User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
IN, USA
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:30:56 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M1MAN70:
Can anyone tell me if the TA31ECOS red crosshair BDC, from the 600m-100m range for the M240 SAW, would be accurate if shot out of a 16" AR barrel? For the M249? Your best bet would be to ask Trijicon what it is calibrated for and then plug that and your current set up into a ballistic calculator to compare. Some of them are for 20" carry handle AR15s and some are for 14.5" flat tops so it varies a bit. I can make a chart just for you if you get me the specs. Regardless of how close it is, I recommend zeroing your sight at 300m so that it will be off a little at closer and farther distances instead of zeroing at 100m and then being off a lot at farther distances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2014 7:08:37 PM EST
[#2]
Good work, OP. Now, I'm just wondering if you could do a set for an Aimpoint with a 2MOA dot, as I think that's the more common MOA for APs. And if I was REALLY selfish, I'd ask for a set that used XM193 (55 gr).
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2014 7:10:02 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pezboytate:
For the M249? Your best bet would be to ask Trijicon what it is calibrated for and then plug that and your current set up into a ballistic calculator to compare. Some of them are for 20" carry handle AR15s and some are for 14.5" flat tops so it varies a bit. I can make a chart just for you if you get me the specs. Regardless of how close it is, I recommend zeroing your sight at 300m so that it will be off a little at closer and farther distances instead of zeroing at 100m and then being off a lot at farther distances. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pezboytate:
Originally Posted By M1MAN70:
Can anyone tell me if the TA31ECOS red crosshair BDC, from the 600m-100m range for the M240 SAW, would be accurate if shot out of a 16" AR barrel? For the M249? Your best bet would be to ask Trijicon what it is calibrated for and then plug that and your current set up into a ballistic calculator to compare. Some of them are for 20" carry handle AR15s and some are for 14.5" flat tops so it varies a bit. I can make a chart just for you if you get me the specs. Regardless of how close it is, I recommend zeroing your sight at 300m so that it will be off a little at closer and farther distances instead of zeroing at 100m and then being off a lot at farther distances. There TA11SDO is calibrated for SAWs |
|
|
|
MD, USA
|
Posted: 10/19/2014 7:14:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: Frostburg]
[#4]
This should be sticked.
This is great info. It matches with already established zero/hold points. Where did you get this data? I'm guessing a computer program? |
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:14:51 PM EST
[#5]
Excellent! Very useful indeed! Thank you!
I have several of these and when looking for a new optic this will be helpful. Sometimes hard to find for all of the Trijicon ACOGs.
But one I will get rid of now, and that is this optic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TWYMT4Jerw I've had problems with it Before but haven't looked into it properly. But now I have, and the video is correct!  (plus the smaller but almost acceptable zero shifts between 1x and 4x) 
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:16:57 PM EST
[#6]
Excellent! Very useful indeed! Thank you!
I have several of these and when looking for a new optic this will be helpful. Sometimes hard to find for all of the Trijicon ACOGs.
But one I will get rid of now, and that is this optic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TWYMT4Jerw I've had problems with it Before but haven't looked into it properly. But now I have, and the video is correct! (plus the smaller but almost acceptable zero shifts between 1x and 4x)
|
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 12:15:26 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By urbankaos04:
Good work, OP. Now, I'm just wondering if you could do a set for an Aimpoint with a 2MOA dot, as I think that's the more common MOA for APs. And if I was REALLY selfish, I'd ask for a set that used XM193 (55 gr). I would like this too. |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 10:12:46 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Alaskanforfreedom:
I would like this too. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Alaskanforfreedom:
Originally Posted By urbankaos04:
Good work, OP. Now, I'm just wondering if you could do a set for an Aimpoint with a 2MOA dot, as I think that's the more common MOA for APs. And if I was REALLY selfish, I'd ask for a set that used XM193 (55 gr). I would like this too. I'll see what I can do. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/28/2014 10:30:27 PM EST
[#9]
Tagged
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 11/3/2014 2:42:42 PM EST
[#10]
I added 2 MOA dots with a 16" barrel and M193 for those who requested this combo.
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 12/2/2014 12:02:09 PM EST
[#11]
BTT
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 12/4/2014 11:54:10 AM EST
[Last Edit: v188]
[#12]
This is great. It is a real gem. Thanks for your work on this.
|
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 12/7/2014 12:14:42 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pezboytate:
I added 2 MOA dots with a 16" barrel and M193 for those who requested this combo. Hey you're awesome brother. These are great images to help people decide which holdover/unders they'd rather have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 9:17:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: Beerswimmer]
[#14]
^^^ +1!
|
|
|
|
WV, USA
|
Posted: 1/1/2015 11:54:52 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By iiiwildfireiii:
Awesome. This needs to be a sticky. Seriously. I concur. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 10:00:22 AM EST
[#16]
Great information here, thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/19/2015 11:38:18 PM EST
[#17]
Incredible graphic. The original post covered all my options; I use an EOTech and BUIS on one carbine, both zeroed at 50, and an ACOG 01 zeroed at 100 on the other. Its not that there was anything new to me shown, its just an interesting and informative way to show it. I wonder if the military has a training aid like it, because it brings the ballistic trajectory of different near-zeros into the real world of the sights they actually will use. Many people who were not shooters before they joined have trouble visualizing how the trajectory affects their aiming at different ranges. Hell, half the members here do not have a grasp of it.
Thanks for taking the time to do that. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 2/10/2015 7:30:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: TequilaPicker]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cycline3:
Why would you deviate from the manufacturers recommended zero procedure? Making the BDC meaningless? Do you think you understand their product better than they do? I am curious.... I understand your desire to not think about it... But a bit of advice, you might want to think about it so you actually understand what is happening and can hit things at any distance. It is amazing to me how many people on arfcom dont understand the line of sight to trajectory thing at all, even some of our seasoned posters. Id bet its more than 50%.... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cycline3:
Originally Posted By RDTCU:
I prefer a 200yd zero on anything with magnification, it puts me the closest to POA consistently from zero to ~250 without any adjustment. I usually zero red dots/holographics at 100yd, but my CQ 2/3gun SBR is zeroed around 50yd. Why would you deviate from the manufacturers recommended zero procedure? Making the BDC meaningless? Do you think you understand their product better than they do? I am curious.... I understand your desire to not think about it... But a bit of advice, you might want to think about it so you actually understand what is happening and can hit things at any distance. It is amazing to me how many people on arfcom dont understand the line of sight to trajectory thing at all, even some of our seasoned posters. Id bet its more than 50%.... Cycline3...I don't understand your criticism, it makes no sense. RDTCU stated that he shoots 3Gun which is not a marksmanship competition. If you take the time to review the graphics presented by the OP you will see exactly what RDTCU is referring to; a 200 yard zero will provide an accurate POI (+ or - 1.5 inches) from a range of 50 out to 250 yards without making any elevation adjustments. How hard is that to understand? I own a 4x32 ACOG with a JP reticle, the main stadia line is designed to be a 200 yard zero for that very reason. All I need to adjust for is windage out to 250 yards. I believe RDTCU understands what he's talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2015 10:55:28 AM EST
[#19]
This STILL isn't a Sticky?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 10:14:24 AM EST
[#20]
pezboytate, any chance you could do your magic for a Trijicon 1-4 acupoint green triangle reticle with a 200m zero?
|
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/19/2015 8:53:36 PM EST
[#21]
Agree on making this a sticky.... And would like to see the AMU 255m proposed zero added. Been using it for a few years now and it's worked out the best. Link: http://merlin555.free.fr/tir/M16-M4data.pdf
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 3/24/2015 7:54:52 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tReznr:
pezboytate, any chance you could do your magic for a Trijicon 1-4 acupoint green triangle reticle with a 200m zero? I'll see what I can do. Is the reticle supposed to be 100m tip/300m base? |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 3/24/2015 7:55:28 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CD0311:
Agree on making this a sticky.... And would like to see the AMU 255m proposed zero added. Been using it for a few years now and it's worked out the best. Link: http://merlin555.free.fr/tir/M16-M4data.pdf I'll work on it. |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 3/25/2015 9:56:41 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pezboytate:
I'll work on it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pezboytate:
Originally Posted By CD0311:
Agree on making this a sticky.... And would like to see the AMU 255m proposed zero added. Been using it for a few years now and it's worked out the best. Link: http://merlin555.free.fr/tir/M16-M4data.pdf I'll work on it. Done |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/25/2015 12:48:51 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pezboytate:
I'll see what I can do. Is the reticle supposed to be 100m tip/300m base? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pezboytate:
Originally Posted By tReznr:
pezboytate, any chance you could do your magic for a Trijicon 1-4 acupoint green triangle reticle with a 200m zero? I'll see what I can do. Is the reticle supposed to be 100m tip/300m base? No, it's not setup as a BDC. I called Trijicon to ask the distance between the tip of the triangle down to the base. Because it is a second focal plane scope, there are two values. At low (1x power) there is a 16.7 MOA distance between top and bottom. At the high end (4x power) it changes to 4.2 MOA from tip to base. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 3/25/2015 1:23:51 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tReznr:
No, it's not setup as a BDC. I called Trijicon to ask the distance between the tip of the triangle down to the base. Because it is a second focal plane scope, there are two values. At low (1x power) there is a 16.7 MOA distance between top and bottom. At the high end (4x power) it changes to 4.2 MOA from tip to base. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tReznr:
Originally Posted By pezboytate:
Originally Posted By tReznr:
pezboytate, any chance you could do your magic for a Trijicon 1-4 acupoint green triangle reticle with a 200m zero? I'll see what I can do. Is the reticle supposed to be 100m tip/300m base? No, it's not setup as a BDC. I called Trijicon to ask the distance between the tip of the triangle down to the base. Because it is a second focal plane scope, there are two values. At low (1x power) there is a 16.7 MOA distance between top and bottom. At the high end (4x power) it changes to 4.2 MOA from tip to base. Thanks for getting back with me. I'll make up two separate ones then for 1X and 4X. |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 3/26/2015 10:13:29 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tReznr:
No, it's not setup as a BDC. I called Trijicon to ask the distance between the tip of the triangle down to the base. Because it is a second focal plane scope, there are two values. At low (1x power) there is a 16.7 MOA distance between top and bottom. At the high end (4x power) it changes to 4.2 MOA from tip to base. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tReznr:
Originally Posted By pezboytate:
Originally Posted By tReznr:
pezboytate, any chance you could do your magic for a Trijicon 1-4 acupoint green triangle reticle with a 200m zero? I'll see what I can do. Is the reticle supposed to be 100m tip/300m base? No, it's not setup as a BDC. I called Trijicon to ask the distance between the tip of the triangle down to the base. Because it is a second focal plane scope, there are two values. At low (1x power) there is a 16.7 MOA distance between top and bottom. At the high end (4x power) it changes to 4.2 MOA from tip to base. Done. Let me know if that doesn't look right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 3:52:51 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pezboytate:
Done. Let me know if that doesn't look right. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pezboytate:
Originally Posted By tReznr:
Originally Posted By pezboytate:
Originally Posted By tReznr:
pezboytate, any chance you could do your magic for a Trijicon 1-4 acupoint green triangle reticle with a 200m zero? I'll see what I can do. Is the reticle supposed to be 100m tip/300m base? No, it's not setup as a BDC. I called Trijicon to ask the distance between the tip of the triangle down to the base. Because it is a second focal plane scope, there are two values. At low (1x power) there is a 16.7 MOA distance between top and bottom. At the high end (4x power) it changes to 4.2 MOA from tip to base. Done. Let me know if that doesn't look right. Pull it down. I'm getting bad input from Trijicon. Because it's a second focal plane scope the reticle doesn't change in size as the scope is zoomed in and out, so the drawings for the 1x power is incorrect. The 4x drawings look correct, but now I don't trust the info provided to me. I called back to Trijicon technical support and got yet another value of 12.9 MOA, so something screwy is going on. I'm gonna try again with their engineering department on Monday and see if I can get a correct answer. Thanks for the patience. |
|
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 4/3/2015 8:58:37 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CD0311:
Agree on making this a sticky.... And would like to see the AMU 255m proposed zero added. Been using it for a few years now and it's worked out the best. Link: http://merlin555.free.fr/tir/M16-M4data.pdf I was wondering wtf/why when I read the link you provided but when you look at the images he makes of the sight pictures it really shows the ease of use it provides. |
|
|
ITA
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 3:34:05 AM EST
[#30]
Excellent! Very useful indeed! Thank you!
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/3/2015 7:30:17 PM EST
[#31]
Why no 50yd zero?
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/5/2015 3:34:52 PM EST
[#32]
"Why no 50yd zero?"
If you look at the existing examples you will notice most of the time there is not any significant difference between the 50m/200m POI with a 200m zero. Same is true for a 50y/200y comparison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2015 6:17:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: gotigers]
[#33]
I bore site at 50, zero at 50, re-zero at 200. It usually is very close. I did this today for a new scope. I much prefer a 200 yard zero.
Has anyone done any pics for the Vortex Strike Eagle 1-6x? I have one and I am curious what others take is on Vortex AR-BDC on the Strike Eagle. Edit: What are the drop hash marks calibrated for? nevermind, I pulled my shoes off and did the math and I confirmed it at the range. Shooting handloads, 75gr Hornady BTHP @ 2550 fps the drop hashes are 200, 280, 370, 465 & 570 |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 6/29/2015 9:32:22 AM EST
[#34]
The manual says that it can be used for 5.56 or 7.62 but I couldn't find any close matches using it the way they described. It isn't too far off from the M855 from a 14.5" barrel if you use the top crosshair as 100m. The circle should be the width of a torso at 100m. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 8:42:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: imaguy3]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pezboytate:
http://www.vortexoptics.com/uploads/sub_strike-eagle_1-6x24_ar-bdc_moa-t.jpg The manual says that it can be used for 5.56 or 7.62 but I couldn't find any close matches using it the way they described. It isn't too far off from the M855 from a 14.5" barrel if you use the top crosshair as 100m. The circle should be the width of a torso at 100m. They describe zeroing the top crosshair for 50yrds for 5.56 and every cross hair after is another 100... all the way down to 600 Fwiw I checked mine at 300 with a 55gr softpoint and it was making fine hits. then they change the yardages for 7.62 read page 3 http://www.vortexoptics.com/uploads/web_manual_ret_strike-eagle_ar-bdc-moa.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2015 1:14:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: SuperSet72]
[#36]
Those Strike Eagle MOA sub tensions are the same drops as what's in the Vortex Razor 1-6x JM-1 BDC.
So, if you have Strelok, use that reticle for your drops. Just running some quick numbers, Strelok tells me this for a 50yd zero with .223 going 3000fps: 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/10/2015 3:04:53 PM EST
[#37]
I emailed Strelok and the Vortex Strike Eagle AR-BDC reticle is now in the paid app.
I emailed him last week and he added it today. Great app with great support. |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 8/11/2015 7:57:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: ironhead7544]
[#38]
Great info. It also shows how you can use your reticle/front sight for a quick range finder.
If you are going to use this info, I would say check the results at the ranges you expect to encounter. You might find some variations due to your equipment type. The sight in target for the M16A1 with a 20 inch barrel and M193 55 gr ammo was marked "1000 inch". It was a rectangle that was just the front sight width at that distance. You just allowed a little light above the front sight. There was an "X" about 1 inch under the rectangle where the POI was adjusted to. That would give a 250 yard zero. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 8/17/2015 8:16:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: DevL]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1saxman:
For a magnified scope, I zero at 100 and use the ranging lines on the reticle for my holdovers. For original iron sights, 25M/300M. For 1X red-dot and BUIS, 50M/200M. The 50/200 is the most useful zero for 1X and BUIS as you can see by your nice graphic. It's a flat trajectory with good hits out to 250 without holdover. Considering you will be using M193, don't be surprised if your groups with a 4 MOA dot are big, making it difficult to find the center of the groups for the purpose of adjusting the sights. You might consider a 1:7 barrel for the heavier loads, M855 and up to 77gr. A barrel for M193 should be 1:9 and it will be good for 62gr M855 too. 1. M193 shoots fine out of a 1/7 barrel, still within that 4MOA dot. 2. I would hope M855 shoots fine out of a 1/9 since that was the twist it was designed to shoot from. I use 50/200 on non long range rifles and 100 on precision rifle's that I dial a dope. |
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 9/14/2015 11:32:30 AM EST
[#40]
Great post! Any plans on doing one for the Viper PST 1-4X MOA or MRAD reticle?
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 9/14/2015 2:36:54 PM EST
[#41]
I'll see what I can do, Vortex has all the info I need on their website.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2015 7:41:10 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pezboytate:
Thanks for getting back with me. I'll make up two separate ones then for 1X and 4X. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pezboytate:
Originally Posted By tReznr:
Originally Posted By pezboytate:
Originally Posted By tReznr:
pezboytate, any chance you could do your magic for a Trijicon 1-4 acupoint green triangle reticle with a 200m zero? I'll see what I can do. Is the reticle supposed to be 100m tip/300m base? No, it's not setup as a BDC. I called Trijicon to ask the distance between the tip of the triangle down to the base. Because it is a second focal plane scope, there are two values. At low (1x power) there is a 16.7 MOA distance between top and bottom. At the high end (4x power) it changes to 4.2 MOA from tip to base. Thanks for getting back with me. I'll make up two separate ones then for 1X and 4X. I emailed Trijicon today to reverify what they had earlier stated over the phone. The email I received confirms "AccuPoints are second focal plane scopes, and for our TR24, the triangle size is 16.7 moa at 1x thru 4.2 moa at 4x". Can we try again with this reticle and a 200m zero? 
Since it's a second focal plane optic the triangle won't change size and/or it's aiming point (the tip of the triangle) at any zoom value. The target in the background should be either it's normal size (at 1x power) or four time's closer (max zoom). |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 9/14/2015 9:59:59 PM EST
[#43]
I should be able to easily do that one. I believe I already drew up the reticle.
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 9/15/2015 8:55:32 AM EST
[#44]
I already had them done! If you want them with the reticle the same size on both I can scale down the 1X and scale up the 4X.
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 9/15/2015 12:27:43 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DeathMetal:
Great post! Any plans on doing one for the Viper PST 1-4X MOA or MRAD reticle? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2015 4:52:11 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pezboytate:
I already had them done! If you want them with the reticle the same size on both I can scale down the 1X and scale up the 4X. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pezboytate:
I already had them done! If you want them with the reticle the same size on both I can scale down the 1X and scale up the 4X. The scaling is wrong. Since this is a second focal power optic the size of the triangle never changes. Here's a (crappy) cell phone pic of the triangle reticle at one power: 
And here it is zoomed in at four power: 
The way Trijcon phrased things is what's causing the confusion. "AccuPoints are second focal plane scopes, and for our TR24, the triangle size is 16.7 moa at 1x thru 4.2 moa at 4x The smaller size triangle is correct at four power as the distance is 4.2 MOA from top to bottom. At one power the triangle reticle has the same 4.2 MOA appearance in front of your eyes, but there is actually a 16.7 MOA difference from the tip of the triangle to it's base. Even though the triangle never changes size, the MOA value between the top and bottom of the triangle changes. The aiming point (tip of the triangle) doesn't change no matter what zoom level is selected, it only matters if you want to use the base of the triangle for ranging or as a poor man's BDC. Keep the four power ballistic reticle drawings, as they are correct. If you'd be kind enough, redo the one power (no zoom magnification) drawings with an apparent 4.2 MOA reticle displayed. I'll do the math later to figure out the ballistic drop for the base of the triangle at 1x and 4x. Does that make sense? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2015 7:06:42 PM EST
[#47]
Not sure why folks just don't use Strelok. Plug in your gun, ammo, target type and then choose your reticle and boom! You got drops. And it's free.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2015 7:10:48 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SuperSet72:
Not sure why folks just don't use Strelok. Plug in your gun, ammo, target type and then choose your reticle and boom! You got drops. And it's free. Because sometimes batteries die. I'd like to print out and laminate a reference card. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 9/16/2015 9:55:37 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tReznr:
The scaling is wrong. Since this is a second focal power optic the size of the triangle never changes. Here's a (crappy) cell phone pic of the triangle reticle at one power: http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b388/tReznr/Arfcom/image_zpshdg9n1mk.jpg And here it is zoomed in at four power: http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b388/tReznr/Arfcom/image_zpswbwx1zar.jpg The way Trijcon phrased things is what's causing the confusion. The smaller size triangle is correct at four power as the distance is 4.2 MOA from top to bottom. At one power the triangle reticle has the same 4.2 MOA appearance in front of your eyes, but there is actually a 16.7 MOA difference from the tip of the triangle to it's base. Even though the triangle never changes size, the MOA value between the top and bottom of the triangle changes. The aiming point (tip of the triangle) doesn't change no matter what zoom level is selected, it only matters if you want to use the base of the triangle for ranging or as a poor man's BDC. Keep the four power ballistic reticle drawings, as they are correct. If you'd be kind enough, redo the one power (no zoom magnification) drawings with an apparent 4.2 MOA reticle displayed. I'll do the math later to figure out the ballistic drop for the base of the triangle at 1x and 4x. Does that make sense? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tReznr:
Originally Posted By pezboytate:
I already had them done! If you want them with the reticle the same size on both I can scale down the 1X and scale up the 4X. The scaling is wrong. Since this is a second focal power optic the size of the triangle never changes. Here's a (crappy) cell phone pic of the triangle reticle at one power: http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b388/tReznr/Arfcom/image_zpshdg9n1mk.jpg And here it is zoomed in at four power: http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b388/tReznr/Arfcom/image_zpswbwx1zar.jpg The way Trijcon phrased things is what's causing the confusion. "AccuPoints are second focal plane scopes, and for our TR24, the triangle size is 16.7 moa at 1x thru 4.2 moa at 4x The smaller size triangle is correct at four power as the distance is 4.2 MOA from top to bottom. At one power the triangle reticle has the same 4.2 MOA appearance in front of your eyes, but there is actually a 16.7 MOA difference from the tip of the triangle to it's base. Even though the triangle never changes size, the MOA value between the top and bottom of the triangle changes. The aiming point (tip of the triangle) doesn't change no matter what zoom level is selected, it only matters if you want to use the base of the triangle for ranging or as a poor man's BDC. Keep the four power ballistic reticle drawings, as they are correct. If you'd be kind enough, redo the one power (no zoom magnification) drawings with an apparent 4.2 MOA reticle displayed. I'll do the math later to figure out the ballistic drop for the base of the triangle at 1x and 4x. Does that make sense? It's just a mater of perspective. I made all of the targets the same size and the reticle larger or smaller instead of the reticle the same size and the targets larger or smaller. I can make the reticles the same size like I said before, no problem. |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 9/16/2015 10:59:55 AM EST
[#50]
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2023 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
