Would you buy this scope?

[The Guide]

This is an artifact of converting from MIL design to MOA. The inverse would equally prove your point the opposite way.

Did the funny bone get fragmented around here? I'm pretty sure the comment @Dobermann made was a tongue in cheek joke. I use both Mils and MOA. I no longer try and buy MOA scopes but when was the last time you saw a basic duplex that had MIL/MIL adjustment? I shoot with a lot of people who only know MOA. When shooting MOA guns and giving them MOA calls, there is a lot more uncertainty on what to dial than there is using MIL scopes and using MIL calls. There is more feedback asking to repeat the call especially if you dont do the rounding for them. I haven't seen a ballistic calculator that gives calls to the .25 MOA. It is always to the 0.1 MOA and that messes with people's minds. I have found that a lot of people suck at rounding. Up 12.7 MOA vs up 3.7 MIL is troublesome for some people. Most people just don't practice enough at long distances to be efficient and competent regardless of the measurement of angle that they use.

Jay

 

[ckt3]

Did the funny bone get fragmented around here? I'm pretty sure the comment @Dobermann made was a tongue in cheek joke. I use both Mils and MOA. I no longer try and buy MOA scopes but when was the last time you saw a basic duplex that had MIL/MIL adjustment? I shoot with a lot of people who only know MOA. When shooting MOA guns and giving them MOA calls, there is a lot more uncertainty on what to dial than there is using MIL scopes and using MIL calls. There is more feedback asking to repeat the call especially if you dont do the rounding for them. I haven't seen a ballistic calculator that gives calls to the .25 MOA. It is always to the 0.1 MOA and that messes with people's minds. I have found that a lot of people suck at rounding. Up 12.7 MOA vs up 3.7 MIL is troublesome for some people. Most people just don't practice enough at long distances to be efficient and competent regardless of the measurement of angle that they use.

Jay

To be honest, I thought this was the other thread for this scope, which is now on its 10th page of a MOA vs mil debate, so I thought the comment above was an earnest critique. I’ve only ever used mil and don’t really care but figured I’d point it out.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I haven't seen a ballistic calculator that gives calls to the .25 MOA. It is always to the 0.1 MOA and that messes with people's minds.
Jay

I almost never look at my Shooter app for my MOA scopes because I never dial them, never shoot them at more than 100 yards, and give them out as loaner rifles. I was mind blown when you pointed this out and i had to go check it.

That’s pretty wild. Quite the oversight in Shooter.

 

[BLJ]

Chairgun is like that.
And if so remember correctly StreLok as well.

4 is 5
8 is 7
3 is 2
1 is 0
9 could also be 0. Depending.

It’s really pretty simple.

 

[HuntHarder]

AB will round to the nearest 1/4moa or .1mil. Choose "Round" vs. "Precise." Just realized my screenshot included my volume bar. "Round" is behind it in the "Hold precision" tab.

 

[Dobermann]

You have way too much time on your hands.

That was @Frozenlead's image, not mine. I just posted it in-line rather than an attachment for those who hadn't clicked on it to see its brilliance ...

 

[Frozenlead]

I figured I’d throw it out there for a laugh since someone beat me to the Mil subtensions. Should have read the other thread first and seen how fast people get spooled up.
For the record I have a mixture of Mil/ MOA, but could really care less what the measurement is if I like the scope and reticle.

 

[Bluumoon]

MInox THLR just showed up. If this scope reticle matches up (as it appears to) I’m immediately struck by how fast my eye centers to POA compared to SWFA/Maven RS 1.2.

 

[eric1115]

I get the joke. But you could just as much design a scope with clean MOA measurements, convert them to awkward mil measurements, and say, “Look how confusing mil is.”

I only use mil btw.

Then you'd be sub-optimal in two languages.

 

[Sled]

Ryan,
I'd like to change my pre-order to plus one.

@Formidilosus @Ryan Avery why not price the new S2H scope closer to competitors like Maven or NF? Don’t get me wrong, I will happily buy one for $999 but if your product is as good or better then why not price it accordingly?

Braaap,
I'll gladly sell you one of mine for $1399

 

[Dobermann]

MInox THLR just showed up. If this scope reticle matches up (as it appears to) I’m immediately struck by how fast my eye centers to POA compared to SWFA/Maven RS 1.2.

Yep.

Do you want to extrapolate on the 'why' of this - so that people in this thread have more of an appreciation about how and why it works?

 

[5MilesBack]

Yep.

Do you want to extrapolate on the 'why' of this - so that people in this thread have more of an appreciation about how and why it works?

Well, from the great Joe Dirt movie........."It just does".

 

[THLR]

@

Appreciate the suggestion, but that’s a hard no. Just the center dot, and that it goes very dim was a requirement from us.


In light low enough that someone needs illumination, they should not be shooting far enough to need windage.
On top of that, illuminating more of the reticle blows out your vision and lose what is behind it.

That’s exactly what you don’t want, it just washes out the image

One tiny red dot, as dim as possible. This is the way.

Yes to all of this. Those opinions are likely shaped by experience. If you need further convincing:

Most of you are motorist; all motorists know the experience of meeting opposite traffic in the dark and not seeing much beyond the other vehicle's headlights.
In the car, the experience is more acute than with an overly illuminated scope reticle, but it's the same mechanism for the eye.

Considering how knowledgable engineers needs to be in order to build a functional scope, I am sometimes baffled at how little thought is given to the shooters biological limitations; clearly they understand optics!

Your sharp vision is created by the fovea, this is only ø1,5-2mm of your eye and contains 150000-200000 light sensitive receptors. The central-most part of this in only ø 0,15-0,35mm, it contains only cones (no rods/no nightvision) and only about 1000* of these creates the image that your brain will convert to a trigger-reflex. An olympic level shooter can discern about a 2mm shift (0,08") at 50 meters in the sight picture or 4mm/100*.

It's the same 1000 receptors used for every shot. These receptors are light sensitive and have limited stamina (wash out). (All of you have at some time done some sort of parlor-trick illusion image thingie, so you have firsthand experience on how your vision can be manipulated, have after images or seeing movement that isn't there. etc etc

So at least from my design perspective this means:
Yes, an illuminated dot makes sense. There are no rods where the eye creates the image for a trigger reflex.

No, excessive lightning is not good. Why do you want to fight against the rod receptors and degrade image quality? You just spent all that money on lenses with >90% light transmission (in a certain wavelenght) and now you will not let the eye use all of that light?

No, tiny aiming dots makes no sense, they are marginal for the eye. A dot large enough to be easily interpreted/easily converted to a trigger reflex makes sense. I went with "half a bullet diameter every side" which gives the HUNTER the impression of placing the bullet exactly on the dot and it gives the EYE a comfortably sized reference to work with.


Of course there might be errors is my reasoning, but the above was my design decisions and it appears that my desired end-result is mirrored in the user experience.

(*Ways of the rifle 2009 - Buhlmann, Reinkemeier, Eckhardt, Murray, Bindra. Page 200)

@Formidilosus love seeing the reticle images. You might as well post a picture at EVERY magnification possible, it is only a matter of time before someone requests it...

 

[atmat]

Then you'd be sub-optimal in two languages.

Spanglish would like to have a word. It’s the optimal language for the southern half of the US.

 

[Formidilosus]

@



Yes to all of this. Those opinions are likely shaped by experience. If you need further convincing:

Most of you are motorist; all motorists know the experience of meeting opposite traffic in the dark and not seeing much beyond the other vehicle's headlights.
In the car, the experience is more acute than with an overly illuminated scope reticle, but it's the same mechanism for the eye.

Considering how knowledgable engineers needs to be in order to build a functional scope, I am sometimes baffled at how little thought is given to the shooters biological limitations; clearly they understand optics!

Your sharp vision is created by the fovea, this is only ø1,5-2mm of your eye and contains 150000-200000 light sensitive receptors. The central-most part of this in only ø 0,15-0,35mm, it contains only cones (no rods/no nightvision) and only about 1000* of these creates the image that your brain will convert to a trigger-reflex. An olympic level shooter can discern about a 2mm shift (0,08") at 50 meters in the sight picture or 4mm/100*.

It's the same 1000 receptors used for every shot. These receptors are light sensitive and have limited stamina (wash out). (All of you have at some time done some sort of parlor-trick illusion image thingie, so you have firsthand experience on how your vision can be manipulated, have after images or seeing movement that isn't there. etc etc

So at least from my design perspective this means:
Yes, an illuminated dot makes sense. There are no rods where the eye creates the image for a trigger reflex.

No, excessive lightning is not good. Why do you want to fight against the rod receptors and degrade image quality? You just spent all that money on lenses with >90% light transmission (in a certain wavelenght) and now you will not let the eye use all of that light?

No, tiny aiming dots makes no sense, they are marginal for the eye. A dot large enough to be easily interpreted/easily converted to a trigger reflex makes sense. I went with "half a bullet diameter every side" which gives the HUNTER the impression of placing the bullet exactly on the dot and it gives the EYE a comfortably sized reference to work with.


Of course there might be errors is my reasoning, but the above was my design decisions and it appears that my desired end-result is mirrored in the user experience.

(*Ways of the rifle 2009 - Buhlmann, Reinkemeier, Eckhardt, Murray, Bindra. Page 200)

Thank you for that.

@Formidilosus love seeing the reticle images. You might as well post a picture at EVERY magnification possible, it is only a matter of time before someone requests it...

Haha. Yes sir, I suppose.

 

[Gstew1930]

@



Yes to all of this. Those opinions are likely shaped by experience. If you need further convincing:

Most of you are motorist; all motorists know the experience of meeting opposite traffic in the dark and not seeing much beyond the other vehicle's headlights.
In the car, the experience is more acute than with an overly illuminated scope reticle, but it's the same mechanism for the eye.

Considering how knowledgable engineers needs to be in order to build a functional scope, I am sometimes baffled at how little thought is given to the shooters biological limitations; clearly they understand optics!

Your sharp vision is created by the fovea, this is only ø1,5-2mm of your eye and contains 150000-200000 light sensitive receptors. The central-most part of this in only ø 0,15-0,35mm, it contains only cones (no rods/no nightvision) and only about 1000* of these creates the image that your brain will convert to a trigger-reflex. An olympic level shooter can discern about a 2mm shift (0,08") at 50 meters in the sight picture or 4mm/100*.

It's the same 1000 receptors used for every shot. These receptors are light sensitive and have limited stamina (wash out). (All of you have at some time done some sort of parlor-trick illusion image thingie, so you have firsthand experience on how your vision can be manipulated, have after images or seeing movement that isn't there. etc etc

So at least from my design perspective this means:
Yes, an illuminated dot makes sense. There are no rods where the eye creates the image for a trigger reflex.

No, excessive lightning is not good. Why do you want to fight against the rod receptors and degrade image quality? You just spent all that money on lenses with >90% light transmission (in a certain wavelenght) and now you will not let the eye use all of that light?

No, tiny aiming dots makes no sense, they are marginal for the eye. A dot large enough to be easily interpreted/easily converted to a trigger reflex makes sense. I went with "half a bullet diameter every side" which gives the HUNTER the impression of placing the bullet exactly on the dot and it gives the EYE a comfortably sized reference to work with.


Of course there might be errors is my reasoning, but the above was my design decisions and it appears that my desired end-result is mirrored in the user experience.

(*Ways of the rifle 2009 - Buhlmann, Reinkemeier, Eckhardt, Murray, Bindra. Page 200)

@Formidilosus love seeing the reticle images. You might as well post a picture at EVERY magnification possible, it is only a matter of time before someone requests it...

that was an really neat explanation

 

[1000yards]

Yes to all of this. Those opinions are likely shaped by experience.

It's a very recent realization for me. I've been hunting hogs my whole life, using thermals for the past few years, and only recently started using day scopes around the full moon (partly for the challenge and partly as an experiment, and I still use a thermal spotter to identify my targets and whatever might be behind it). There's very little room for subjectivity because it's immediately apparent what is usable or not. Fully illuminated reticles do not work for all the reasons you stated, and the best glass in the world will not work if the reticle is weak or washed out by excessive illumination. I know I'm preaching to the choir, I just wanted to share how I got here.