Would you buy this scope?

[Dobermann]

I can't really see a need to make it any more complex than the maven rs1.2 mil.reticle. is there some easy highly functional capability of the thlr reticle that I'm missing?

Yes.

 

[ElPollo]

Yes ... and ... some of that complexity disappears when you're focussed on the most important parts / the mil aspects that are most relevant if you want that to be how you use it.

Check out Form's eval, where he shows this visually - there's a post that reads something like 'and here's what you see in use'.

Then, if there are other aspects that you want to use, you train up for those via research (Rokslide has become the single-best repository of this information); dryfire and/or target use; field use. Like anything new and complex, it becomes easier with time.

And again - you can just ignore it all, and use the mil marks. But the full functionality of the complete THLR reticle is pretty special.

Bear in mind that it was created in part with military application in mind (the first videos showed this use, but I think have been pulled down); the benefit of a simplified version will be reduced elements for hunting, but might remove some of the wider precision / field / DMR / mil long range applications. (Another reason to grab a ZP5 before they're discontinued, if you want those options ... we've focussed here on how the THLR is one of the best hunting reticles around; it's clear applications in military and analogous uses is highly underrated (probably more underrated than the hunting applications). If we lived in a sensible world, the military wouldn't be using that 'abomination of a reticle', as Caylen recently called the Tremor, but the THLR - far more field-useable functionality.

@Dobermann and @Formidilosus —My initial question was based on a misunderstanding of the reticle. I recognize that It has a lot of functionality, but there is also just a lot going on within it. My understanding was that Ryan and Form were going for something similar, but simplified. I was just trying to figure out what a simplified THLR-type reticle might look like.

 

[Dobermann]

@Dobermann and @Formidilosus —My initial question was based on a misunderstanding of the reticle. I recognize that It has a lot of functionality, but there is also just a lot going on within it. My understanding was that Ryan and Form were going for something similar, but simplified. I was just trying to figure out what a simplified THLR-type reticle might look like.

I think Form discussed some options for simplifying it in either the eval thread or the Q&A thread ... have you re-looked at those? Might give some clues.

 

[MT_Wyatt]

I think simplified THLR reticle looks exactly like what Gunwerks put in those heavy ass revic scopes they released. I believe they collaborated with Thomas on doing that, and they sure seem like they got it right.

 

[Dobermann]

I think simplified THLR reticle looks exactly like what Gunwerks put in those heavy ass revic scopes they released. I believe they collaborated with Thomas on doing that, and they sure seem like they got it right.

I think there were some compromises ... Thomas speaks about it obliquely on one or two interviews. I'm confident that this new scope will be more likely to do it better.

 

[Formidilosus]

I was just trying to figure out what a simplified THLR-type reticle might look like.

It looks good. grin

I’ll show it when I can.

 

[greyghostnw]

NF MOAR about as complex and simple one needs for hunting.

 

[ElPollo]

I think Form discussed some options for simplifying it in either the eval thread or the Q&A thread ... have you re-looked at those? Might give some clues.

Thanks. I went back through the eval thread last night. It’s a pretty good run through of how to use the reticle.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

I think there were some compromises ... Thomas speaks about it obliquely on one or two interviews. I'm confident that this new scope will be more likely to do it better.

I believe the primary concession was it being in MOA.

 

[Dobermann]

I believe the primary concession was it being in MOA.

That was the main one, yes. And I got the sense that he didn't feel he could say too much more about it ... but he did point out that the final design choices were clearly theirs, not his. FWIW.

 

[Dobermann]

Thanks. I went back through the eval thread last night. It’s a pretty good run through of how to use the reticle.

It's a great overview - a lot of work to put it together, and a real service to us all.

 

[Tlwebb15]

I would want an illuminated reticle but everything else sounds solid

 

[prm]

If it’s just an illuminated dot, fine. Though I can live with no illumination if it has heavy bars that aren’t too far apart. Not sure how much $$ illumination adds.

 

[Okie_Poke]

All:

It’s a serious question from Ryan. This is not just a feeler post. No presale or other nonsense.


If a 3-12x40’ish mil/mil scope was offered that was consistently reliable and durable, was tested heavily, had multiple reticles that were truly usable/visible from 3-12x, a good/great eyebox and DOF, low profile zero stop elevation and capped windage; and was under $1,500- would you buy it?

Yes…. But for $1500 I would hope it has:
locking elevation turret
extremely low profile capped windage
Center dot crosshair
44mm objective
30mm tube

This. (I'm hoping/expecting the center dot will be illuminated like the Minox THLR).

I know I'm late to the party here, but I'd likely buy one if it checked all the boxes. $1500 is more than I've ever spent on a scope, but I've considered buying the Maven at $1200 and have purchased several scopes in that $1,000 range. My main problem with the Maven is it's weight. Ditto the Tenmile, though its cost is probably a bigger issue and I really don't want/need 18x on the top end. I would happily trade the magnifiation to save weight and cost.

A 20ish oz 2-10 or 3-12 with an ffp reticle purpose-designed for hunting from 25 to 5/600 yards would be the ticket. The Mark 4 came close in my mind, though I would prefer a 3-12 over the 2.5-10. I would pay a little more to have the assurance it passes the drop test, and a better, purpose-designed reticle would be nice. So, I hope you guys nail this thing.

 

[omicron1792]

Maybe a stupid question.

When you use mil do you also use meters instead of yards? Do you zero at 109 yards (100 meters)?

 

[fwafwow]

Maybe a stupid question.

When you use mil do you also use meters instead of yards? Do you zero at 109 yards (100 meters)?

Nope

 

[Dobermann]

Maybe a stupid question.

When you use mil do you also use meters instead of yards? Do you zero at 109 yards (100 meters)?

Not a stupid question, per se, but has been answered many times here.

Short answer is no.

Have you read this thread? That will get you started: https://rokslide.com/forums/threads...cope-reticle-turrets-and-proper-usage.315942/

 

[Okie_Poke]

Maybe a stupid question.

When you use mil do you also use meters instead of yards? Do you zero at 109 yards (100 meters)?

No. Zero at whatever you want and put it in your ballistic solver. Mils are metric in the sense that they are base 10 (like the U.S. $) but that's about it. The reticle is just a ruler. Mils are an angular unit of measure that corresponds to 1 mil = 1x at 1,000x (1 yard at 1,000 yards; 1 meter at 1,000 meters; 1 mile at 1,000 miles; 1 inch at 1,000 inches).

 

[omicron1792]

So my question then becomes.

If you use meters then everything is base 10. Easy peasy.

If you use yards you still have to calculate change to yards. So how does that offer advantage over moa?

 

[RockAndSage]

So my question then becomes.

If you use meters then everything is base 10. Easy peasy.

If you use yards you still have to calculate change to yards. So how does that offer advantage over moa?

No - you're measuring in mils. As in, "Come left two mils" - as you both see it in your optics. Whatever distance you're shooting at, that 2 mils is still two mills in the scope.