Which scope as a new host for the THLR reticle?

[TxLite]

My thoughts as well, granted the short scopes do look cool but they sometimes bring mounting problems due to the short space to move the scope back and forth. The tenmile is oddly long but has a ton of space for adjustment in that respect.

The only downside I can think of is if the longer scope length is impacting the balance point of the rifle. And even then you’re likely not talking a huge difference.

 

[ID_Matt]

The only downside I can think of is if the longer scope length is impacting the balance point of the rifle. And even then you’re likely not talking a huge difference.

Hadn't thought about that, but I guess a short scope could do the same in the opposite direction?

 

[DangerRanger]

maven response about this thread and building a drop proof scope with that reticle

“Thanks for reaching out. We always appreciate the enthusiasm folks from Rokslide bring for a variety of our products. The short answer to your question is that we don't plan on using other companies reticles in our optics. So, it is safe to say that the THLR reticle will never be used in a Maven product due to that reason.

Now, if we are discussing the drop test of the riflescope. We are always working on new ways to ensure the integrity of our scopes. The 3.2 is a pretty tough scope and Ryan has been trying his hardest to beat that thing up.”

 

[TxLite]

The short answer to your question is that we don't plan on using other companies reticles in our optics. So, it is safe to say that the THLR reticle will never be used in a Maven product due to that reason.

This might be blasphemous because the thread is about the THLR reticle, but I honestly don’t care if they use THLR or not as long as they can manage a mil/mil ffp reticle that’s usable at all magnifications without being overly busy.

If they can come up with one that does that and meets weight, has a decent zoom range (2-12ish would be great), and passes drop/tracking tests I’m all for it.

 

[BjornF16]

maven response about this thread and building a drop proof scope with that reticle

“Thanks for reaching out. We always appreciate the enthusiasm folks from Rokslide bring for a variety of our products. The short answer to your question is that we don't plan on using other companies reticles in our optics. So, it is safe to say that the THLR reticle will never be used in a Maven product due to that reason.

Now, if we are discussing the drop test of the riflescope. We are always working on new ways to ensure the integrity of our scopes. The 3.2 is a pretty tough scope and Ryan has been trying his hardest to beat that thing up.”

I don't think they understand that it isn't "another companies reticle"...

 

[DangerRanger]

I don't think they understand that it isn't "another companies reticle"...

Yeah but I’m not sure if he treats it like that for allowing its use.

Either way it’s a forest for the trees situation where we really just want a better hunting reticle not necessarily THAT reticle

 

[Axlrod]

So maybe an obvious question. Have you considered reaching out to Minox? They have smaller scopes, and they already have the reticle.

Also why limit the email blast to one company? Could just as easily email 5 companies, including ones that have said no in the past. Things change, people change. I'm in sales, and you don't get the sale you don't ask for.

 

[wind gypsy]

This might be blasphemous because the thread is about the THLR reticle, but I honestly don’t care if they use THLR or not as long as they can manage a mil/mil ffp reticle that’s usable at all magnifications without being overly busy.

If they can come up with one that does that and meets weight, has a decent zoom range (2-12ish would be great), and passes drop/tracking tests I’m all for it.

Speaking of overly busy.. The THLR fits that bill.

If we can get a "THLR lite" without anything above the horizontal crosshair i'd be more excited about it. That said, my opinion would be a lot more valid if i understood what all that stuff was supposed to be used for..

 

[TxLite]

Speaking of overly busy.. The THLR fits that bill.

If we can get a "THLR lite" without anything above the horizontal crosshair i'd be more excited about it. That said, my opinion would be a lot more valid if i understood what all that stuff was supposed to be used for..

Form breaks it down pretty well here. It makes sense to me but I can see it being on the busy side. I’d be down for a similar “lite” version for general use

 

[JCMCUBIC]

For most of my use, I could appreciate a lite version as well.

If simplifying it, I'd remove the quick range and remove the lower post's 4 mil horizontal reference from each side. I like the upper mil scale and it's location but could likely make due with it being smaller.

I'd be ok going so far as limiting the horizontal axis to 3.5 mil to each side and moving the heavy bars in.

None of that's a requirement for me, or even a suggestion. I don't know the specifics of reticle manufacturing/etching, but I would guess less is easier to manufacture there.

 

[Dobermann]

Either way it’s a forest for the trees situation where we really just want a better hunting reticle not necessarily THAT reticle

I'm all for 'other' better hunting reticles too ... but this thread IS about THAT reticle.

 

[Dobermann]

Speaking of overly busy.. The THLR fits that bill.

If we can get a "THLR lite" without anything above the horizontal crosshair i'd be more excited about it. That said, my opinion would be a lot more valid if i understood what all that stuff was supposed to be used for..

I think Form mentioned it in his write-up, and my short experience so far confirms that the additional information in the reticle disappears in practice. It's quite something to behold in person.

 

[Macintosh]

So maybe an obvious question. Have you considered reaching out to Minox? They have smaller scopes, and they already have the reticle.

Three questions

1) related to the quote. Minox makes (or made?) the same scope in a 3-15ish model. Why not ask them?

Unrelated to the quote:
2) THLR posts here. Has anyone asked him if he knows of anything in the works or if he has suggestions or relevant info?

3) it also looks too big (5-25x, etc) but gunwerx also already has a very similar reticle. Is that an option for any of you? Curious to me why they only offer such a huge scope, but perhaps they have a hunting-sized optic in the works?

 

[DangerRanger]

I'm all for 'other' better hunting reticles too ... but this thread IS about THAT reticle.

My apologies

 

[MT_Wyatt]

I think IF gunwerks makes a smaller/lighter version of their revic 5-25 with that same reticle (it is based on the THLR one, Aaron was talking about Thomas in one of those podcasts he did) AND it’s durable, then we might have a winner. There’s a chance. But I’m not holding my breath on the durable part, or them releasing a 3-15x44 anytime soon. I sure hope they do it though.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

unfortunately gunwerks is addicted to MOA.

 

[Macintosh]

Re: balance from a longer or shorter scope. Moving weight at the end of a lever—ie all the way at the end of the muzzle or all the way at the butt—changes balance and handling noticeably. It takes a LOT of weight to shift balance when you are close to the center where even a long scope is going to sit. I have heard a number of people mention it, but I really question if people would even notice it in a blind test if comparing scopes of even remotely similar weights and footprints. Comparing a 30oz scope to a 9oz scope or iron sights, sure. But comparing a 24oz scope thats 13” to one thats 15”, or a 19oz scope to a 24oz scope, I just dont buy it.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

i've never seen a scope that didn't have the center of gravity in between the scope rings, so any balance change fore and aft is going to be negligible.

 

[NSI]

The length argument is aesthetic, pure and simple. There is no tangible difference to balance. Folks here are happy to use scopes which are 6 oz heavier and which sit 3mm higher off the rifle with regularity. Those changes are far more significant to balance and top-heaviness than a few inches of length.

The Trij 3-18x44 and the ATACR 4-16 in mil-C are the closest things we have to no-compromise scopes right now. The Trij is $1,000 less expensive, has a broader mag range on both ends, and is 6 oz lighter. The choice to me is blindingly clear.

I am hopeful for a Minox 3-15 THLR or a Maven with a good FFP reticle that passes a drop test, or even that new Apex hunter or Revic if they pass our tests.

For now, I'm putting my eggs in the basket of a known quantity and simply going after Trij for a more hunter-friendly reticle in the 3-18. I'm all ears for another rational approach. I gave you everything you need to pursue the strategy in my last post.

-J

 

[Macintosh]

For now, I'm putting my eggs in the basket of a known quantity and simply going after Trij for a more hunter-friendly reticle in the 3-18. I'm all ears for another rational approach. I gave you everything you need to pursue the strategy in my last post.

-J

Your post was spot-on and actionable and could be applied to any of the companies if someone does a little linked-in stalking on the other companies. That strategy makes perfect sense, no quibble from me.
The point I was trying to make earlier still stands though--the proposal at hand is NOT simply asking for a production run of an existing product, a la gap LRHS, it is asking for a specific product change to an existing product, a change that we dont know what costs or issues come with it (contact with THLR seems notably absent from this post). My skepticism has nothing to do with the product or my own reaction to the reticle, it is simply trying to point out that there are surprisingly (shockingly?) large costs associated with what seem like minor changes like this, and as a result I 'll be floored if they come through with it. My suggestions are rooted in what seem to me to be more-likely avenues for getting a version of the scope, ie mainly focused on companies that already have BOTH products (reticle and suitable-footprint scope, ie minox) and asking them to combine those things. Also a long shot, also possibly the wrong way, but from where I sit and with the experience I have in product management I think potentially more likely. No reason that you cant try both avenues, either.