Trijicon Tenmile 3-18x44mm Field Eval Q&A

[Bubblehide]

Yes, @Tanya Avery is private Skool edumicated and she tells me all about my grammar issues. BUT when it comes to dialing, I might help her a little.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now we know who turns Tanya's dials

 

[Tanya Avery]

Now we know who turns Tanya's dials

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Jimbee]

@Formidilosus (and anyone else who might know)

Regarding reticle cant, I’ve read where different scope makers have differing specs on allowable reticle cant. For example, I’ve read NF allows 0.5 degree maximum while Leupold allows 3 degrees.

Do you know any of these specs amongst the various scope “sellers”?

Also, say you have a reticle canted 3 degrees…more important to true the reticle to level action or true the scope body? (I’m assuming the reticle follows the path of erector system that is hopefully trued to body).

Is this also part of tall target test?

What's a tall target test?

 

[BjornF16]

Tall target test:

tacticalrifleshooters.com

This domain may be for sale!

tacticalrifleshooters.com

 

[Rob5589]

Ha! He’s the king of wind calls AND he keeps me warm with all of his fuzzy wussy-ness


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Ok ok, enough of the mushy stuff

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Dude! I went to school in North Idaho. I have to take both shoes and my pants off to count to four.

Remind me to never ask you to count in front of me. Toes are gross.

 

[Wapiti1]

I wish I knew more about internal workings of scopes. I need to read up. So lets say all things are equal in a design save 8 MIL per rev vs 10 MIL. I'm guessing the more coarse adjustment can be more conducive to being more robust? Larger surface areas and parts?

If all things were equal except the screw threads on the turrets, then they would/should behave the same other than the number of turns you have to use on the dials. The turret post isn't connected to the erector tube, it just pushes on it. For the thread alone to be the issue, you would need the turret to actually break. This is if everything else is truly identical.

In a hypothetical for instance, the 8 MIL choice might be a design compromise where they used stouter springs and the 10 MIL thread created some issue with binding or turret feel. It might also be meaningless and Trijicon just wants to do it their way.

Jeremy

 

[260madman]

We need a Mod in here to put NSFW up in the title. Ryan’s taking his pants off, his wife is getting her dials turned and now fuzziness and warmth. Is Robby sleeping at the wheel?

 

[BjornF16]

@Formidilosus Were you able to repeat the 36" drop eval with the Tenmile again?

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus Were you able to repeat the 36" drop eval with the Tenmile again?

Not the full thing. I did check zero and dropped it a couple times from 36”, no shift noted.

 

[Balderdash]

I'm saying the gross majority of hunters shouldn't shoot animals at ranges requiring more than 8mils. If your shooting targets at a range it seems like a pretty small gripe having to take the time to add some number plus 8.

My condolences to all the people needing to take a shoe off for that math. They would have a legitimate gripe.

It's not really a matter of being able to do the math; it's more a matter of fact that its just easier to do 5 mil per rev or 10 mil per rev in a mil based system in which everything is divisible by 10. And, you could well be right in that most people don't really have a need for more than 8 mil on a flatish shooting big game rig, but keep in mind that a lot of people use scopes for applications where a lot of mils are required to reach much closer distances.

If I loved everything about the scope, 8 mil per rev wouldn't be a deal breaker, but I'd really rather have it be 5 or 10.

 

[Dioni A]

but keep in mind that a lot of people use scopes for applications where a lot of mils are required to reach close distances.

I forgot about all the medium range 30-30 hunters! Add them to the people needing to take a shoe off for complex math on my apology list.

 

[sndmn11]

Is the allure of this scope the 6oz savings, full reticle illumination, and a better zero stop compared to the SHV F1?

 

[Lawnboi]

Is the allure of this scope the 6oz savings, full reticle illumination, and a better zero stop compared to the SHV F1?

That’s the question, is this worth the price when compared to an shv f1 or nx8?

 

[sndmn11]

That’s the question, is this worth the price when compared to an shv f1 or nx8?

It's like $200 retail, I have just been wondering the "why" of all the random scope requests in the what should be tested thread.

 

[Balderdash]

I forgot about all the medium range 30-30 hunters! Add them to the people needing to take a shoe off for complex math on my apology list.

Well, I have a long range ML set up that can eat up multiple spins. Likewise, I know guys who hunt deer in states in which straight wall cartridges and or 35 caliber and over are the only center fires allowed. There's also rimfires and air rifles that guys like to take as far as they can.

 

[Dobermann]

It's like $200 retail, I have just been wondering the "why" of all the random scope requests in the what should be tested thread.

I've been wondering that too ...

That's why, when I started the thread, I asked people to give some context as to why.

If it's just a laundry list of 100 scopes, it's not going to happen.

If it's just a list of scopes we already own that we're not wanting to test ourselves, that's not in the spirit of the broader idea behind 'test your gear'.

There's also a lot of scopes being listed there that most of us probably wouldn't hunt with.

There's also scopes that clearly fall outside of what most of us, @Formidilosus included, would recommend to hunters (eg SFP / BDC combinations).

With a narrower list of options of things to test, we get a narrower list of things that work. That's when we can clearly see the differences between them, and know exactly what we're comparing, what the trade-offs are, and so on.

 

[Formidilosus]

I've been wondering that too ...

That's why, when I started the thread, I asked people to give some context as to why.

If it's just a laundry list of 100 scopes, it's not going to happen.

If it's just a list of scopes we already own that we're not wanting to test ourselves, that's not in the spirit of the broader idea behind 'test your gear'.

Well there’s a couple of things. The first and the probably the most honest for most people is they don’t like the idea that there are only few makes/models of scopes that actually work. People want their worldview to be that they are all basically the same. Two, while the 4-32x NF NX8’s issues such as eyebox and sensitive parallax are way overblown (what I see is that people are seeing what they’ve been told to see/want to see), as far as the Trijicon Tenmile goes, if (big IF) they prove to be reliable, the reticle is better for general use than anything NF offers, it’s lighter, the eyebox is a bit better, etc.

There's also a lot of scopes being listed there that most of us probably wouldn't hunt with.

There's also scopes that clearly fall outside of what most of us, @Formidilosus included, would recommend to hunters (eg SFP / BDC combinations).

That is very true as far as what I would recommend, however these types of scopes are square in the realm of what I stated above- people “believe” that scopes are basically all as good as any other, and that brands or models, SFP vs FFP, Mil vs MOA is all about ones preferences and opinion…. Which is total rubbish.

With a narrower list of options of things to test, we get a narrower list of things that work. That's when we can clearly see the differences between them, and know exactly what we're comparing, what the trade-offs are, and so on.

Completely correct. I could name to about a 90% level which scopes will do what, but people won’t accept it or try it for themselves. The focus is on scopes more suited for use out to long range, but I do think it is important to show some normal hunting scopes as well to see what, if anything, these choices may cost someone.

 

[prm]

I think part of it is the vast majority of animals are shot at ranges that do not require dialing or BDC reticles. Features like FFP and dialing are desirable features, but not of value to all, or perhaps even most. Many just need a reliable point and shoot sight. In the narrow list of things that work should (IMO) be a simple, relatively lightweight option, if it exists. Ex: Trijicon Credo 3-9x40. Capped low profile dials, 17oz?
I have a Kimber MT I use for most backcountry elk and mule deer hunts in the Rockies, it’s been to S. Africa for plains game, hunted hogs, and eastern whitetails. Not once have I needed to dial, or even use much magnification. Not that I’m against the longer range hunting, just don’t seem to need it. I do want an absolutely reliable scope. I don’t disagree that FFP, dialing scopes are more capable, but sometimes an individual just wants a simple, reliable option. Since this was all placed in the long range section perhaps I’m wrong to anticipate or suggest that here.

edit: it would be informative to have a better understanding of reliable options. SWFA 3-9 or 6x, NXS 2-10, and what else?

 

[Formidilosus]

Since this was all placed in the long range section perhaps I’m wrong to anticipate or suggest that here.

Nope.