec, no trying to reinvent the wheel.

I know what it should like like, do you think they it would be something along with a minor fee, no Horus $400, more like $50 and call it good

If you think about it further, when IOR used Scott to design a reticle on here it‘s all those years ago, it’s still used today, this site did a floating dot before any other scope outside the few benchrest versions with a dot.

@lowlight the reticle on the 3-24x56 Riton is a little bit different. They have another reticle on the X5 5-25x50 and X7 4-32x56 that I like better. Simpler. Has some varying in the placement of each .2 mark to help getting lost in the .4-.6 holds.

 

[Jack Master]

@lowlight the reticle on the 3-24x56 Riton is a little bit different. They have another reticle on the X5 5-25x50 and X7 4-32x56 that I like better. Simpler. Has some varying in the placement of each .2 mark to help getting lost in the .4-.6 holds.
View attachment 7608384

Why does my brain and eyeballs hurt when looking at this reticle? This is the complicated stuff we are trying to avoid.

1/2 lines below, center, center, 1/2 line above... I'm dizzy from just figuring that out.

Its like my brain and eyes are out of focus when I look at it.

 

[JaoeyP]

Why does my brain and eyeballs hurt when looking at this reticle? This is the complicated stuff we are trying to avoid.

1/2 lines below, center, center, 1/2 line above... I'm dizzy from just figuring that out.

Its like my brain and eyes are out of focus when I look at it.

.2, .4, .6, .8 mils. I like it. I have a ZP5 MR4 also and while I love that scope when I'm trying to make a .4 or .6 mil wind hold I get lost in the reticle and take too much time to discern which is .4 and which is .6.

Like any reticle, it takes some getting used to, and also like any reticle, you won't build one that EVERYONE thinks is perfect.

I was mainly pointing out Riton had other reticle options beside the one on the 3-24x56 that Frank tested.

 

[Leftie]

Why does my brain and eyeballs hurt when looking at this reticle? This is the complicated stuff we are trying to avoid.

1/2 lines below, center, center, 1/2 line above... I'm dizzy from just figuring that out.

Its like my brain and eyes are out of focus when I look at it.

Glad that I'm not the only one - it's like climbing a ladder with your eyes for every .2Mil increment, but in a saw wave pattern which makes the pattern very busy to my eyes...

 

[ma smith]

Couple of comments for testing reticles for real-world use:

First, if its designed or shooting @~12x on a 3-15 style optic, has anyone tested images at BOTH 100% and at 33% in image viewer to ensure the lower power really "works"? I found this is a worthwhile exercise.

Second, test the image against a low-contrast background. Ie, something where the target is actually difficult to pick out. Try to use images from something designed to avoid detection not enhance it (like a target with high-vis contrast)...alot of the hunting gear sites have good pictures for this exercise.

...not how different a reticle looks overlayed onto this kinf of background than a plain white or grey or blue etc backgrond...and then check both high and low power to see if one completely disasppears or is still useful.

This is much better conditions for testing an optic that will be used for crossover / or field use IMHO.

 

[Alpine 338]

My comment/response to all this is, everyone thinks they need .2-mil for accuracy, where the human eye/brain is very capable in determining/measuring accurately in smaller incriments with larger reference points, such as .5-mil. You guys need to learn to use your reticle, and how to bracket targets with reticles that have .5 or 1-mil hash marks.

Yes, having something that provides .1 or .2 scale for accurately measuring a know size target to estimate range is helpful, but let's be honest, how many people actually do that?

Most people shooting PRS type matches want target distances handed to them on a silver platter. Or they're shooting at a square range that have targets set at 100-yard increments.

 

[Mr.BR]

View attachment 7608384

This wave pattern on the 0.2mil is kinda BS , you need ranging scale inside one mil on each post of the reticle rest can be much simpler.