The wind holds can be simplified to what is felt and observed in vegetation i believe. It's based on estimating light, medium, strong wind. At least that's what I gather.
I’ll buy it…All good.
And here's something weird: I thought I'd got rid of all of my LRTS/LRHS 3-12s, and had always regretted it. But when tidying up the man cave/gun room today, I found an LRTS 3-12 in FDE. Now I have no idea what to do with it - feels like it's been surpassed by the Maven RS 1.2, and no doubt will be by the new Rokslide venture ... but I'm really not sure what I'd do with it ...
Don't get caught up on the m/s issue.Hey Form. Hope you’re having a good New Year’s Eve. No rush to respond on this.
I was thinking about the THLR reticle and the new scope you guys are developing. I like Thomas’ stuff and enjoy his videos, but struggle a bit with the meters per second wind holds. I can do the math, but it’s an extra step for a gringo Norte Americano who thinks in MPH. I’m curious if this new THLR-type reticle would continue with the wind holds in meters per second that Thomas used in the original, convert it to MPH, or would it do away with that and use a standard mil scale on the windage axis? Are you at a point where you can talk about this?
I hear you. But from a marketing standpoint, I doubt a reticle in mps would do all that well with other Norte Americanos who might be as good or worse than me at math. I get that 1 mps is about 2.4 mph and 2 mps is darned near 5 mph, 3 mps is a bit over 7 mph, etc.Don't get caught up on the m/s issue.
While it's true that the USA is backwards in insisting in 'Imperial' measurements (c'mon, 1776 was a long time ago!), the markings in the THLR reticle are also in mils.
And as @HingleMcCringleberry said above, Thomas shows how to estimate based on vegetation movement. Won't work for all situations, but where it is relevant, the fact that it's in metres doesn't really matter - just think of 'X observation equals 2', 'Y equals 3' etc, and go for it. Or just go for light, medium, and strong.
Hey Form. Hope you’re having a good New Year’s Eve. No rush to respond on this.
I was thinking about the THLR reticle and the new scope you guys are developing. I like Thomas’ stuff and enjoy his videos, but struggle a bit with the meters per second wind holds. I can do the math, but it’s an extra step for a gringo Norte Americano who thinks in MPH. I’m curious if this new THLR-type reticle would continue with the wind holds in meters per second that Thomas used in the original, convert it to MPH, or would it do away with that and use a standard mil scale on the windage axis? Are you at a point where you can talk about this?
I so much want to believe this to be true ...Sometimes we actually have to gauge wind speed out here by how fast your dog’s lips are flapping. We actually train for this by watching the dog when he’s got his head out the truck window at known speeds.
I’m sure I’m over thinking it. But speed is supposed to be the point of the reticle. When I listen to Thomas talk about dealing with wind, my brain hangs up on the conversion just to make sense of it. If his reticle said light, medium and heavy wind, my brain would have an easier time with it than 1, 2, 3 mps.The THLR is a pure mil reticle. The only way you know about the light/medium/heavy winds is if you learn it. That he lines it out at mps doesn’t really mean anything.
Maybe we can get Form to adjust that THLR reticle to include low, medium, high, “flp-flp-flp-flp”? Much past that, the wind starts picking up the dirt and you get grit in your teeth. A few years ago, I was out with a rancher during a full-on, 0-visibility dust storm. When we got back to the truck, he said, “You know, days like this just take all the romance out of being a cowboy.”I so much want to believe this to be true ...
aaand ,... what Form said. Which is pretty much what I said. Which might be the first time it's happened in that order!
I’m sure I’m over thinking it. But speed is supposed to be the point of the reticle. When I listen to Thomas talk about dealing with wind, my brain hangs up on the conversion just to make sense of it. If his reticle said light, medium and heavy wind, my brain would have an easier time with it than 1, 2, 3 mps.
Yes, and you’re correct. I was misinterpreting it. Thanks. There’s a lot going on in this reticle. If it has a downside, it’s the complexity.Are you referring to the portion I have highlighted on the reticle? If so that is for moving targets, which is in meters per second. The wind brackets are different
View attachment 814836
Yes, and you’re correct. I was misinterpreting it. Thanks. There’s a lot going on in this reticle. If it has a downside, it’s the complexity.
Washington Monument, draws / helps eye to center up target initially.is there some easy highly functional capability of the thlr reticle that I'm missing?
Don't get caught up on the m/s issue.
While it's true that the USA is backwards in insisting in 'Imperial' measurements (c'mon, 1776 was a long time ago!), the markings in the THLR reticle are also in mils.
...using the metric system.those who put a man on the moon.
"A gross physical salute to the fantastic possibilities of life in this country."There are two types of countries in the world:
Those who use metric, and those who put a man on the moon.
Now, pardon me while I go eat some bacon while driving my diesel to the gun range to shoot machineguns, while listening to some Lee Greenwood.
There are two types of countries in the world:
Those who use metric, and those who put a man on the moon.
Now, pardon me while I go eat some bacon while driving my diesel to the gun range to shoot machineguns, while listening to some Lee Greenwood.
"A gross physical salute to the fantastic possibilities of life in this country."
The moon landing was faked