If you used a CR 2354 battery instead of the current one you would extend battery life by 2-4X thats up to FOUR TIMES the current amount (depending on battery brands and such) and it would only be a battery 2.2 mm taller and 3 mm larger in diameter.  The battery would cost twice as much but deliver 2-4X the run time.  Thats an acceptable trade off IMO and I think run time is going to be peoples biggest concern if there is no auto shut off after 6 hours like the S&B unit.

I volunteer to submerge the test unit.

I have to say I prefer the plain, heavy short stadia in the proposed reticle pic over the triangles.  I guess those of us not using 55 grain ammo could still use the hash marks to dermine range by bracketing targets in them.  For those that are concerned the stadia wornt track that could be true of any different load and time of year.  Results will be different NATO vs SAAMI pressure and 14.5" vs 16" and Summer vs Winter and sea level vs high altitude.  We all will need to shoot the scope in the field and judge the impact and relative hold from stadia needed for ourselves.  I think a 75 grain calibratred version would be suprisingly popular though.  If not then oh well as I dont shoot carbines past 200 yards anyway as the difference will be too great for precision work at over 300 yards.

Quoted: Ok so what about it exactly are you reviewing? electronics, weight, battery life, things that can be seen in the scope regardless of the reticle. It's not the final version, and thats the one were all interested inyes. It's a good review of the optic in it's current form, but thats all it is. And so what will be changed besides the reticle? The more I've been thinking about this the more this doesn't make sence.It makes sense to some of us. Not a knock on you greywolf2112, but it does seem to be an exercise in futility. It doesn't tell me how well the proposed retical's BDC works, or how well the ranging aspects of the retical work or how accurate you can be with them. It doesn't tell me how well the BDC tracks with heavy ammoI'm not aware of ANY scope that has a dual bullet weight BDC reticle.(I noticed someplace you said that it was going to be done for 55gr ammo). Thats all info that is really what I want to get out of a review of this optic. (Some of us don't want the same thing, and WE understand this is a product in development.)Thats not possible till the final version of the optic is done. I really hope they send you one of those as well when they have them done, so we can get a review of the optic in it's final format. Thats going to be more informative than what we can get from reviews of the optic they sent you. I mean what if the BDC doesn't track with the ammo right? what if there are bugs with the retical thats being designed for it, wouldn't it be better to have those found durring initial reviews of the optics than found out after you've sold a couple hundred of them? At least at that stage we'll know that the REST of the scope is GTG and we don't have to mess with it.  I don't mind us taking it one step at a time.

Quoted: Ok so what about it exactly are you reviewing? It's not the final version, and thats the one were all interested in. It's a good review of the optic in it's current form, but thats all it is. The more I've been thinking about this the more this doesn't make sence. Not a knock on you greywolf2112, but it does seem to be an exercise in futility. It doesn't tell me how well the proposed retical's BDC works, or how well the ranging aspects of the retical work or how accurate you can be with them. It doesn't tell me how well the BDC tracks with heavy ammo(I noticed someplace you said that it was going to be done for 55gr ammo). Thats all info that is really what I want to get out of a review of this optic. Thats not possible till the final version of the optic is done. I really hope they send you one of those as well when they have them done, so we can get a review of the optic in it's final format. Thats going to be more informative than what we can get from reviews of the optic they sent you. I mean what if the BDC doesn't track with the ammo right? what if there are bugs with the retical thats being designed for it, wouldn't it be better to have those found durring initial reviews of the optics than found out after you've sold a couple hundred of them?

That is basically what I said before and I got dumped on.  You can go back and forth with reticle changes and other spec changes and never get this thing to market.  There is already a market for this type of scope.  IF one can be put out there for 1/3 to 1/8 the cost of the others, well, you do the math.  You aren't going to be able to make all of the people happy all of the time.  The best you can do is try to make the optic in a configuration that appeals to the widest possible group of users.

If the reticle is essentially a holographic projection, is it relatively easy and inexpensive to change (sort of like the OKO's that offer multiple reticles)?  If it is, why not just put the scope out there and see what the market tells you?  If it is "easy" enough to change the reticle and offer a general purpose version and a "tactical" version, then do both.  For a general purpose optic, are BDC and rangefinding really all that necessary?  If your not shooting the ammo it was set up for or shooting at people, probably not.

As Ridge stated we are taking a current design and retro-fitting it. Although they look similar there is a huge difference in the two, one being the new illumination system that will be used. According to the factory they developed this new system and I'm not sure if anyone else is usng it or even aware of it yet. The new system opens up a new door in illuminated technology in a "variable" power scope.
I will be posting some new projected reticle idea shortly and we would like to get some feedback on them.

I would also like to state that I did weigh the scope I have here and it is 13.7oz

Cuz

Quoted: As Ridge stated we are taking a current design and retro-fitting it. Although they look similar there is a huge difference in the two, one being the new illumination system that will be used. According to the factory they developed this new system and I'm not sure if anyone else is usng it or even aware of it yet. The new system opens up a new door in illuminated technology. I will be posting some new projected reticle idea shortly and we would like to get some feedback on them. I would also like to state that I did weigh the scope I have here and it is 13.7oz Cuz

No problem.  Just wanted an answer.  Trust me I'll be picking up one of these scopes when available!

It happens to be a great way to cut down on overhead and pass us the savings.

also zoom dial tabs rule!

Quoted: also zoom dial tabs rule!

For Sure and already in the works Cuz

Quoted: Quoted: Ok so what about it exactly are you reviewing? electronics, weight, battery life, things that can be seen in the scope regardless of the reticle. It's not the final version, and thats the one were all interested inyes. It's a good review of the optic in it's current form, but thats all it is. And so what will be changed besides the reticle? The more I've been thinking about this the more this doesn't make sence.It makes sense to some of us. Not a knock on you greywolf2112, but it does seem to be an exercise in futility. It doesn't tell me how well the proposed retical's BDC works, or how well the ranging aspects of the retical work or how accurate you can be with them. It doesn't tell me how well the BDC tracks with heavy ammoI'm not aware of ANY scope that has a dual bullet weight BDC reticle.(I noticed someplace you said that it was going to be done for 55gr ammo). Thats all info that is really what I want to get out of a review of this optic. (Some of us don't want the same thing, and WE understand this is a product in development.)Thats not possible till the final version of the optic is done. I really hope they send you one of those as well when they have them done, so we can get a review of the optic in it's final format. Thats going to be more informative than what we can get from reviews of the optic they sent you. I mean what if the BDC doesn't track with the ammo right? what if there are bugs with the retical thats being designed for it, wouldn't it be better to have those found durring initial reviews of the optics than found out after you've sold a couple hundred of them? At least at that stage we'll know that the REST of the scope is GTG and we don't have to mess with it.  I don't mind us taking it one step at a time.

electronics, weight, battery life, things that can be seen in the scope regardless of the reticle

True, but with a retical that is lit up in more places then the one he is testing, that will effect the battery life, so there will be a diferance, unless only the center dot is illuminated in the final version. As to the rest of it, pick up a spec sheet, all the rest of that info is on a spec sheet. and has been posted before.

And so what will be changed besides the reticle?

Thats the point most of the other stuff will be the same, I could care less about the rest of the scope if it's not the final version with the actual retical yer not telling me anyting that showing me the specs can't tell me. I want to know how it works with that retical thats what I'm interested in. I use a 1-4 variable on my AR as is, always have always will. So what makes this thing better than the one I use currently, what sets it apart? right now nothing but a illuminated dot. Thats the reason for a review of the optic as it will be, not with a temporary retical.

I'm not aware of ANY scope that has a dual bullet weight BDC reticle

Notice I said it would be nice to know how a heavier bullet will track based on the BDC lines that are based on a 55gr bullets ballistics, as in where will a 68gr bullet hit at say 200 yards compared to a what the BDC mark is, the BDC mark is calibrated for 55gr ammo, that was posted in another thread. Where will it hit at 300 compared to the 300BDC mark in the retical? what about at 500?. I didn't say it was calibrated for two types of ammo, I asked what the differeances in POA/POI would be when using heavier ammo. Thats something you won't know till you have the final version in hand to review.
The other thing is that this optic was envisioned for 3gun and military type use, the military doesn't use a 55gr bullet, and I'm sure a lot of people that shoot 3 gun do use 55gr bullets, but others use the heavy bullets as well. If I was thinking about getting this optic and I was in the military, I'd want to know how the BDC tracks with a 62gr bullet at the minimum, and maybe, just maybe with the Mk262 round as well.

Some of us don't want the same thing, and WE understand this is a product in development.

I understand that too thats why I bring this stuff up. I don't think anyone but greywolf2112 wants to see this optic hit the market more than me, but as I use this type of optic on my gun as my primary sight system, I have concerns related to that, I bring them up here because now is the time to bring them up. I don't bring this shit up to be a dick. Testing a product in development is fine, but when it comes to a scope, not testing it with the retical thats going to be used is pointless, unless your doing prelim durability testing to test the tube and the glass.

Quoted: As Ridge stated we are taking a current design and retro-fitting it. Although they look similar there is a huge difference in the two, one being the new illumination system that will be used. According to the factory they developed this new system and I'm not sure if anyone else is usng it or even aware of it yet. The new system opens up a new door in illuminated technology in a "variable" power scope. I will be posting some new projected reticle idea shortly and we would like to get some feedback on them. I would also like to state that I did weigh the scope I have here and it is 13.7oz Cuz

Cool to hear Cuz. Can't wait to see the retical ideas.  I do have on question though, why use 55gr ballistics for the reticals BDC?

Good responses photoman, though I do have to comment on the amount of lighting used for the reticle, and the BDC, since these two are to me, and I believe to you, the most important things (battery life, and hitting the target).  

Reticle, I don't think there will be much of a difference in the battery usage since the reticle will be etched and the light "flow" on the reticle will be "fiber optic" like?  I may be totaly wrong, but that is just my take.  I base this on the fact that the reticle doesn't move around like a holo style, or projected beam.

BDC, it seems to me that the function of the BDC for the heavier stuff will be the same as any other BDC set up for 55gr, or whatever the decide.  Sure, if they fuck up the reticle for the 55gr we are tits up anyway, but I don't understand the concern for the heavier bullets as any other reticle with 55gr settings will be exactly the same relative to the heavier bullets.  (I feel like I just talked in a circle.)

ETA:  Photo, this scope is NOT intended for the military market, that was stated at the beginning of the thread.  Sorry for any misunderstanding.

These people, not the U.S. military, are the types of customers that Mueller is interested in.

Quoted: Good responses photoman, though I do have to comment on the amount of lighting used for the reticle, and the BDC, since these two are to me, and I believe to you, the most important things (battery life, and hitting the target).   Reticle, I don't think there will be much of a difference in the battery usage since the reticle will be etched and the light "flow" on the reticle will be "fiber optic" like?  I may be totaly wrong, but that is just my take.  I base this on the fact that the reticle doesn't move around like a holo style, or projected beam. BDC, it seems to me that the function of the BDC for the heavier stuff will be the same as any other BDC set up for 55gr, or whatever the decide.  Sure, if they fuck up the reticle for the 55gr we are tits up anyway, but I don't understand the concern for the heavier bullets as any other reticle with 55gr settings will be exactly the same relative to the heavier bullets.  (I feel like I just talked in a circle.) ETA:  Photo, this scope is NOT intended for the military market, that was stated at the beginning of the thread.  Sorry for any misunderstanding. These people, not the U.S. military, are the types of customers that Mueller is interested in.

My concern with the BDC for heavy bullets is that while I have a tendency to shoot 62gr for practice, all my serious ammo be it for hunting or personal defense is all 60-75gr ammo.  I don't run 55gr ammo if I can help it. Same with  the few guys I know that run 3gun. They shoot 68-75-77gr ammo. none of them use 55gr.

I didn't catch that military comment in the first post, I know in a couple of the other threads potential use by military personnel was discussed. Not that they were going to try and get a contract but more along the lines of somone might figure hey this would work nice for this and I can afford it type thing.

From all the feedback I have been getting and all the research I have found so far, the 55gr seems to be the most commonly used, even by Varmint hunters. I believe Chuck Hawks wrote up a good article on the common 55gr load too..
I cant give the full details on exatly how the illumination system works but its not glass etched and shake doenst effect the dot like a hologrphic type. Its actually pretty unique in its own way. I'm not sure if illuminating more will effect the battery life, that's still something that needs to be looked into..

Cuz

Quoted: From all the feedback I have been getting and all the research I have found so far, the 55gr seems to be the most commonly used, even by Varmint hunters. I believe Chuck Hawks wrote up a good article on the common 55gr load too.. I cant give the full details on exatly how the illumination system works but its not glass etched and shake doenst effect the dot like a hologrphic type. Its actually pretty unique in its own way. I'm not sure if illuminating more will effect the battery life, that's still something that needs to be looked into.. Cuz

Thanks for the info.

Makes sence than to do it based on the 55gr round than. Is there a possibility that there could be one done for heavier ammo, not right away but at a later date?

Quoted: From all the feedback I have been getting and all the research I have found so far, the 55gr seems to be the most commonly used, even by Varmint hunters. I believe Chuck Hawks wrote up a good article on the common 55gr load too.. I cant give the full details on exatly how the illumination system works but its not glass etched and shake doenst effect the dot like a hologrphic type. Its actually pretty unique in its own way. I'm not sure if illuminating more will effect the battery life, that's still something that needs to be looked into.. Cuz

This makes no sense at all. M193 is not a varmint load and varmint 55 grain ballistic tip loads have a different BC than 55 grain FMJ so the demarcations will be off.  If you wont do 55 grain FMJ your making a big mistake... at least it wioll satisfy the armchair commandos who will never use it but like cool toys.  Noone will shoot 300-500 yards with M193 for competitions.  More people will use 75 grain ammo for that.  Who has stated 55 grain is used for competing at 300-500 yards?

I think as time goes on from the first release, we will get alot of feedback which could be implimented into either an updated version or a second model, maybe even a whole line.

Reticle samples will be listed in a few minutes

I'm not Mueller, but I'm pretty sure they will make the BDC work with the most common load of 5.56.  Just a guess mind you.

Keep in mind the black portion of the reticle will not iluminate. I didnt list any reticle substentions but the BDC is still the same.
Dot is still 1moa

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle4.jpg

I'll be back later to read some of the feedback.
Thanks in advance
Cuz

I've got some love for the third one down.

Quoted: Keep in mind the black portion of the reticle will not iluminate. I didnt list any reticle substentions but the BDC is still the same. Dot is still 1moa img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle1.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle2.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle3.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle4.jpg I'll be back later to read some of the feedback. Thanks in advance Cuz

Is the dot a consistant 1 MOA at all power settings?

The black portions of the retical that NEED to light up are the ones used as hold over aimpoints for the BDC, it is a must that they are illuminated.

Same with anything used for ranging, it must be illuminated or it will be of no use in low/no light.

Other than that just waiting to see what the measurements are on the different parts of the retical.

Quoted: I've got some love for the third one down.

Huge +1

Quoted: I'm not Mueller, but I'm pretty sure they will make the BDC work with the most common load of 5.56.  Just a guess mind you.

But why use the most common load of 5.56 for 300-500 yard demarcations instead of the most common load ACTUALLY USED at 300-500 yards?

Quoted: Quoted: Keep in mind the black portion of the reticle will not iluminate. I didnt list any reticle substentions but the BDC is still the same. Dot is still 1moa img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle1.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle2.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle3.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle4.jpg I'll be back later to read some of the feedback. Thanks in advance Cuz Is the dot a consistant 1 MOA at all power settings? The black portions of the retical that NEED to light up are the ones used as hold over aimpoints for the BDC, it is a must that they are illuminated. Same with anything used for ranging, it must be illuminated or it will be of no use in low/no light. Other than that just waiting to see what the measurements are on the different parts of the retical.

You mean to tell me you are going to take shots in the dark with M193 at 500 yards and actually expect to hit something?  Not gonna happen.  How would you even see a target and be able to range it at 500 yards?  The BAC ACOGs dont have lit range marks and do fine.

that is a good point, though I would have to ask how many people would actually use your thought process.  I agree with you, mind you.  I would think that the casual shooter (one of the targeted consumers) isn't going to be specializing in this type of shooting.  And the 3 gun guys just want hits, not MOA, will the BC be THAT far off?  I don't precision shoot the 223 so I can't say.  I do the .308 stuff myself for precision stuff.

55 grain to 77 grain difference is several inches at 300 yards, enough to miss a prone target completely.  You can hold off but it gets worse at further distances.

I have a question abou tthe reticle...

If clutter is such an issue and the reticle is etched and not wire why does the vertical post extend all the way to the bottom of the scopes FOV?  The ACOG does not have this extended line except on its crosshair scopes.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Keep in mind the black portion of the reticle will not iluminate. I didnt list any reticle substentions but the BDC is still the same. Dot is still 1moa img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle1.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle2.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle3.jpg img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle4.jpg I'll be back later to read some of the feedback. Thanks in advance Cuz Is the dot a consistant 1 MOA at all power settings? The black portions of the retical that NEED to light up are the ones used as hold over aimpoints for the BDC, it is a must that they are illuminated. Same with anything used for ranging, it must be illuminated or it will be of no use in low/no light. Other than that just waiting to see what the measurements are on the different parts of the retical. You mean to tell me you are going to take shots in the dark with M193 at 500 yards and actually expect to hit something?  Not gonna happen.  How would you even see a target and be able to range it at 500 yards?  The BAC ACOGs dont have lit range marks and do fine.

Fisrt iff thats an ACOG, I don't care about an ACOG because I don't use them as my optics. Second I do shoot at night, and don't use M193 at all, ever. I like to be able to see my BDC lines at night and in low light. It helps when they are illuminated, they don't have to be as bright as the main aimpoint, but they need illumination on them.  And the one time I did shoot an ACOG at night, I really did wish I could see the BDC marks better. It might not be a problem for you, but everyones eyes are different.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm not Mueller, but I'm pretty sure they will make the BDC work with the most common load of 5.56.  Just a guess mind you. But why use the most common load of 5.56 for 300-500 yard demarcations instead of the most common load ACTUALLY USED at 300-500 yards?

Totaly agree.

Quoted: Quoted: I've got some love for the third one down. Huge +1

HUGER +1!
"HUGER"?!


Rich

This sums up why I'm not a fan of BDC optics.  They are only going to be valid for a given round fired from a given barrel length with the scope mounted a given height above the boreline.  I'd rather have a simple duplex reticle that I can use magnified for precision work, a bright Aimpoint-style dot or EOTech-style circle dot that I can use fast at 1x magnification and then I'll figure out the holdovers for my rifle and ammo.

Of the 4 reticles shown above I like 1 and 3 the best.  

No suprise which reticle I like the best .  I just think #1 would be faster for CQB without using the illumination.

Although I could live with #3  (would like the lines at 9,12,3 a little thicker).

I also agree that the bottom line doesn't need to go all the way to the bottom of the scope.


As far as illuminating the BDC, this would be very difficult to do increasing cost, and would only be useful for a small percentage of people that would use the scope. But it would be very cool (especially with NV).

Also with the BDC, everyone has their pet loads and it is going to be pretty difficult to please everyone. I think the safest route would be to use the most common round. I have many different loads for many applications so I'm probably screwed either way. Whatever it ends up being would probably be fine with me.

I'm still looking into it but I believe the BDC will also work for the following:

.243 100 grain
.270 150 grain
7mm Mags 175 grain
30-06 165 grain

The dot size is 1moa @ 100yds on 4x and being that the reticle is on the SFP, it will appear larger on a lower power. If you have ever seen a 1moa dot on 1x, it looks like a micro-spot on the lens.

Dev, I suspect the line goes to the bottom as it might have something to do with the illum, if you will notice the illumed part always connects.  Just a thought, and why I speculated on the fiber optic possibility.  

Quoted: This sums up why I'm not a fan of BDC optics.  They are only going to be valid for a given round fired from a given barrel length with the scope mounted a given height above the boreline.  I'd rather have a simple duplex reticle that I can use magnified for precision work, a bright Aimpoint-style dot or EOTech-style circle dot that I can use fast at 1x magnification and then I'll figure out the holdovers for my rifle and ammo. Of the 4 reticles shown above I like 1 and 3 the best.

I agree, If anything I would be more interested in mils rather than BDC.

Then you can taylor your ret. to your specific load and use it for ranging any size target.

Either way, it's not going to be a deal breaker for me.

75 grain ammo matches up with .308 well and I think thats a huge market.  168 grain BTHP match .308 (the most common accurate long range loading for 300-500 yards in .308) will mate virtually identically with 75 grain .223 ammo ballistics.

Quoted: 75 grain ammo matches up with .308 well and I think thats a huge market.

Fact is, 73 (not that BH is making it anymore ), 75, and 77 gr will shoot VERY close (within 1.5" or so) to each other out to 600 yards.  If that matches up with 168 gr .308...

Back to the topic: I like reticles 1 & 3.

My vote goes for 1 or 3, although I agree that the lines in three could be a little thicker.

I think 1 is a better CQB reticle is you lose illum., that's really the only thing.

The BDC is not a big deal for me.

Good point about the mil-dots!

Quoted: I've got some love for the third one down.

I like the third one down as well, though I wonder if the N, E, and W posts coming off the circle should be illuminated when turned on - what do you all think?

And I like DevL's idea of getting rid of the bottom 1/3 of the non-illuminated post - it does clutter up and get in the way of the FOV, and adds nothing at all to the ability to range, etc.

As I think more about it, put mils on the vetical post and either #1 as it is or #3 with thicker lines, and I could be very happy with such a reticle.

Quoted: 75 grain ammo matches up with .308 well and I think thats a huge market.  168 grain BTHP match .308 (the most common accurate long range loading for 300-500 yards in .308) will mate virtually identically with 75 grain .223 ammo ballistics.

Whoa - I didn't realize that - you know, the boys over at FALFILES were wanting this optic calibrated for use with .308

DevL - if we did do the BDC for 75 grain, what effect would that have when people use 55 and 62 grain?  How off will those bullets be from the 75 grain calibration?

1-mil=3.6" @ 100yds
If you take a mil out to 500yds it will cover roughly 18" of a target.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle5.jpg

Quoted: 1-mil=3.6" @ 100yds If you take a mil out to 500yds it will cover roughly 18" of a target. img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle5.jpg

Oh hell yeah!  I like this one a lot - thicker posts at 12, 3, and 9 o'clock.

And I really do like the removal of the bottom portion of the post from the south.

I agree on not going with Mils - they'd cover up too much of the target - remember, most Mildot scopes are used in such a way that after determining range, you then make click adjustments and still use the center reticle.  I prefer the simplicity of the BDC hash-marks and also you get the advantage of using the width of the marks for ranging a torso.

DevL, I'm very interested in hearing about the advantages of calibrating BDC for the 75 grain.  Heck, perhaps if Rich did a 55 grain first (for the casual crowd) but then did a .308 version (which, according to you would work for 75 grain .223) then that would allow for 2 separate scopes that could be used for a variety of weapons.  Sounds like a great idea.

I have a concern from a visual human factors standpoint with all the reticle designs that have been posted.

The illuminated portion of all the choices so far has the bottom of the circle flattened to match the 300m hash mark.  I understand that this looks nice... but especially in a dark or fast/cqb situation when looking at a circular reticle the strong tendency is to center the target in the circle.  With the bottom of the circle flattened, this would tend to put quick shots using the illuminated circle higher than the correct zero for the scope.

A circular reticle needs to be completely circular to function correctly.

Other than that, most of the design and execution of this scope seems very nice .  I'll probably be interested in at least one as long as the reticle issue gets worked out.

ETA:  I like the 75gr/7.62mm BDC idea also.

Quoted: 1-mil=3.6" @ 100yds If you take a mil out to 500yds it will cover roughly 18" of a target. img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle5.jpg

Yep, I was just thinking about that, you'd have to use some kind of modification of the mil to use correctly at 4x and that just might get too complicated.  

Oh well, I guess my point is, some kind of ranging reticle is more important to me than a BDC ret.

That reticle looks really nice.

Now put a very slight triangular shape on at 9, 12, and 3 o'clock, see what that looks like.

Gamma762,

I'm not sure if this will make sense, but with my Eotech, the circle gets me on target quick, and the center dot tells me where the bullet is going, give or take a bit depending on range. I would guess that this would do the same thing. You swing on target using the circle then put the dot where you want bullet holes. The flat wouldn't make any difference.

Quoted: The illuminated portion of all the choices so far has the bottom of the circle flattened to match the 300m hash mark.  I understand that this looks nice... but especially in a dark or fast/cqb situation when looking at a circular reticle the strong tendency is to center the target in the circle.  With the bottom of the circle flattened, this would tend to put quick shots using the illuminated circle higher than the correct zero for the scope. A circular reticle needs to be completely circular to function correctly.

I agree, this could be an issue.

Quoted: Quoted: 1-mil=3.6" @ 100yds If you take a mil out to 500yds it will cover roughly 18" of a target. img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/hoosier12345/Reticle5.jpg Oh hell yeah!  I like this one a lot - thicker posts at 12, 3, and 9 o'clock. And I really do like the removal of the bottom portion of the post from the south. I agree on not going with Mils - they'd cover up too much of the target - remember, most Mildot scopes are used in such a way that after determining range, you then make click adjustments and still use the center reticle.  I prefer the simplicity of the BDC hash-marks and also you get the advantage of using the width of the marks for ranging a torso. DevL, I'm very interested in hearing about the advantages of calibrating BDC for the 75 grain.  Heck, perhaps if Rich did a 55 grain first (for the casual crowd) but then did a .308 version (which, according to you would work for 75 grain .223) then that would allow for 2 separate scopes that could be used for a variety of weapons.  Sounds like a great idea.

Well you could in fact do a modified mil-dot approach. kinda like the MP8 retical that IOR has. Since it's a SFP retical the size will never change when the power is and even at extened ranges the target does not get obscured by the thickness of the lines at the 4 power setting..  Though it might actually be to fine, but maybe not. I'll try and get a pick of it on friday when I go out to the range.  

Quoted: Gamma762, I'm not sure if this will make sense, but with my Eotech, the circle gets me on target quick, and the center dot tells me where the bullet is going, give or take a bit depending on range. I would guess that this would do the same thing. You swing on target using the circle then put the dot where you want bullet holes. The flat wouldn't make any difference.

That's correct except the part where it won't make any difference.  Because the "visual center" of the circle/polygon is not in the same place as where the dot is.  If you're shooting fast you'll be off target, if you try to use the dot you'll be slower and have "visual confusion" where two sighting indications are not in agreement.

Gamma, scroll back up and go to the reticle picture, now move it up an down out of your line of sight and back down, up and down.  When I do that I don't see that flat spot as much as I see the remaining 75%(??) of the circle.  I don't think that flat part will be an issue.  I would like to see it w/o the "whiskers" illuminated.

I'm on board with the latest reticle cuz posted.  If the price is right I'll be in for at least 1.  What is the FOV at 100 yards through the power range?  While we're at it how about a nice set of affordable QD rings that return to zero and have a 1.5" center height....  Please.

Quoted: I'm on board with the latest reticle cuz posted.  If the price is right I'll be in for at least 1.  What is the FOV at 100 yards through the power range?  While we're at it how about a nice set of affordable QD rings that return to zero and have a 1.5" center height....  Please.

Here are the technical specs of the scope:

Power: 1x-4x (variable) – note that the 1x is a TRUE 1x
Objective aperture: 24mm
Tube dia.: 1.00"
FOV @ 100 meters: 93.5 feet at 1x – 26.25 feet at 4x
Eye-relief: 3.30"
Maximum Adjust.: Up/Down 70/70--- Right/Left 70/70 MOA
Adjustments: 1/4"
Number of lenses: 12
Over-all Length: 10.40"
Weight: 13.5oz per my scale (factory says 12.7oz)
Reticle focus: Fast focus "with" lock ring
Illumination: 11 total brightness settings, the 3 lowest being for night
vision and not visible to the naked eye.