View Full Version : Getting over the need for daylight bright illumination in low-powered variables
Failure2Stop
01-31-14, 12:05
Frequently, folks demand that an upcoming optic purchase be "daylight bright", when in reality it is not necessary.
I used to be firmly of the school of thought that I wanted my low-powered variable (1-4x+) to have an Aimpoint-like bright center dot or reticle illumination.
I believe this to be a combination of people's experience with Aimpoints and EoTechs in contrast to early 1-4s with thin reticles and less than optimal illumination. The low powered variables proved to be poorer performers than the bright 1x optics at close range. The single early stand-out from that constriction was the Schmidt and Bender ShortDot. The point that made it stand out was the relatively bright center dot illumination. The only reason that it was not more popular as the hefty price-tag associated with it.
With that, the race was on to find an optic that provided equivalent close-range performance with a price tag that wasn't equal to two month's rent.
The first question asked about every optic since then is, "Is the illumination daylight bright?".
Well, things have changed. Or really, optic manufacturers have started to put out reticles that don't need to be illuminated to be useful.
Handy example: the USO 1-4 DFP.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6bFlyB-QFh8/TrsqWEjBnvI/AAAAAAAAAzc/DmFNaMv6k9U/s400/KD%2BDFP%2B1x%2B10yds_cr.jpg
(Read Kyle Defoor's thoughts at: http://www.kyledefoor.com/2011/11/us-optics-sn-4s.html)
The outer ring is big enough and bold enough to stand out against pretty much any background, without being illuminated.
One common issue with dot optics is during low-light the dot/reticle needs to be adjusted to not bloom/overpower the background or target. Once the white light comes on, the reticle is lost unless the intensity is adjusted. This is not an issue with a bold traditional reticle. The illumination can be adjusted to be useful in the reduced light condition, but the reticle stands clearly out with a white-light illuminated target area.
Another issue is that most traditional low powered variables have terrible battery life, and some folks have been known to forget to turn the illumination on or accidentally off before needing to use the optic in a timely manner. A bold reticle alleviates these issues.
So, while daylight illumination is good (and needed for some reticle arrangements) it is not the be-all/end-all in optic selection, and really only beats around the bush as to how useful or "fast" an optic can be. Overly focusing on illumination forces manufacturers to devote time and money toward only one aspect of their product.
yup. but I'll say this is probably the main reason I prefer SFP on a low-x variable. or like the reticle above and the SWFA SS1-6, the circle/cross gives a good aiming point without illum. the Vortex 2.5-10x32 is almost unusable at the low end without illum due to being FFP...
I will agree that DFP like reticles help a lot. For my eyes, a standard cross hair with a circle at center through all quadrants like the Leupy VXR Patrol does very well with/without illumination. I've always been a bit slower with reticles on X optics that don't have these 'frames' of reference i.e. NF FC2.
quaesitor logica
01-31-14, 13:35
One common issue with dot optics is during low-light the dot/reticle needs to be adjusted to not bloom/overpower the background or target. Once the white light comes on, the reticle is lost unless the intensity is adjusted. This is not an issue with a bold traditional reticle. The illumination can be adjusted to be useful in the reduced light condition, but the reticle stands clearly out with a white-light illuminated target area.
One of my favorite things about a Low power variable optic. I set mine for the lowest Illumination possible so as to operate indoors or night. If i need to white light anything, my reticle instantly goes black and highly visible. Lighting and red dots do not play nice at night. I have one RDS left and I think it will go if I decide that the USO SN4 is worth $1200.
Failure2Stop
01-31-14, 13:36
yup. but I'll say this is probably the main reason I prefer SFP on a low-x variable. or like the reticle above and the SWFA SS1-6, the circle/cross gives a good aiming point without illum. the Vortex 2.5-10x32 is almost unusable at the low end without illum due to being FFP...
Agreed.
I recently reversed my trend toward only accepting FFP optics.
The biggest reason is that there were some interesting options out there that were not bold enough at 1x for rapid use.
I still have a lingering preference for well balanced FFP reticles, but I think that much of that preference is carried over from previous 3-9 and 2.5-10 optics that were virtually unusable at low power, or caused issues with mil-holds at low or mid magnification ranges.
I will agree that DFP like reticles help a lot. For my eyes, a standard cross hair with a circle at center through all quadrants like the Leupy VXR Patrol does very well with/without illumination. I've always been a bit slower with reticles on X optics that don't have these 'frames' of reference i.e. NF FC2.
While I do really like the DFP concept, I used that picture as it shows a very usable size of the outer ring at low power.
If what I thought I heard is correct, the USO 1-4 DFP with the new dot brightness will be absolutely killer, appealing to both the guys that want Aimpoint bright dots and those that like bold reticles, with no draw-back to either.
This post comes at a good time for me, as I'm considering switching from a red dot to a 1-4 for my patrol rifle. Great read!
Jack, how we'll does the transition go, when in a daylight environment, when placing the aiming point over a dark object (guy with black shirt)? Would putting the optic on a low illumination setting help with that?
yup. but I'll say this is probably the main reason I prefer SFP on a low-x variable. or like the reticle above and the SWFA SS1-6, the circle/cross gives a good aiming point without illum. the Vortex 2.5-10x32 is almost unusable at the low end without illum due to being FFP...
Really? I've used the vortex 2.5-10x32 at close range set at 2.5 without issue during the day. At night, I'd agree, but that's any aiming device without illumination out a flash light.
I really like the vortex pst 1-4 capped for a few reasons. Standard moa hashed cross hairs in the middle with bold circle around it to see without illumination. SFP so it never gets too small. Capped turrets for durability (can be used without the covers too). Illumination just in case.
The only things I'd change is the illumination to a dot instead of the reticle so it's brighter and lasts longer and if possible, shorter and lighter are always things to strive for.
Failure2Stop
01-31-14, 15:30
This post comes at a good time for me, as I'm considering switching from a red dot to a 1-4 for my patrol rifle. Great read!
Jack, how we'll does the transition go, when in a daylight environment, when placing the aiming point over a dark object (guy with black shirt)? Would putting the optic on a low illumination setting help with that?
I've never had an issue.
Here are some examples that SWFA did with their 1-4 when it was first hitting the market:
http://www.jonaadland.com/Hunting/SuperSniper/1-4X24/FinalReticles/PICT0165.JPG
http://www.jonaadland.com/Hunting/SuperSniper/1-4X24/FinalReticles/PICT0037.JPG
If the ring is too small, it gets lost in dark spots, which is where illumination is helpful.
I had this issue with the Mk6 1-6x with the CMR-W reticle.
Most noticeable when at 1x, with targets over 50 meters, but before needing to dial up in magnification.
Wow, great thread Jack. I think you're right. The problem I've had was trying to make the 1-4 work like a red dot. What I realized is that it isn't supposed to. I will say that personally I much prefer the Aimpoint's simple dot to the Eotech's ring. I'm wondering if the Nightforce's FC-2 reticle would carry over that same concept in a 1-4. Specific thoughts/experience with that optic?
jonconsiglio
01-31-14, 15:50
I've been using a Leupold vx-r patrol 1.25-4. I've gotten very quick with it and have been using it on a 14.5" Colt and a 9" AAC 300blk. I'm not sure how others work, but even when I'm not looking through the scope, the red dot is viable out to the edges, almost like an occluded red dot or the front cover closed. This has made it very fast for me.
Now, I'm seeing the thicker reticle as a benefit. This belonged to munch520 and I figured I'd use this until I could afford a MK6 1-6 or something similar.
As for now, these won't replace my Aimpoints, but I'm getting pretty quick with the Leupold and I really like how precise it is. I'm more accurate than using a t1 and magnifier. I'd love to get to a point where these replace the Aimpoints for me.
I think if this was a 1x or 1.1x (since 1x seems smaller than what the eye sees) I could see this being a primary optic, even for home defense or work (or duty) use. Hell, even the 1.25x should work fine with a little extra time training.
Very timely that this has come up for me too. I've been researching low power variables for the last couple weeks as I'm looking to get my first one. I believe it was some older posts by F2S that bumped me off the "daylight visible illumination" bandwagon. Now I'm looking at the reticles themselves and how usable it is (quickness) especially without the aid of illumination. To be honest, until battery life for variable optics reaches that of Aimpoints, I'd rather NOT rely on illumination as the means for which I am able to use the reticle.
For me, I want a reticle that uses horizontal and/or verticle bars that lead me to the center with preferably a "donut" that I can use to bracket the target and a center dot or cross if I need a little more precision. For top end magnification, I'd like a mil-based reticle, since I already know those holds. And as Defoor mentions, capped turrets since I wouldn't even dial out to 600, much less 400. For my price range, the SWFA SS 1-4x seems to be the best in class at this point. (If anyone has any other suggestions for a sub-$1000 optic that fits these parameters, I'm all ears)
More good stuff
Thanks for the response! I have some experience with magnified scopes without illumination, I was curious how well it would work on a 1X. Thanks!
Well for a reticle that works well without illumination then a FFP with a properly designed reticle ala the SFWA circle at 1x and mil dot crosshair at 4x or 6x seems like a great way to go. Or a DFP like that USO. Other than the swfa and USO, are there any other contenders? I too may rethink my whole daytime illumination requirement now.
quaesitor logica
01-31-14, 22:35
I've used the vortex 2.5-10x32 at close range set at 2.5 without issue during the day.
It can be used but I think you would agree that it is far from ideal. I really like my 2.5-10 ffp scope but it really doesn't get alot of shooting time.
The only things I'd change is the illumination to a dot instead of the reticle so it's brighter and lasts longer and if possible, shorter and lighter are always things to strive for.
I think it's a matter of degrees...
I didn't say it was unusable but in the interest of maximizing any situation, the combination of a low power FFP, and inadequate daytime illum, is not at the top end. (look at the thread title "getting over the need for Daylight Bright Illum"...)
Is a FFP @ 2.5 unusable? no, but it's not what I want... this would be helped by making the scope SFP because if I was far enough away to need to range, I really wouldn't do that at any power other than maximum anyway...
For me, I want a reticle that uses horizontal and/or verticle bars that lead me to the center with preferably a "donut" that I can use to bracket the target and a center dot or cross if I need a little more precision. For top end magnification, I'd like a mil-based reticle, since I already know those holds. And as Defoor mentions, capped turrets since I wouldn't even dial out to 600, much less 400. For my price range, the SWFA SS 1-4x seems to be the best in class at this point. (If anyone has any other suggestions for a sub-$1000 optic that fits these parameters, I'm all ears)
I sold my SS 1-4 and got the SS1-6. this reticle is the reason:
1x and 6x
23244
I'm sold on the Nightforce NXS 1-4 with the FC3G reticle. Thats the optic that is on my 14.5 BCM. I use a Burris XTR G2 1-4 on my 3gun rifle and it works just as well too. Both of them match up to the loads that I use both 75gr and 55gr so I can not complain at all. They do the job great. I like the nightforce for my go to gun(14.5) as its lighter and more robust. The Burris helps balance out my 3gun rifle as it has more weight to the optic but just as usable(to me). I run offset irons on both guns and rarely go less than 2 power on the optics.
I sold my SS 1-4 and got the SS1-6. this reticle is the reason:
1x and 6x
23244
Attachment didn't come through...
I've thought about the 1-6x but not sure I need the extra mag for the ranges I'm after.
quaesitor logica
02-01-14, 16:00
I use a Burris XTR G2 1-4 on my 3gun rifle and it works just as well too.
The Burris XTR 1-4 G2 is an under rated scope. Huge FOV, Great glass, both eyes open, very quick to bring on target at very close range and the reticle is fine enough to be precise at 300 yards. I just discovered the MTAC and I am really liking its massive FOV and circle dot reticle.
Attachment didn't come through...
I've thought about the 1-6x but not sure I need the extra mag for the ranges I'm after.
hmmm, it worked in the preview. try this...
23255
try this thread announcing the 1-6 over at the SWFA forum. page 8 has pics of the current version of the reticle -- http://www.opticstalk.com/swfa-16x24hd_topic31730_page8.html
I had the 1-4 and it was nice but I didn't like that the circle stayed in view at max power. because of the FFP, it gives a circle/cross at 1x, but the circle recedes entirely from view at 6x. an excellent application of FFP, IMO, and the only reason I switched from the 1-4....
this also has covered turrets with thread protectors giving you the option to run with caps or exposed target turrets - the 1-4 was either/or...
That one came through ra2bach. Thanks for following up and linking that thread. I do like the 1-6x reticle, but I think (as much as I can tell from internet pics) that the heavy duplex-like bars on the 1-4x may guide your eye towards the center donut on 1x a tad better when illumination can't/doesn't play that role. Do you find yourself searching for the donut on a dark target background when illumination isn't used (vs having the duplex lines guide you)?
My only real question with the 1-4x is how usable the mil reticle is on 4x? Are accurate holds out to 400 possible or is the reticle still a little too small, being that its FFP? Distance shots take a backseat to speed up close for me, but it would be nice to have both.
the center donut, IMO, is plenty obvious by itself that it doesn't need bars to find it quickly @ 1x. It's pretty bold and even with no illum, it shows well against dark targets. ask yourself, how have we gotten along for years with scopes with no illum? I've never had a problem with my hunting scopes even in very dim light. although I never tried shooting a black bear in heavy cover at night... :)
I think F2s hit on a concept that I've always accepted but never made a big deal of - when a scope with minimal illum is on a light colored target, the reticle appears black. on a dark target, it will have enough to provide contrast with the background. it's self-adjusting. the size/pattern of the reticle makes up for the lack of glowing dot. and even though the pics show it to be plenty bright on light targets in daylight, I don't need Aimpoint bright on everything I put in front of my eye...
I agree, ranging with a 4x is self-limiting in that you won't be able to get very precise at the limits of 4x.the 1-4 is good, I just think the 1-6 is more of a good thing. the difference is that @ 4x, I always wished for a little more. not magnification, but size of reticle...
in order for it to be the proper size at 1x, only increasing it 4x leaves it a little small for distance shot. the 6x gives a whole mil reticle image with no circle visible. 6x, IMO, is plenty for the type of shooting I want to do at the practical limits of 5.56. it helps that this glass is very nice.
check this page for the reticle subtensions on the 1-6 - http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-HD-1-6x24-Tactical-30mm-Riflescope-P53845.aspx
jonconsiglio
02-02-14, 13:23
That one came through ra2bach. Thanks for following up and linking that thread. I do like the 1-6x reticle, but I think (as much as I can tell from internet pics) that the heavy duplex-like bars on the 1-4x may guide your eye towards the center donut on 1x a tad better when illumination can't/doesn't play that role. Do you find yourself searching for the donut on a dark target background when illumination isn't used (vs having the duplex lines guide you)?
My only real question with the 1-4x is how usable the mil reticle is on 4x? Are accurate holds out to 400 possible or is the reticle still a little too small, being that its FFP? Distance shots take a backseat to speed up close for me, but it would be nice to have both.
On the vx-r 1.25-4, I've gotten pretty quick with it, but I'm using the dot. The black circle is pretty thin but still usable. It just takes a split second more to pick up, so with this particular optic, I wouldn't want to run it without the dot. But doing some stuff indoors with 500 lumen Surefire, it's considerably quicker than I would have thought.
For whatever reason, the mil dots are spaced 2.5 mils apart on the VX-R, but they're still useable. I like the exposed turrets and prefer to use that with this particular reticle, I just HATE that they don't lock.
After handling the MK6 1-6 at SHOT, I'm pretty certain that's my next optic sometime around this summer. The USO sounds promising and I'd give up 6x for an Aimpoint like dot, though it's a few ounces heavier than the MK6. I'd need to handle one of course. For the price I can get the Mk6, it would be pretty hard to choose anything else over it though.
I'm not sure how all the others work, but the VX-R red dot is visible all around the optic even when the reticle is not visible due to beig outside the eye box (drawing a blank on terms right now). So, it's almost working like an Aimpoint with the front lens cover closed. There's certainly some parallax to deal with, but at the ranges I'd use that feature it's hardly even noticeable.
I can definitely see these replacing an Aimpoint for some people, it just takes some effort and time to get used to the differences. I see so many people using red dots wrong anyway (centering the dot instead of shooting when visible, shooting with a cowitness, etc) that there wouldn't be much first round speed penalty by moving to a 1-4.
Is the Mk6 CMR-W usable without illumination at 1x?
PatrioticDisorder
02-02-14, 19:31
Is the Mk6 CMR-W usable without illumination at 1x?
Not very effectively, it has 2 lines that will give you a coarse aiming point with light... That said battery life is reported to be very good with the Leupy, though I don't have numbers. I've always thought the ideal set up on a general purpose AR would be a Leupy Mk6 1-6 with a 1 O'Clock aimpoint micro... If you ran a set up like that, you don't have much to worry about with battery life.
And so the circle goes...if you're going to have the offset Aimpoint, why not have more magnification in your optic? 1X isn't as important when you have the offset dot, so something like a Nightforce 2.5-10 begins to make more sense.
Jack, I get what you're saying about how some reticles allow for fast, reliable use in the 1x range. But is that just for shooters who don't want or can't spend the extra coin on something like a Short Dot or Z6i?
I ask because there are obviously reasons we use RDS's on long guns and not 1x black donuts. I don't see any disadvantage to my Z6i when used up close as a red dot. Clearly the shooter is the most important part of the equation (software > hardware), and mastering a non-illuminated optic when a variable is needed can be quite effective. But for me I'd view that as a step backwards in capability.
And so the circle goes...if you're going to have the offset Aimpoint, why not have more magnification in your optic? 1X isn't as important when you have the offset dot, so something like a Nightforce 2.5-10 begins to make more sense.
Concur, I always thought a 2.5-10 with T-1 is a great all-around setup.
Then Leupold had to go be Leupold and release the Mk6 3-18. Then SOCOM bought a whole bunch of the Mk6 3-18s with a T-1 on top.
So now... I think that's the better setup to be honest, especially if you get the lower profile elevation knob on the Mk6 so the T-1 can be directly on top rather than on the side.
If I ran a 1-4/6/8, I wouldn't run an offset or piggyback red dot. It's kind of a waste of money to be honest with all that capability overlap, and you can still use a 4 or 6 power in close quarters in a pinch via BAC. It's not ideal, but neither is an offset or piggyback RDS (offset blocks your left eye, piggyback gives you a weird chin-weld). In both cases, you can turn your magnification down when you get a couple of seconds breathing space. While I wouldn't consider a RDS, I'd consider KAC offset folding irons though, depending on if my optic mount was QD or not.
The views of this thread have been interesting since I have been working with a 1-4 quite a bit lately. But for a reason not yet mentioned. Since my eyes have changed again, I can correct to see the Aimpoint dot clear as well as target and beyond, but iron sights on the pistol are a mess. Other glasses with monocular set up (left eye for distance, right eye for pistol sight distance) make iron sights crisp but Aimpoint a blobbed mess.
The 1-4 allows me use my pistol sight glasses due to the ability to focus the reticle regardless of eye correction needed. I don't like the added weight since I really don't need the magnification at work. The leupold prismatic started getting attention again at least for SBR but mounting options without loosing zero seem to be an issue.
Now if only Aimpoint had a focus ring on the back of a micro...
1-4/6s are probably to stay in my future and I'll just have to get faster with them.
Singlestack Wonder
02-03-14, 18:11
Now if only Aimpoint had a focus ring on the back of a micro...
Wouldn't help with astigmatism.
quaesitor logica
02-03-14, 18:15
A magnifier eliminates all my astigmatisms distortion concerning RDS. I am nearsighted and use corrective contacts or glasses, when I wear my corrective lenses my astigmatism is also eliminated. dont know if all astigmatisms can be corrected this way, but mine is.
is the take away that as long as the reticle has a donut of death, whether or not there is super bright illumination, then a true 1 power magnified optic is the way to go?
http://www.leupold.com/hunting-shooting/scopes/mark-6-riflescopes/mark-6-1-6x20mm-34mm-m6c1/
all the mark 6 reticles have a donut of death. does that mean the mark 6 is pretty much good as it is and there's no need to look for the holy grail that may be present in the USO SR-8?
On the vx-r 1.25-4, I've gotten pretty quick with it, but I'm using the dot. The black circle is pretty thin but still usable. It just takes a split second more to pick up, so with this particular optic, I wouldn't want to run it without the dot. But doing some stuff indoors with 500 lumen Surefire, it's considerably quicker than I would have thought.
For whatever reason, the mil dots are spaced 2.5 mils apart on the VX-R, but they're still useable. I like the exposed turrets and prefer to use that with this particular reticle, I just HATE that they don't lock.
After handling the MK6 1-6 at SHOT, I'm pretty certain that's my next optic sometime around this summer. The USO sounds promising and I'd give up 6x for an Aimpoint like dot, though it's a few ounces heavier than the MK6. I'd need to handle one of course. For the price I can get the Mk6, it would be pretty hard to choose anything else over it though.
I'm not sure how all the others work, but the VX-R red dot is visible all around the optic even when the reticle is not visible due to beig outside the eye box (drawing a blank on terms right now). So, it's almost working like an Aimpoint with the front lens cover closed. There's certainly some parallax to deal with, but at the ranges I'd use that feature it's hardly even noticeable.
I can definitely see these replacing an Aimpoint for some people, it just takes some effort and time to get used to the differences. I see so many people using red dots wrong anyway (centering the dot instead of shooting when visible, shooting with a cowitness, etc) that there wouldn't be much first round speed penalty by moving to a 1-4.
I've been seriously considering this scope as an all around optic. Any downsides? I've read that some don't feel that the body is tough enough. Any thoughts on this?
Singlestack Wonder
02-04-14, 14:34
A magnifier eliminates all my astigmatisms distortion concerning RDS. I am nearsighted and use corrective contacts or glasses, when I wear my corrective lenses my astigmatism is also eliminated. dont know if all astigmatisms can be corrected this way, but mine is.
You are lucky. Most (including myself) still experience odd shaped dots when using the Aimpoint magnifier as the magnifier is just making the grapeshot blob larger. A focus would do nothing to help as this is an issue of an irregular shaped eye lens and the light being reflected from the Aimpoint receiving surface back. With a scope reticle, a focus does help, but then we are not dealing with a reflected image.
jonconsiglio
02-04-14, 16:41
I've been seriously considering this scope as an all around optic. Any downsides? I've read that some don't feel that the body is tough enough. Any thoughts on this?
I don't have enough time behind it to say for sure, but it seems good enough for most uses. I'm typically go for the more robust gear, but I kind of fell into this one. The only complaints I have is non locking turrets and the 1.25x instead of 1x or 1.1x. I'll use the turrets more than holdover since the reticle only has dots every 2.5 mils. Though I really won't use either very often but occasionally with the blackout.
I wish I could speak more on how durable it is, but I just haven't had it long enough or done enough with it yet to say. It feels pretty solid....
Without detracting from the thread topic re SFP vs FFP,
It would seem that a distinct reticle on the SFP for low variable optics may be a better option for low to non-illumination i.e. Leupold 1.25-4 [BTW great Illumination]. The reticle would be visible on all ranges of the X and if the glass is made correctly, there would be minimal POI shift for short range if any. May have had too much coffee, but I've been thinking this since Jack posted the thread.
PatrioticDisorder
02-04-14, 18:14
And so the circle goes...if you're going to have the offset Aimpoint, why not have more magnification in your optic? 1X isn't as important when you have the offset dot, so something like a Nightforce 2.5-10 begins to make more sense.
I guess it depends on application. I wouldn't have much use for a 10x on a 5.56 and would like to have a 1x on top, having the offset is redundant but it would make sense for anyone needing to go from making a long range shot to an up close shot quickly... Probably what a lot of people like in an Elcan, but I think as quick as changing powers on an Elcan is, canting the gun is a smidge quicker... Offset I rons could fill that need saw well, preference & how much you want to spend I guess.
I don't have enough time behind it to say for sure, but it seems good enough for most uses. I'm typically go for the more robust gear, but I kind of fell into this one. The only complaints I have is non locking turrets and the 1.25x instead of 1x or 1.1x. I'll use the turrets more than holdover since the reticle only has dots every 2.5 mils. Though I really won't use either very often but occasionally with the blackout.
I wish I could speak more on how durable it is, but I just haven't had it long enough or done enough with it yet to say. It feels pretty solid....
Appreciate the info. Thanks! Sorry for any thread derail.
Wouldn't help with astigmatism.
I don't know what you are saying. Is it because of the mechanics of the Aimpoint cannot be focused? Because obviously the concept works with the 1-4 where I can focus the reticle clearly despite my strong eye having a rx lens for pistol front sight distance.
Failure2Stop
02-10-14, 11:11
is the take away that as long as the reticle has a donut of death, whether or not there is super bright illumination, then a true 1 power magnified optic is the way to go?
Eh, not really.
The take away is that the reticle needs to be BOLD, take a look at the old German #4:
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7012/firedot006.jpg
No ring needed, just something to draw the eye.
I prefer a mix of bold outer crosshairs with a bold center ring, large enough to not obscure a small target at close to mid-range (ex: head), but small enough to be usable for rough/rapid aiming where an offset is critical (3-25 yards)
all the mark 6 reticles have a donut of death. does that mean the mark 6 is pretty much good as it is and there's no need to look for the holy grail that may be present in the USO SR-8?
I find the ring in the Mk6 to be smaller/finer than I find optimal.
I have heard that USO is looking into some other reticles for the 1-8, but like most other optics companies, they are stuck between opposing user groups. I'm hopeful that they will produce a reticle type that I prefer in the 1-8.
Hey
That is my backyard
Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk
jukeboxx13
06-10-14, 22:44
Great info.
The PST 1-4 MOA has a thick segmented circle and works well at night with my 500 lumen light imo as well. The reticle on its lowest setting is also very visible at night with my light on indoors which was a surprise to me.
The other day I was looking at a white wall with the PST 1-4, and realized just how thick/dark the reticle was, and then switching over to a dark green bush it was a lil harder to see but the illumination helped with that as well.
Eh, not really.
The take away is that the reticle needs to be BOLD, take a look at the old German #4:
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7012/firedot006.jpg
No ring needed, just something to draw the eye.
I prefer a mix of bold outer crosshairs with a bold center ring, large enough to not obscure a small target at close to mid-range (ex: head), but small enough to be usable for rough/rapid aiming where an offset is critical (3-25 yards)
I find the ring in the Mk6 to be smaller/finer than I find optimal.
I have heard that USO is looking into some other reticles for the 1-8, but like most other optics companies, they are stuck between opposing user groups. I'm hopeful that they will produce a reticle type that I prefer in the 1-8.
27493
is the tmr reticle getting closer to ideal?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.