AR Sponsor
Posted: 7/16/2026 3:44:47 PM EDT
|
Anyone use one? I have the 1-4 green triangle, great optic. Considering a new one in 1-6. I like the idea of mill dot reticle with the green dot. Would be curious of any opinions. |
" Don't cry, nobody shoots Glocks anymore."
"But the new Admin. is a Master in IDPA"
"MASTER in IDPA..."
"is like C Class in IPSC!"
"But the new Admin. is a Master in IDPA"
"MASTER in IDPA..."
"is like C Class in IPSC!"
|
The 1-6 is a substantial improvement over the 1-4 qualitatively. Reference C_Does YouTube videos of them. Weight whores sometimes jump at the 1-4 but the 1-6 is the real winner. It mostly shines, no pun intended, with the triangle reticle though. Its draw is that it’s a very RDS experience that still has 6X mag available to it. You lose a lot of that with the far smaller and dimmer crosshair variants. They’re still nice scopes but the reticle takes a big hit and at that point it’s just one more ‘nice’ 1-6 in a sea of other options. You may or may not want that reticle and it may not be best suited to what you do, but the triangle reticle is half its strength. If you’re not getting that I’d just as soon get a Credo HX with far better illumination and similar optical qualities, a PST and have an approximate experience for cheaper, or a Razor and have a probably wholly improved experience. |
| Thanks I have a credo 2-10, Razor 1-6 and tr 24 green triangle. The Razor is very good but I really like Trijicon scopes. They just work. They have a great warranty that you seldom have to use. I like the idea of a bright reticule with hash marks for range. I don’t think the 1-6 with green triangle would be a bad scope for a gp AR |
" Don't cry, nobody shoots Glocks anymore."
"But the new Admin. is a Master in IDPA"
"MASTER in IDPA..."
"is like C Class in IPSC!"
"But the new Admin. is a Master in IDPA"
"MASTER in IDPA..."
"is like C Class in IPSC!"
Gamer perspective. Trijicon TR25 AccuPoint 1-6 Review - A Worthy Upgrade To A Classic? Bro-vet that still gets after the training does a comparison.  TRIJICON ACCUPOINT tr24 (1-4x) VS tr25 (1-6x) I owned a tr24 with the green triangle. Loved it for many years, since 2010ish. Does great for 0-300. Wanted something a bit more and ended up with an SAI, but tr25 was in the running. I just felt I wanted a bit more BDC like reticle on the 14.5" GPR. |
|
Originally Posted By 3-gun: Thanks I have a credo 2-10, Razor 1-6 and tr 24 green triangle. The Razor is very good but I really like Trijicon scopes. They just work. They have a great warranty that you seldom have to use. I like the idea of a bright reticule with hash marks for range. I don’t think the 1-6 with green triangle would be a bad scope for a gp AR What I’d recommend is to zero the tip @ 50/200ish and treat it as a red dot with added capabilities. If you have a use for that it’s an excellent way to do it. It’s a shame their finer crosshair/mil/moa variants are so small and dim, and the triangle is just a post. Obviously something combining the two would be ideal but the tech doesn’t allow it. The illumination point must be no wider than the suspending post, so either you have a fine post with a small dot, or you get a big bright dot (triangle) with a correspondingly large post. I’ve wondered before if they could bring the fiber optic in from the 12:00 downwards, with a BDC now underneath, but that’s probably a bit complicated to be a viable product. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: The 1-6 is superior optically to the razor. As mentioned the reticle is the weak point due to its illumination. If they would pull their head out of their ass and build the triangle with elevation drops they'd have a winner on their hands. At one time we had an engineer from Trijicon that posted here a lot. He explained the reason that type reticle could not be used in a tube scope with fiber optic illumination. It works fine in a prism scope with a mirror. Enough people told him he didn’t know what he was talking about so he quit posting. |
" Don't cry, nobody shoots Glocks anymore."
"But the new Admin. is a Master in IDPA"
"MASTER in IDPA..."
"is like C Class in IPSC!"
"But the new Admin. is a Master in IDPA"
"MASTER in IDPA..."
"is like C Class in IPSC!"
|
Originally Posted By 3-gun: At one time we had an engineer from Trijicon that posted here a lot. He explained the reason that type reticle could not be used in a tube scope with fiber optic illumination. It works fine in a prism scope with a mirror. Enough people told him he didn’t know what he was talking about so he quit posting. Yeah I don't believe it couldn't be done for a second. The posts already exist in the reticle, just bring them in so they touch and add horizontal posts that are .5mrad/1mrad in length for vertical holds |
|
Originally Posted By doty_soty: The 1-6 is a substantial improvement over the 1-4 qualitatively. Reference C_Does YouTube videos of them. Weight whores sometimes jump at the 1-4 but the 1-6 is the real winner. It mostly shines, no pun intended, with the triangle reticle though. Its draw is that it’s a very RDS experience that still has 6X mag available to it. You lose a lot of that with the far smaller and dimmer crosshair variants. They’re still nice scopes but the reticle takes a big hit and at that point it’s just one more ‘nice’ 1-6 in a sea of other options. You may or may not want that reticle and it may not be best suited to what you do, but the triangle reticle is half its strength. If you’re not getting that I’d just as soon get a Credo HX with far better illumination and similar optical qualities, a PST and have an approximate experience for cheaper, or a Razor and have a probably wholly improved experience. Something that has to be mentioned is that the triangle can be used for BDC at ranges most people will use this scope. |
Never make another person a priority when they merely see you as an option...
"Some People Are Like Slinkies. They're Not Really Good For Anything, But They Bring a Smile To Your Face When Pushed Down The Stairs."
"Some People Are Like Slinkies. They're Not Really Good For Anything, But They Bring a Smile To Your Face When Pushed Down The Stairs."
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Yeah I don't believe it couldn't be done for a second. The posts already exist in the reticle, just bring them in so they touch and add horizontal posts that are .5mrad/1mrad in length for vertical holds An accupoint with BDC scales would cannibalize too many ACOG sales. |
Never make another person a priority when they merely see you as an option...
"Some People Are Like Slinkies. They're Not Really Good For Anything, But They Bring a Smile To Your Face When Pushed Down The Stairs."
"Some People Are Like Slinkies. They're Not Really Good For Anything, But They Bring a Smile To Your Face When Pushed Down The Stairs."
| Zero the tip at 100m, base is 300. Roughly 1/3 of the way down the triangle from the tip is 200. The chevron is the same size as the ones they used in the reflex sights and that’s how you used them. |
Never make another person a priority when they merely see you as an option...
"Some People Are Like Slinkies. They're Not Really Good For Anything, But They Bring a Smile To Your Face When Pushed Down The Stairs."
"Some People Are Like Slinkies. They're Not Really Good For Anything, But They Bring a Smile To Your Face When Pushed Down The Stairs."
|
Originally Posted By TheOtherDave: Zero the tip at 100m, base is 300. Roughly 1/3 of the way down the triangle from the tip is 200. The chevron is the same size as the ones they used in the reflex sights and that’s how you used them. With my TR24 I zero center center mass on a 12” plates 200yds. That gets me out to 300 yds with the tip at the top of the plate . I can hit 1/4 out to 400. The triangle reticule is made for killing, not target shooting. I do think 6x would make hits at distance easier. I like the Creo, but the reticule is not very bright in both the FFP and SFP scopes. |
" Don't cry, nobody shoots Glocks anymore."
"But the new Admin. is a Master in IDPA"
"MASTER in IDPA..."
"is like C Class in IPSC!"
"But the new Admin. is a Master in IDPA"
"MASTER in IDPA..."
"is like C Class in IPSC!"
|
Originally Posted By TheOtherDave: Something that has to be mentioned is that the triangle can be used for BDC at ranges most people will use this scope. Absolutely. 4.2 moa base is 300 and some yards of shoulder width. Covered in this Pinned thread. First post even. Attached File |
| That’s pretty much what I’ve come up with. I really like the fiberoptic triangle but I also like a bbc or mills with a daylight bright reticle. It will come down to one of them. |
" Don't cry, nobody shoots Glocks anymore."
"But the new Admin. is a Master in IDPA"
"MASTER in IDPA..."
"is like C Class in IPSC!"
"But the new Admin. is a Master in IDPA"
"MASTER in IDPA..."
"is like C Class in IPSC!"
|
Originally Posted By 3-gun: With my TR24 I zero center center mass on a 12” plates 200yds. That gets me out to 300 yds with the tip at the top of the plate . I can hit 1/4 out to 400. The triangle reticule is made for killing, not target shooting. I do think 6x would make hits at distance easier. I like the Creo, but the reticule is not very bright in both the FFP and SFP scopes. Same here, I’m no sniper-Chevrons and Triangles are for Torsos. |
Never make another person a priority when they merely see you as an option...
"Some People Are Like Slinkies. They're Not Really Good For Anything, But They Bring a Smile To Your Face When Pushed Down The Stairs."
"Some People Are Like Slinkies. They're Not Really Good For Anything, But They Bring a Smile To Your Face When Pushed Down The Stairs."
Joined:
Jul 2026
Posts:
3
EE: 0% (0)
ND, USA
|
Originally Posted By PistoleroJesse: Gamer perspective.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mspXbKZ7QZcBro-vet that still gets after the training does a comparison. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwzcxGoX0hkI owned a tr24 with the green triangle. Loved it for many years, since 2010ish. Does great for 0-300. Wanted something a bit more and ended up with an SAI, but tr25 was in the running. I just felt I wanted a bit more BDC like reticle on the 14.5" GPR. How do you like the SAI 1-6? |
|
Originally Posted By gunfighter98: How do you like the SAI 1-6? Originally Posted By gunfighter98: Originally Posted By PistoleroJesse: Gamer perspective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mspXbKZ7QZcBro-vet that still gets after the training does a comparison. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwzcxGoX0hkI owned a tr24 with the green triangle. Loved it for many years, since 2010ish. Does great for 0-300. Wanted something a bit more and ended up with an SAI, but tr25 was in the running. I just felt I wanted a bit more BDC like reticle on the 14.5" GPR. How do you like the SAI 1-6? On full blast, it's a good enough approximation to a red dot to have similar first round hits at 50y. Without the illumination it's ok and better than most 1-6 and 1-8 without illumination. The reticle does its bdc job pretty well with FFP when north of 3x. 1x is a tad annoying with the kill flash, but what isn't? 
|
| The 1-4x and 1-6x Accupoints are perfect examples of excellent optics, completely hamstrung by shitty reticles. It's like Trijicon took a page out of Leupold's manual, and they refuse to offer it with a useful reticle. It would be so easy to offer it with a nice bold chevron or horseshoe reticle, along with a BDC, but nope. You either get bright triangle with nothing else, or you get a tiny little dot with a crosshair. Useless at range or useless up close. You pick. |
|
Originally Posted By Scrapple: The 1-4x and 1-6x Accupoints are perfect examples of excellent optics, completely hamstrung by shitty reticles. It's like Trijicon took a page out of Leupold's manual, and they refuse to offer it with a useful reticle. It would be so easy to offer it with a nice bold chevron or horseshoe reticle, along with a BDC, but nope. You either get bright triangle with nothing else, or you get a tiny little dot with a crosshair. Useless at range or useless up close. You pick. The TR24 triangle is almost the perfect 0-300m sight. Update with a squarer, metal magnification ring. Whoever made that round rubber needs to be taken to a dark room and beaten. If possible, update the optics to reduce bezel occlusion while retaining the famous eye box. |
|
Originally Posted By Scrapple: The 1-4x and 1-6x Accupoints are perfect examples of excellent optics, completely hamstrung by shitty reticles. It's like Trijicon took a page out of Leupold's manual, and they refuse to offer it with a useful reticle. It would be so easy to offer it with a nice bold chevron or horseshoe reticle, along with a BDC, but nope. You either get bright triangle with nothing else, or you get a tiny little dot with a crosshair. Useless at range or useless up close. You pick. Their design prohibits such reticles. It’d need a complete internal redesign, and I’m not sure it’s feasible either. Most they could do is add BDC to the existing crosshair design. |
|
Originally Posted By HighpowerRifleBrony: The TR20 Mildot needs to be updated with Mil adjustments. The POU is not to dial, but it also is not 2002 anymore. Make that shit match. Make the fiber come in from the top for a bigger dot and retain finer subtensions. The TR24 triangle is almost the perfect 0-300m sight. Update with a squarer, metal magnification ring. Whoever made that round rubber needs to be taken to a dark room and beaten. If possible, update the optics to reduce bezel occlusion while retaining the famous eye box. Originally Posted By HighpowerRifleBrony: Originally Posted By Scrapple: The 1-4x and 1-6x Accupoints are perfect examples of excellent optics, completely hamstrung by shitty reticles. It's like Trijicon took a page out of Leupold's manual, and they refuse to offer it with a useful reticle. It would be so easy to offer it with a nice bold chevron or horseshoe reticle, along with a BDC, but nope. You either get bright triangle with nothing else, or you get a tiny little dot with a crosshair. Useless at range or useless up close. You pick. The TR24 triangle is almost the perfect 0-300m sight. Update with a squarer, metal magnification ring. Whoever made that round rubber needs to be taken to a dark room and beaten. If possible, update the optics to reduce bezel occlusion while retaining the famous eye box. They could definitely redo the 1-4. It’s a dated design. I don’t know that improving the optics would keep the light weight though. I worry you’d basically have a TR25 that only goes to 1-4 by the time you’re done. The mismatched turrets/reticles are pretty hard to excuse in 2026, especially with no tree reticle where it’s entirely reasonable that shooters would want to dial. To me it shows a lack of effort in their product line. Trijicon has never seemed too worried about the civilian market, they put out what they put out. It’s more pronounced in things like the 5-20 with exposed turrets (and a tiny amount of internal travel in the first place). |
|
Originally Posted By doty_soty: Their design prohibits such reticles. It’d need a complete internal redesign, and I’m not sure it’s feasible either. Most they could do is add BDC to the existing crosshair design. Companies put new reticles into things all the time and it doesn't require a complete redesign. Attached File Youre going to look me dead in the face and tell me the reticle on the right isn't an option? Notice the thicker center line. I combined both the fiber lines into a single one so it didn't reduce output. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Companies put new reticles into things all the time and it doesn't require a complete redesign. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470854/328_jpg-3803708.JPG Youre going to look me dead in the face and tell me the reticle on the right isn't an option? Notice the thicker center line. I combined both the fiber lines into a single one so it didn't reduce output. Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Originally Posted By doty_soty: Their design prohibits such reticles. It’d need a complete internal redesign, and I’m not sure it’s feasible either. Most they could do is add BDC to the existing crosshair design. Companies put new reticles into things all the time and it doesn't require a complete redesign. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470854/328_jpg-3803708.JPG Youre going to look me dead in the face and tell me the reticle on the right isn't an option? Notice the thicker center line. I combined both the fiber lines into a single one so it didn't reduce output. I didn’t design the optic. We used to have an engineer for Trijicon who posted here and tried to explain why it wasn’t possible. People argued with him. He quit posting. I can’t say I blame him. IIRC, and this is several years back in memory of someone that has no formal training in optical engineering, it involved the visible fiber optic portion being physically filed down from a covered fiber optic tube, which is the bottom post of each reticle. Used to be they actually filed the triangle by hand. Either way, you’re going to have issues trying to make the post thin but the illum portion thick, or extending much off the sides of the post, especially while making the design durable or hold up to any hard use. Hence the thin dot and thick triangle and correspondingly sized vertical arm of the reticle. I assume they make the mil dots on the wire the old fashioned way. I don’t know. The reticle you drew on the right would be possible with a prism design, obviously, with the ACOG as an example. But that would be a completely different optic at that point, hence the phrase ‘completely internal redesign’ |
|
Originally Posted By doty_soty: I didn’t design the optic. We used to have an engineer for Trijicon who posted here and tried to explain why it wasn’t possible. People argued with him. He quit posting. I can’t say I blame him. IIRC, and this is several years back in memory of someone that has no formal training in optical engineering, it involved the visible fiber optic portion being physically filed down from a covered fiber optic tube, which is the bottom post of each reticle. Used to be they actually filed the triangle by hand. Either way, you’re going to have issues trying to make the post thin but the illum portion thick, or extending much off the sides of the post, especially while making the design durable or hold up to any hard use. Hence the thin dot and thick triangle and correspondingly sized vertical arm of the reticle. I assume they make the mil dots on the wire the old fashioned way. I don’t know. The reticle you drew on the right would be possible with a prism design, obviously, with the ACOG as an example. But that would be a completely different optic at that point, hence the phrase ‘completely internal redesign’ Assuming that's all correct, it makes sense. What doesn't make sense is how Trijicon has refused to redesign it. If there was a battery less fiber optic LPVO with BDC on the market, I would buy every version available on day one, especially a fiber optic VCOG. it's possible, they just haven't done it, and that's why I own optics made by other manufacturers. But if Trijicon ever does this, I'm all in. |
|
Originally Posted By Scrapple: Assuming that's all correct, it makes sense. What doesn't make sense is how Trijicon has refused to redesign it. If there was a battery less fiber optic LPVO with BDC on the market, I would buy every version available on day one, especially a fiber optic VCOG. it's possible, they just haven't done it, and that's why I own optics made by other manufacturers. But if Trijicon ever does this, I'm all in. Originally Posted By Scrapple: Originally Posted By doty_soty: I didn’t design the optic. We used to have an engineer for Trijicon who posted here and tried to explain why it wasn’t possible. People argued with him. He quit posting. I can’t say I blame him. IIRC, and this is several years back in memory of someone that has no formal training in optical engineering, it involved the visible fiber optic portion being physically filed down from a covered fiber optic tube, which is the bottom post of each reticle. Used to be they actually filed the triangle by hand. Either way, you’re going to have issues trying to make the post thin but the illum portion thick, or extending much off the sides of the post, especially while making the design durable or hold up to any hard use. Hence the thin dot and thick triangle and correspondingly sized vertical arm of the reticle. I assume they make the mil dots on the wire the old fashioned way. I don’t know. The reticle you drew on the right would be possible with a prism design, obviously, with the ACOG as an example. But that would be a completely different optic at that point, hence the phrase ‘completely internal redesign’ Assuming that's all correct, it makes sense. What doesn't make sense is how Trijicon has refused to redesign it. If there was a battery less fiber optic LPVO with BDC on the market, I would buy every version available on day one, especially a fiber optic VCOG. it's possible, they just haven't done it, and that's why I own optics made by other manufacturers. But if Trijicon ever does this, I'm all in. I agree it would be desirable. When I first heard they were making a ‘variable powered ACOG’ I was very excited for this reason. Then it ended up just being a regular LPVO lol I think they feel their market segments are covered enough with their regular LPVOs for those wishing for a more complex reticle, and they have more sales data than me so who am I to argue against their business decisions, but it’s a shame because I think there are a lot of people who essentially want a 1-6 ACOG. Variable powered prism optics exist so it can be done, I assume they just feel the juice isn’t worth the squeeze just to cannibalize their own sales on existing products. Especially given the likely compromise on ACOG reliability that’ll come with these added moving pieces, which is probably worth a lot more to them than any gained sales. See also: why they won’t make an ACOG with an adjustable focus diopter. |
|
Originally Posted By doty_soty: I agree it would be desirable. When I first heard they were making a ‘variable powered ACOG’ I was very excited for this reason. Then it ended up just being a regular LPVO lol I think they feel their market segments are covered enough with their regular LPVOs for those wishing for a more complex reticle, and they have more sales data than me so who am I to argue against their business decisions, but it’s a shame because I think there are a lot of people who essentially want a 1-6 ACOG. Variable powered prism optics exist so it can be done, I assume they just feel the juice isn’t worth the squeeze just to cannibalize their own sales on existing products. Especially given the likely compromise on ACOG reliability that’ll come with these added moving pieces, which is probably worth a lot more to them than any gained sales. See also: why they won’t make an ACOG with an adjustable focus diopter. Yeah the VCOG was a huge disappointment. Battery powered, basically no usable brightness, heavy as sin, and terrible reticles. The only boxes that it checks are the better mounting system and durability. But otherwise, they just suck. |
|
Originally Posted By doty_soty: I didn’t design the optic. We used to have an engineer for Trijicon who posted here and tried to explain why it wasn’t possible. People argued with him. He quit posting. I can’t say I blame him. IIRC, and this is several years back in memory of someone that has no formal training in optical engineering, it involved the visible fiber optic portion being physically filed down from a covered fiber optic tube, which is the bottom post of each reticle. Used to be they actually filed the triangle by hand. Either way, you’re going to have issues trying to make the post thin but the illum portion thick, or extending much off the sides of the post, especially while making the design durable or hold up to any hard use. Hence the thin dot and thick triangle and correspondingly sized vertical arm of the reticle. I assume they make the mil dots on the wire the old fashioned way. I don’t know. The reticle you drew on the right would be possible with a prism design, obviously, with the ACOG as an example. But that would be a completely different optic at that point, hence the phrase ‘completely internal redesign’ His answer is bullshit and a lie. The real answer most likely is it would canabalize sales from too many other of trijicons offerings. Fiber optic illumination is very very simple since there's no circuit to switch on and off. The light gathering apparatus converts light into power, runs that power up a line, and fills in an etched reticle. Attached File I just did a different edit. Trijicon is saying that isn't possible? No way. Edit*** Trijicon also stated at one point wind holds and 1x weren't possible with the acog design because of how prism scopes are manufactured/designed. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: His answer is bullshit and a lie. The real answer most likely is it would canabalize sales from too many other of trijicons offerings. Fiber optic illumination is very very simple since there's no circuit to switch on and off. The light gathering apparatus converts light into power, runs that power up a line, and fills in an etched reticle. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470854/339_jpg-3803793.JPG I just did a different edit. Trijicon is saying that isn't possible? No way. Edit*** Trijicon also stated at one point wind holds and 1x weren't possible with the acog design because of how prism scopes are manufactured/designed. Calm down dude. It's not a "lie", what was said makes sense, in that the current internal design doesn't permit making a useful reticle, but I agree that it's no excuse, they should have redesigned it. At the end of the day, they have decided that it's better to keep making the same thing that is outdated and we have decided that we will therefore buy other optics. It's a shame, because I would really like a fiber optic LPVO and/or VCOG with a BDC. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: His answer is bullshit and a lie. The real answer most likely is it would canabalize sales from too many other of trijicons offerings. Fiber optic illumination is very very simple since there's no circuit to switch on and off. The light gathering apparatus converts light into power, runs that power up a line, and fills in an etched reticle. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470854/339_jpg-3803793.JPG I just did a different edit. Trijicon is saying that isn't possible? No way. Edit*** Trijicon also stated at one point wind holds and 1x weren't possible with the acog design because of how prism scopes are manufactured/designed. Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Originally Posted By doty_soty: I didn’t design the optic. We used to have an engineer for Trijicon who posted here and tried to explain why it wasn’t possible. People argued with him. He quit posting. I can’t say I blame him. IIRC, and this is several years back in memory of someone that has no formal training in optical engineering, it involved the visible fiber optic portion being physically filed down from a covered fiber optic tube, which is the bottom post of each reticle. Used to be they actually filed the triangle by hand. Either way, you’re going to have issues trying to make the post thin but the illum portion thick, or extending much off the sides of the post, especially while making the design durable or hold up to any hard use. Hence the thin dot and thick triangle and correspondingly sized vertical arm of the reticle. I assume they make the mil dots on the wire the old fashioned way. I don’t know. The reticle you drew on the right would be possible with a prism design, obviously, with the ACOG as an example. But that would be a completely different optic at that point, hence the phrase ‘completely internal redesign’ His answer is bullshit and a lie. The real answer most likely is it would canabalize sales from too many other of trijicons offerings. Fiber optic illumination is very very simple since there's no circuit to switch on and off. The light gathering apparatus converts light into power, runs that power up a line, and fills in an etched reticle. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470854/339_jpg-3803793.JPG I just did a different edit. Trijicon is saying that isn't possible? No way. Edit*** Trijicon also stated at one point wind holds and 1x weren't possible with the acog design because of how prism scopes are manufactured/designed. Then I guess you’ll just have to show Trijicon how they should have engineered it. I see why he quit posting here. |
|
Originally Posted By doty_soty: Their design prohibits such reticles. It'd need a complete internal redesign, and I'm not sure it's feasible either. Most they could do is add BDC to the existing crosshair design. |
What it boils down to is that they fear an effective resistance to their power: So, Left in power=Guns bad, mmmmkay...?, Right in power=Guns good!-thskirk
|
Originally Posted By Alaskanforfreedom: I was curious and looked at their website after reading half of this thread and they do have a BDC 1-8 accupoint now. Originally Posted By Alaskanforfreedom: Originally Posted By doty_soty: Their design prohibits such reticles. It'd need a complete internal redesign, and I'm not sure it's feasible either. Most they could do is add BDC to the existing crosshair design. Yeah you can do something like that, extend horizontal lines outwards from the existing crosshair design. I didn’t know they’d finally done that but I hadn’t kept up with the Accupoint line much beyond knowing they’d made a 1-8. Even a simple BDC is a huge improvement. It’ll still have the same constraints in terms of illuminated portion and non floating reticle designs. In looking at it, I’m not sure how much DNA this 1-8 shares with their existing products. A lot of times they’ll reuse things like going from Accupoint to credo, or using existing LOW optical designs. Maybe they did that here but it’s a 30mm so I doubt there’s a lot of similarity with their 1-8 Credo. Either way their newer LPVOs have been pretty good optically for the price. I still have a 1-6 Accupoint and a pair of 1-10 Credos. |
|
Originally Posted By Scrapple: Calm down dude. It's not a "lie", what was said makes sense, in that the current internal design doesn't permit making a useful reticle, but I agree that it's no excuse, they should have redesigned it. At the end of the day, they have decided that it's better to keep making the same thing that is outdated and we have decided that we will therefore buy other optics. It's a shame, because I would really like a fiber optic LPVO and/or VCOG with a BDC. Originally Posted By doty_soty: Then I guess you’ll just have to show Trijicon how they should have engineered it. I see why he quit posting here. I'm calm man! 😀 Listen, it doesnt require a complete redesign to update something like that, just creative thinking. The ACOG has been due for an update as well yet here we are. Trijicon isn't the only company who gets lazy or doesn't want to canibalize sales from other offerings. NF told me in an email .1mrad turrets weren't possible on the nx8. As for why he stopped posting here, I have no idea. Maybe he got tired of being called out over terrible answers? |
|
Originally Posted By doty_soty: Yeah you can do something like that, extend horizontal lines outwards from the existing crosshair design. I didn’t know they’d finally done that but I hadn’t kept up with the Accupoint line much beyond knowing they’d made a 1-8. Even a simple BDC is a huge improvement. It’ll still have the same constraints in terms of illuminated portion and non floating reticle designs. In looking at it, I’m not sure how much DNA this 1-8 shares with their existing products. A lot of times they’ll reuse things like going from Accupoint to credo, or using existing LOW optical designs. Maybe they did that here but it’s a 30mm so I doubt there’s a lot of similarity with their 1-8 Credo. Either way their newer LPVOs have been pretty good optically for the price. I still have a 1-6 Accupoint and a pair of 1-10 Credos. They did an Instagram q/a on it back when it first released and they said it was the same design, just a 1-8 |
|
Originally Posted By Alaskanforfreedom: I was curious and looked at their website after reading half of this thread and they do have a BDC 1-8 accupoint now. Yeah but it's the same as the one to six, it's a pretty useless reticle, with practically no elimination. The center dot is tiny, and might as well not be there, and the BDC is just a couple of lines with no wind holds or markings or anything. Trijicon needs to update things, and get back to their roots. They need to innovate. Otherwise, once the military stops buying stuff, they'll be like Colt, wondering where the customers went. |
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: I'm calm man! 😀 Listen, it doesnt require a complete redesign to update something like that, just creative thinking. The ACOG has been due for an update as well yet here we are. Trijicon isn't the only company who gets lazy or doesn't want to canibalize sales from other offerings. NF told me in an email .1mrad turrets weren't possible on the nx8. As for why he stopped posting here, I have no idea. Maybe he got tired of being called out over terrible answers? Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Originally Posted By Scrapple: Calm down dude. It's not a "lie", what was said makes sense, in that the current internal design doesn't permit making a useful reticle, but I agree that it's no excuse, they should have redesigned it. At the end of the day, they have decided that it's better to keep making the same thing that is outdated and we have decided that we will therefore buy other optics. It's a shame, because I would really like a fiber optic LPVO and/or VCOG with a BDC. Originally Posted By doty_soty: Then I guess you’ll just have to show Trijicon how they should have engineered it. I see why he quit posting here. I'm calm man! 😀 Listen, it doesnt require a complete redesign to update something like that, just creative thinking. The ACOG has been due for an update as well yet here we are. Trijicon isn't the only company who gets lazy or doesn't want to canibalize sales from other offerings. NF told me in an email .1mrad turrets weren't possible on the nx8. As for why he stopped posting here, I have no idea. Maybe he got tired of being called out over terrible answers? No, he got tired of bull shit from posters telling him he was wrong after he explained why. Like you. Obviously you need to contact Trijicon and explain to them how to fix all the problems they have. Or start a new company and rake in millions of$$ and put Trijicon out of business. It’s simple,you got this. |
" Don't cry, nobody shoots Glocks anymore."
"But the new Admin. is a Master in IDPA"
"MASTER in IDPA..."
"is like C Class in IPSC!"
"But the new Admin. is a Master in IDPA"
"MASTER in IDPA..."
"is like C Class in IPSC!"
|
Originally Posted By hoody2shoez: Companies put new reticles into things all the time and it doesn't require a complete redesign. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470854/328_jpg-3803708.JPG Youre going to look me dead in the face and tell me the reticle on the right isn't an option? Notice the thicker center line. I combined both the fiber lines into a single one so it didn't reduce output. With a normal sight picture, look at the two lines at 1x and 4x, then roll your head side to side within the eye box. I see the light move within the lines, making one side look thinner or thicker. |
|
If they could do a tr25 with mill dots, I have no idea why they couldn't do a triangle with bdc lines. The TR25 triangle is 2.8moa wide. By my math that could do 18" wide bdc to 642yards before occlusion behind the post. Double check my math though  .
|
| The 1-6 triangle needs a low pro locking elevation turret. With all the lpvo out there with exposed turrets the one that really needs one doesn't have one. The glass and eyebox are really good for the price point and i would have kept it if it had exposed elevation. |
|
Originally Posted By 3-gun: At one time we had an engineer from Trijicon that posted here a lot. He explained the reason that type reticle could not be used in a tube scope with fiber optic illumination. It works fine in a prism scope with a mirror. Enough people told him he didn't know what he was talking about so he quit posting.  You are correct, sir. The triangle post reticle is basically a piece of semi-stiff clear fishing line standing in thin air - with the tip polished into a point that reflects the light from the colored fiber toward your eye. If it were feasible to "make the reticle as sketched", we'd have done it. Don't take my word for it though - ask Grok. Life is too short to waste it arguing with people on the internet - but it sure is amusing to watch. |
AR Sponsor