Curious why so many Xmas reticle’s if everyone dials

[Roosterstraw]

I prefer a basic reticle. I have no need for all the clutter in a hunting scope. They need to make reticles for prs and hunting.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I prefer a basic reticle. I have no need for all the clutter in a hunting scope. They need to make reticles for prs and hunting.

Issue is even the hunting ones can have match relevance since NRL Hunter exists and has both 12 and 16 pounds weight divisions. Something like the LHT may have a use there, else I have no idea why it has a christmas tree.

 

[Beetroot]

Issue is even the hunting ones can have match relevance since NRL Hunter exists and has both 12 and 16 pounds weight divisions. Something like the LHT may have a use there, else I have no idea why it has a christmas tree.

I've done a reasonable amount of hunting with tree reticles and don't have an issue with them per se.
Unless you are on 10x or higher the tree ends to disappear and even at higher magnification if you don't look for it you don't really notice it.

The issue with tree reticles is the same issue as non tree reticles (for FFP atleast) and that is that the main cross hairs are too thin to be useful on lower magnification. The Vortex EBR-2C in the PST 3-15 as an exception to this in that it was relatively thick (.052mil) sadly when they moved to the 7c reticle they made it the same thickness as every other Vortex scope (.03mil) which was a massive downgrade in almost all use cases.

It's entirely possible to make a tree reticle that is actually useful for hunting without being overpowering if you don't want to use it.

On the the hand if you are talking about grid reticles (hours style) then yeah, those things are horrible for hunting and arguably horrible for competition use also.
Some would argue they are just horrible in general with no good reason to exist.

 

[Wrench]

I appreciate the simplicity of a mildot based reticle. It's useful in thick stuff and long range.

I can't handle complicated reticles in the brushy home I have to make shots in.

 

[JAC8504]

I think both have their place but in hunting I prefer a mil hash reticle for hunting and viewing purposes.

 

[Macintosh]

There are a handful of reticles Ive seen, and one of the ones pictured above could be one, where there are .2 mill hashes, which seems excessively busy for a hunting reticle to me, but at lower magnification it looks like one thicker line—the hashes are what adds visual thickness to the line at low magnification. This allows them to use a thinner reticle for higher magnification, but still have the appearance of a thicker line when used at low power. If they used hashes only at every mil or every half mil, the line would actually appear thinner at low magnification than it does when they use the .2 mil hashes. Really impossible to tell until you look through the scope in person though.

My problem with relying on illumination for some of these tree reticles is that if the tree itself is lighted, rather than simply the center crosshair, at low magnification the tree appears to be a large red dot—but that dot is seven or 10 mills below the actual crosshair. I don’t need my red dot to be seven or 10 mills off from my actual zero. I think these reticles would be far, far better if they only illuminated the center crosshair and not the entire tree. The 10-mile 3-18 is a perfect example of this.

 

[JohnJohnson]

On the the hand if you are talking about grid reticles (hours style) then yeah, those things are horrible for hunting and arguably horrible for competition use also.
Some would argue they are just horrible in general with no good reason to exist.

They're an abomination and should not exist. Plus you have to pay like $400 extra on any scope that uses the Horus. As far as Christmas trees I tolerate the ones I have without noticing too much. My XLR-2 reticle in my LHT isn't too messy and the EBR-7D in my Razor is relatively uncluttered as well.

 

[Choupique]

I like the plain ol mil dot, and SWFA mil quad is as busy as I ever care to own. Then again, I'm a lowly 600 yard shooter.

 

[NSI]

It annoys me when the area around the center dot is clear for half a mil or a mil.

What's a more likely hold, 2 tenths or 1 and a half tenths? I'm holding 2 or 4 tenths all the damn time, and I hate holding in space.

The universal reticle would be FFP and have a broad 2/10 separated horizontal stadia for shooting wind and movers, and a thick German post that comes up to 1 mil below the center aiming dot. Don't make concessions to those who don't dial.

-J

 

[JohnJohnson]

It annoys me when the area around the center dot is clear for half a mil or a mil.

What's a more likely hold, 2 tenths or 1 and a half tenths? I'm holding 2 or 4 tenths all the damn time, and I hate holding in space.

I'm with you 100% there. I like my XLR-2 and EBR-7D reticles because I do love a floating center dot for shooting groups but a lot of companies separate it way too much from the horizontal stadia. I think the spacing for Nightforce's MIL-C reticle looks nice too but no experience using it. Not as much of a fan of their MOAR one.

 

[NSI]

I'm with you 100% there. I like my XLR-2 and EBR-7D reticles because I do love a floating center dot for shooting groups but a lot of companies separate it way too much from the horizontal stadia. I think the spacing for Nightforce's MIL-C reticle looks nice too but no experience using it. Not as much of a fan of their MOAR one.

You're 100% right. I'm theorizing a Mil-C with the bottom half of the Y axis taken up by a 1 mil short thick German post. That's all that's necessary, but.....

Fun things to consider:

• 1 mil box around floating center dot (in addition to, not INSTEAD of 2/10 hashes)
• empty top Y axis
• keep the upper Y axis but use .1 mil hashes in a portion of it for precise ranging

-J

 

[Beetroot]

It annoys me when the area around the center dot is clear for half a mil or a mil.

What's a more likely hold, 2 tenths or 1 and a half tenths? I'm holding 2 or 4 tenths all the damn time, and I hate holding in space.

The universal reticle would be FFP and have a broad 2/10 separated horizontal stadia for shooting wind and movers, and a thick German post that comes up to 1 mil below the center aiming dot. Don't make concessions to those who don't dial.

-J

So basically a simplifies THLR or a Mil version of the Revic RH2.

Not sure I'd classify that as universal, but it's definitely something that would appeal to many Roksliders.

 

[repins05]

tacticool.......I use to think I needed it but haven't used it once.

 

[doc holiday13]

I have often wondered about this as well. I went to a precision course where they really wanted the students to use the holdover, because it was faster, not necessarily more accurate. I thought this was bass akwards to rational thinking.

It is faster and just as accurate. Not sure why you think it's bass akward. especially if you have someone calling your distance. All you need to do is glance at your forward mounted dope card take your holdover and pull the trigger. You never come out of shooting position

 

[justinspicher]

I didn’t have a forward mounted dope card, we had a time limit to mil a target and then shoot it. I just find it easier to dial and hold for wind, if necessary, not hold for wind and elevation.

 

[Shortschaf]

It is faster and just as accurate

It is not as accurate. Especially for follow up shots.
And it's only faster if someone is giving you the ranges over your shoulder

 

[Beetroot]

It is not as accurate. Especially for follow up shots.
And it's only faster if someone is giving you the ranges over your shoulder

It is definitely faster to hold rather than dial, but it's more prone to error and I would say not as accurate.

If you are inclined to, or frequently hold both wind and elevation the a tree is considerably more accurate, easier and faster than holding in the middle of no where.
If you then miss your shot and need to hold a correction then again it's easier to do in a tree than a straight cross.

If you always, 100% of the time dial for elevation (and/or wind) then a xmas tress is not needed.
The reason they were popularized were due to their use in competition, there has been a bit of a shift away from xmas trees but by and large most people still have them, event if they don't use them very often

 

[Rock-o]

tacticool.......I use to think I needed it but haven't used it once.

That simply means you don't need it. I do. Others do. It's not a "tacticool" thing.

 

[doc holiday13]

It is not as accurate. Especially for follow up shots.
And it's only faster if someone is giving you the ranges over your shoulder

It is as accurate, its generally someones inability to conceptualize and actually put the dots where they belong. . I've shot enough matches where I had 2 -3 different targets on 1 stage and all i did was dial my closest range for and used the mil hash marks for the other 2 targets. I've cleaned a few stages doing this

 

[justinspicher]

I don’t doubt it useful and can be accurate, I just figured when teaching new shooters how to be precise, dialing would be the way to start. Not doing holds for windage and elevation.