Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Talk to me about Mil-Dot reticles |
Post Reply |
Author | ||
glock24
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/11/2009 Status: Offline Points: 38 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: December/07/2010 at 07:28 |
|
I understand the size and spacing of the dots on a Mil-Dot reticle is relatively standardized, but what about the thickness of the cross-hair lines?
In other words, does the thickness of the cross-hair lines differ between manufacturers? If so, I'm looking for a line that is on the thinner side. For example, does the line thickness vary on any of the below Mil-Dot scopes? Leupold ER/T 4.5-14x50mm Bushnelll 3-13x44mm
SWFA SS 3-9x42mm
Thanks
|
||
jonoMT
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: November/13/2008 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 4853 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Aside from poor-quality reticles, mil-dot reticles are standard in terms of spacing between dots (although there can be a variation between the dot shapes because of differences between the USMC and Army specs). You will find a fair amount of variation in line thickness, even from the same manufacturer because of a scopes specs. For example, a second focal plane reticle in one scope might have thinner lines because the reticle never changes size. While a first focal plane scope may have a reticle with thicker lines and then outer lines that are much thicker so that at low magnification the scope will be similar to one with a duplex reticle.
I'd suggest checking out the manufacturer's websites. Most publish specs on their reticles. The SS 3-9X42 is an FFP scope so the reticle size will vary with magnification. I reviewed one and shot at diffferent ranges. To me, that reticle was well-designed and had the right thickness. Personally, I prefer them a little thicker because I don't mind obscuring the target. If I can't see it, I must be on it, right? Seems to work out pretty well. But then I'm used to shooting with iron sights too, such as those on the M1 Garand, where the focus is on the front sight post and the target is purposely blurred. |
||
Reaction time is a factor...
|
||
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Why is line thickness such an issue?
Of those you have listed, I'd take the 3-9 SS over the others, without question. Any good scope maker will give you the reticle details; and although specs are very similar, most have minor variations on the theme. What, specifically, do you need? |
||
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
||
glock24
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/11/2009 Status: Offline Points: 38 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Specifically, I'm worried about the cross-hairs being too thick at maximum power due to the FFP design.
For example, I used to shoot a 4-16x50mm PST that had 0.06 mil thick cross-hairs. When I switched to a 2.5-10x42mm FFP IOR, my center aiming point is now 0.10 mils. My groups have gone to hell. In other words, I have a much harder time shooting decent groups. Whether it is the MP-8 reticle itself, or the larger aiming point, I'd rather have a smaller aiming point, and don't want to buy another scope with lines that are too thick. I couldn't find cross-hair thickness measurements from Bushnell, Leupold, or SWFA on the internet. I guess I'll pick up the phone. |
||
supertool73
Optics God Superstool Joined: January/03/2008 Status: Offline Points: 11814 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
If you are after groups get a SFP target dot reticle. That will help you out.
|
||
Lifetime warranty and excellent customer service don't mean a thing when your gun fails during a zombie attack.
"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own." |
||
glock24
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/11/2009 Status: Offline Points: 38 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
No, I'm not after groups per say, but during load development the ability to shoot a representative group is required.
Again, the 0.06 mil lines on my PST reticle did the trick for me, and I'm hoping to stay close to this thickness on my next scope. Thanks |
||
308 Sav
Optics Journeyman Joined: July/18/2010 Location: Kentucky Status: Offline Points: 362 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
With your above example there is only about an 1/8 moa difference in your aiming point variable.If you groupings are increasing by more than that, it is something else not the thickness of the cross hairs. But then again "groups going to hell" is definable by only you.
|
||
Gerald Baker
|
||
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
That is precisely what I was going to say: a difference of 0.04 is all but irrelevant unless you are shooting very long range. I have the same IOR 2.5-10FFP and like the reticle (except that, at 100 yards, bullet holes hide easily under that center 0.1mil dot.) Define "groups going to hell" in terms of range, group size, and rounds in the group. |
||
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
||
glock24
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/11/2009 Status: Offline Points: 38 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
My 0.3 MOA rifle went to a 0.5 and 0.6 MOA rifle with the scope change. These are all 100 meter groups. I was still able to squeeze out the occasional 0.3 MOA group, but I had to concentrate much harder than with the previous scope.
I know this sounds like I'm splitting hairs to some of you, but it bothers me because had I been using the IOR for load testing, I wouldn't have found my rifle's sweet spot.
It is also possible the magnificaiton change (16x down to 10x) or the reticle design difference is playing a role. The point being I have learned that I shoot better with certain types of reticle and line thicknesses, and I'd like to continue down that road is it is working for me.
I have another scope to buy soon, and I want to be aware of this minor reticle details as they seem to play a big role in my success. |
||
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I'm not a good enough shot to claim reticle as the reason for a 0.5MOA vs. 0.3MOA group at 100 meters.
I am still not certain I understand how a 0.04 change in fineness of aiming point works out to a .2-.3MOA increase in group size. How many rounds constitute a "group"? |
||
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
||
Sparky
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: July/15/2007 Location: SD Status: Offline Points: 4569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Tagged for interest.
|
||
glock24
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/11/2009 Status: Offline Points: 38 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Sorry RC, that the reality of my situation. Take it or leave it. If you start from the beginning of this thread, you'll see the original question was that of line thickess specs, not an invitation to critique my shooting skills.
My normal testing consists of 5-shots at 100 meters.
|
||
SD Dog
Optics Master Extraordinaire OT Scratching Post Joined: February/28/2008 Status: Offline Points: 4177 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Your statement here leads me to think that it is not the thickness of the reticle but something else like a scope not being focused properly. Have you adjusted the scope or shot it right out of the box? Little things can lead to eye strain which can have an adverse reaction to groups. Edited by SD Dog - December/08/2010 at 15:04 |
||
If nobody ever said anything unless he knew what he was talking about, a ghastly hush would descend upon the earth. AP Herbert
Stupidity & ignorance have been the foundation for many certainties. |
||
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Nothing about my posts was meant to criticize, I genuinely am not good enough to attribute cause to group variations that are smaller than the diameter of the bullet itself.
As SD said, it might be something other than the fineness or thickness of the aiming point. |
||
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
||
glock24
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/11/2009 Status: Offline Points: 38 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Sorry RC, your last post read like you were being condesending.
Agreed. It may be something other than the reticle size. Below are the list of the differences for whatever it is worth. Nonetheless, the goal of my next scope purchase is to buy one closer to the 4-16x PST as that is what seemed to do better for me.
SD Dog - I adjusted the diopter on the IOR, but since there is no parallax adjustment that's all I could do.
Differences; (Vortex to IOR)
EBR-1 0.06 mil cross-hair vs. MP-8 center dot (0.10 mil)
16x vs. 10x
50mm objective vs. 42mm objective
Parallax adjustment vs. none
I will say though that my sight picture on the IOR is good, and was always good while shooting these groups. The center dot always appeared crisp and stable, just like my cross-hairs, but the results were different. Maybe I'm just not as good holding a dot on a bullseye than I am a cross-hair. Whatever the reason, I'm interested in staying with what works.
|
||
glock24
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/11/2009 Status: Offline Points: 38 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Update:
I called Leupold. I'm interested in the 4.5-14x50mm FFP ER/T.
Mil-Dot reticle = line thickness @ 14x is 0.15 mils. (Wow that's big!)
TMR reticle = line thickness @ 14x is 0.04 mils.
Also called Bushnell. I'm interested in the 3-12x44mm FFP Elite 4200
Mil-Dot reticle = line thickness @ 12x is 0.04 mils
I haven't called SWFA yet
|
||
308 Sav
Optics Journeyman Joined: July/18/2010 Location: Kentucky Status: Offline Points: 362 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I do not think anyone was critiquing you or your shooting. Everyone on here was just trying to figure out what might be causing the change for you. It is after all a nice scope with a decent investment in money. We were trying to possibly save you any additional costs if it was not necessary. Good luck in your search.
|
||
Gerald Baker
|
||
billyburl2
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: January/08/2009 Location: Cottonwood, AZ Status: Offline Points: 4015 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
If it is tourist season, why can't we shoot them?
|
||
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |