This Sunday afternoon was spent pondering a question put to me by 48th Highlander of Grenadier Precision who is building a 6.8mmSPC Designated Marksman's Rifle. He asked what glass I would put on a DMR, and why?

Let's first define the role of this. This is to provide precision fire out beyond the effective range the standard issue rifle at squad/section level. This is to be achieved without making the weapon unsuitable for the full spectrum of tasks that can be expected to be encountered in infantry operations.

OK..so we're putting some numbers to this. It's not unreasonable to expect to be able to successfully engage targets out to say 600-700m.The marksman suffers a disadvantage from geenrally operating alone, rather than with a spotter. While it would be possible to use a LRF and then dial in the range, I reckon that in the most part, the user will be ranging using the optic, dialing and then applying a bit of holdover.  For this, I reckon the Front Focal Plane reticule is pretty important.

Which brings us nciely to the question of fixed or variable. Fixed is simple, saves weight and cost. I don't hwoever feel that you can have one power setting that can effectively cover 50-600m well. One of the uses of the scope will eb to 'glass' the area, and this will depend entirely on the tactical situation whether a wide FOV or hi-mag is desirable. Therefore I feel that a variable is the way to go. I reckon a low of 2x and a high of 10x is desirable for the application.

Variable and Front Focal eliminates a large chunk of the market. I really like the IOR 35mm 2-12x, which gives tremendous performance from a pretty compact package but it's 2FP. Ditto the 2.5-10x  Nighftforce NXS and the Leupold MR/Ts. Not looking good.

This being a DMR means that I am trying to avoid a big lump of steel and aluminium on top of the rifle. Which suggests to me a smaller objective is desirable to reduce the size and also the weight of the optic. This is where the S&B PMII falls down. It's just too much scope.

Which leaves just 2 standing....the Leupold LR/T FF and the USO SN-3. Both have illumination, albeit somewhat less than stellar, custom BDCs (which I reckon are important for grunt+ grade optics) and 1/2MOA knobs (quicker for minute of man type apps).  The Leupy is 3.5-10x which loses out to the USO's 1.8-10x in terms of adjustment. It is much lighter (19.5ozs vs. 2 lbs.) but 0.5in longer than the SN-3.

I'm not entirely happy with either scope and consider both too physically large for the role. The Leupy's range of maginfication is much less than that of the USO but the USO is just stupid heavy and compeltely ludicrous on a gun you have to run with. The SN-4 doesn't reach the 10x desired.

So...? Leupold could more or less make the grade with a FF MR/T. 3-9x isn't wonderful but probably bearable. Indeed, this is the scope that I have been pestering them to do. It would be a fine GP optic for the AR platform and I think if they made it available at about 1K, they would sell a lot of them.

If somehow USO could put their stuff on a diet, it would be almost perfect. A SN-3 1.8-10x but with a smaller obejctive than the 44mm they are currently running to shave some weight. EREK knobs and BDC...

So close...yet so far.......

Simon

I like the sound of that... A Slimline SN3 w/ EREK and one of the Horus designed reticles would be a beautiful mate for a DMR.

Only problem is, there's no such beast at current.

Well.....not yet anyway. Need to find the resources to bring this to fruition.....

I'm not sold on the Horus reticule, mainly becuase I don't feel that the DMR guy really has the time to range, punch up the holdover on the PDA, reacquire and engage. The Horus works real good if you have a spotter to lase, met and punch up of the holdover. The section marksman is more than likely not going to have someone to do that for him (although I reckon that RF binos are a Must these days).  

Need to explore USO MOA-Dot thing more. It seems really quite straightforward and that I like. I wonder how useful it is for fast and dirty ranging?

OK...been thinking about reticules;-
1) I like the notion of the reticule and dials being correlated. If I were starting from scratch, I'd look very seriously at the USO MOA reticule.

2) A busy reticule is slower and harder to use. Keep the main reticule simple. Range find on a RF scale.

3) The human torso is always approximately 2 feet from the neck to the waist (gee...I read this somewhere) for an adult. You can use that for rough rangefinding using a scale set to 2ft at 100yards, 200 yards etc. out to maybe 800 yards.  A FF scope will allow you to range at any mag.
Yes...it's no good against someone prone facing you but it's better than some solutions.

The RF would be matched to the BDC with fine adjustment acheived by holdover using the reticule.

4) The rifle when sued in a sniper team would probably swap BDC for 0.5MOA cams.

Simon

Im confused... S&B PMII 3-12 is too heavy for consideration yet the SN3 which has identical weight with a smaller objective lens is OK?  Size difference is negligable and weight is same.  S&B has better low light performance and illumination system but its not suitable?  I think they are in the exact same bracket.

My bad. I have to keep reminding myself about imperial values. I actually prefer a smaller objective for this app. I consider the 44mm objective too big and owuld like to try and go down to a 24mm like on the Nightforce. This should help shave weight and reduce OAL.

The SN-3 looks like the more promsiing route at this juncture because it has the mag I want 2-10x, an objective I'm interested in (lifted off the SN-4) and a reticule that will be customsied for this app. USO is more geared up for custom work....and that's the basic issue with this app, it'snot filled by any scope off the shelf.

I'm not too concerned that I'll be going from fabulous to just excellent in terms of glass. The illumination thing is a rather greater concern but it's secondary to the mag and reticule. I reckon USO is the quicker and cheaper route to go for a proof of pricnicple unit.

Simon

1.8-10x SN-4 w. 35mm objective.

Never heard of one? Me neither till USO brought it up. looks like I'm in business..
SN-3 length but smaller and lighter....

Simon

Sounds like a cool optic. Do happen to have anymore details on it?

Tell em to make a 1.1-5.5X version while you are at it since they have the 5X variable factor technology.

I do not see why they can incorporate a better lighting technology like Mueller with its cheap Japaneese scopes.  If they did that I would buy their scopes and stop saving for a Short Dot.

I'm still working on it so bear with me. The downside appears to be that the SN-4 doesn't take EREK and 0.625MOA knobs aren't intuitive and run counter to the whole effort of KISS. 8 clicks to 5 MOA......wibble. So it's SN-4 vs. SN-3 again.

No indication  that they intend to address the illum issue anytime soon.

Here's a first stab at what the reticule might look like. Small hashes are 2 MOA, big hashes are 10 MOA with the hood being 20MOA across and the small circle being 4 MOA. RF scale is indicative and would have to be properly designed  and sized of course.



Edited to have the correctly sized RF scale

Nice reticle

If only US Optics had better illumination...

You can always forego the illumination. I have asked...they're not biting.

It look great at 10x to 4x but may be a little small at 2X but at that mag you just use the hood as an aimpoint.

At 100 yards, 1 MOA is 1 inch. At 500m it's 5 inches. Real easy to work holdovers.

Simon

Ahhhh Simon, you are the man.  Looking good.  Zen master is close to understanding the inner workings of the Brain Housing Group of the average infantryman.

Version B integrates the RF onto the main reticule. That's the beauty of the MOA system...you have to fudge in a bit of metric if you're so inclined.

The RF scale is on the RHS of the vertical post. Each tick is 100m.



Simon

Leupold MRT 1.5-5 or 3-9  I had the 3-9 and was in a city all the time and thought it worked out great- given that he is the DM he may want the higher magnification.  

If he is going to be clearing rooms and stuff the 1.5-5 has an edge.  It is way faster than an ACOG.  

Get it in thew cantilevered extended Larue mount and buy a monoloc for PVS14s and you can mount NODS and you might be able to re-mount the scope forward on the reciever for and not change the stock length for night-time OPs and operations.  

I had that settup but didn't move the scope and center of gravity moves way out when you extend the stock.  I bout an MRP to get around that.  (one piece top rail.)  You could get the same in a SIR.

2-10x allows the shooter to go from 30-800m. For those close up and personal situations, a Doctersight is going to be mounted on a '1.30' mounting that goes onto the side rail. 3 or 9 oclock depends on the user's rpeference and handedness but it's deisgned to be reversible to accomodate both. This is instead of a shoulder or piggyback that leaves the Docter a little too exposed to being bashed. Also you can use it without  going to a chin weld simply by canting the gun or rolling your head. This is an 'on gun' solution rather than a in pocket solution like a Aimpoint or EOtech on throwlevers.

Green0 - what reticule were you suign on the Leupy? A Mil Dot?

Simon

OK simon, you are approaching DMR nirvanna.  Don't worry about metric conversion.  Most of the US military and nato is versed in the M and KM.  I know this is not your end customer, but a US made optic meeting your criteria would have sig advantage in a solicitation for a DMR optic.

I am convinced now that optics manufacturers DO NOT UNDERSTAND the DMR.

Summary of what you propose

1. Simple yet highly functional reticle with a simple rangefinding estimator.  Hood for emergency short range engagement through the optic.  Do not cloud the reticle or the infantryman's mind.
2. Clean clear light gathering glass with reticle illumination, tritium or otherwise.
3. Variable magnification.  The rifle needs to fill the role of a rifleman when not used in the role of the DM.
4. Reticle holdover must be accomplished with a visual BDC for rapid distant target engagement. Corresponding elevation and windage click adjustments must be simple and correspond with the scale of the holdover adjustment for fixed position firing.
5. This is not a sniper rifle, as such the optic weight, and profile must be kept to minimum confines and be rugged enough to be used in everyday activity.  HSLD.  Some concessions must be made in FOV and light gathering properties to achieve this.
6. Realistic forgiving eye relief for rapid engagement and use by different users in the section.
7.  QD RTZ mount for SHTF.  Integral mount would be optimal.

It has become a concept as important or more so than 2 LMG's or automatic riflemen per section.

Imagine, designing equipment around its optimal use instead of the other way around.  

Gear queers unite!

1. Math and memorizing tables is not good.

2. A kickass illuminated reticule that works in daylight would be optimal but perhaps not essential. Illumination is really only needed  in lowlight or with NV.I know I'm not gonna get any joy from USO......

3. Working 300m and 700m are quite different things and variable mag is essential.  FF avoids POI shift and lets you range. The small hashes disappear at low mag but that's probably OK since you're probably engaging much closer targets.

4. This is where the MOA scale beats mils. Hands down.

5. The DMR is that uncomfortable middle ground between a balls out sniper optic with >10x mag and total emphasis on light gathering and optical performance and the infantryman's optic.
Manufdacturers work both ends and try to make their stuff fit the middle by fudge. The MR/T addresses this area but is hampered by 2FP and low mag variability,

6. This is really only an issue with shooting nose to CH. It has been largely solved by either true monolithic rails or cantilever mounts.

7. I'm not so sold on integral mounts. Different folks have different likes and dislikes. For example big mil is all ARMS...hence the Eotech553 running them. That I wouldn't want any on mine is irrelevant. Better to have a well designed mount than necessarily goign integral.

Darren...that's what we're doing.

The Brits have 2 DMRs per section with one LMG. They make a virtue of the L86's uselessness as a MG.

Here's how I see a Near Future Squad/Section looking like.

Squad leader carbine with underbarrel GL.
Grenadier  Repeater GL with SBR
2 x Marksmen  DMR*
2x Autoriflemen SAW/Autorifle
2x Riflemen carbine

*The DMR should not be overly long and unwieldy as to be substantially disadvantaged in closer work. Close Combat sight issued on QD mount.

Quoted: Here's how I see a Near Future Squad/Section looking like. Squad leader carbine with underbarrel GL. Grenadier  Repeater GL with SBR Wouldn't the Xm25 be a good choice for the grenadier the benfit being he wouldnt need an sbr because he could use flechete rounds if needed? 2 x Marksmen  DMR* 2x Autoriflemen SAW/Autorifle 2x Riflemen carbine *The DMR should not be overly long and unwieldy as to be substantially disadvantaged in closer work. Close Combat sight issued on QD mount.

Simon,

I think you're really underscoring the importance of an illuminated reticule.

Justin

You mean understating. I'm soft pedalling it because I cannot fight all the battles at once and I have to choose which ones I must and can win. Illumination is not one that I have to win.....quite the contrary. Relatively unremarkable illumination is getting by every day in the field. It's a feature, not essential. FF, decent glass, solid construction, the right reticule and knobs have to e got right first. None of the top end US manuf's have great illumination......it will impove.

Simon

Why not ask Nightforce to make a ff version of the nsx 2.5-10x?

Nightforce doesn't talk much. I've tried.......they keep askign me to talk to Oz......*Sigh* Also they have ZERO FF knowhow and nothing other than 0.25 MOA knobbies.

Simon

Why MOA and not mils?  Why the BDC in the reticle?  For 400 yards and in you can hold off easily with a mildot with half mil marks, for further your incline/decline, ambient temp etc need to be fine tuned anyway and Id prefer a BDC cam on the turet at that point myself.  I do not have any military expereince and your insight to your selections would be appreciated.  I have never liked built in BDC to the reticle because of lack of versatility due to changing loads, barrel lengths, altitudes, temperatures etc.  Is it close enough at long range to not matter even with changing seasons (temp) when you are deployed?  Will the load be specific to M855 for calibration?  Is that not a less than ideal solution for ammo in a DMR if MK 262 comes along when ytou get resupplied and cant match the reticle so you cant use it etc?  Just throwing out questions sorry if its disorganised just looking for your thoughts.

Why MOA and not mils? Why the BDC in the reticle?

Because the DMR is an infantryman designated to use the tool.  Not a sniper.  99.9999% of soldiers, even the special ones, do not have the time nor inclination to microprocess all of this tech bullshit as we are.  It is Simon's job to get it to the point where you can hand an average guy the rifle with a short explaination of how the reticle works and he can kill people.

Snipers spend hours microadjusting equipment.  Calculating shots.  They train for it and can spend hours/days setting up a shot.  The DMR concept is basically similar to the automatic rifleman concept.  A member of the section/squad with a different tool.

Quoted: Nightforce doesn't talk much. I've tried.......they keep askign me to talk to Oz......*Sigh* Also they have ZERO FF knowhow and nothing other than 0.25 MOA knobbies. Simon

Whose Oz? The post on 10-8 forums that talked about the Shortdot's development said that Schmidt and Bender were really cool and listened to all the suggestions why not talk to them?

i was shopping for a similar DMR concept optic.

the 1-4x SN-4 with doubler upgrade takes you out to 8x. with a custom reticle (combine the circle dot with DOE reticle) it would fill the role perfectly.

the accupoint 2.5-10x has the variable range but lacks mil or bdc marks on the reticle(maybe Trijicon can do a special reticle) and the objective is BIG.

i ended up buying both scopes, but am keeping the SN-4 because the magnification and reticle can be upgraded

What's eye relief like on your proposed optic, Simon?

Quoted: Why MOA and not mils? Why the BDC in the reticle? Because the DMR is an infantryman designated to use the tool.  Not a sniper.  99.9999% of soldiers, even the special ones, do not have the time nor inclination to microprocess all of this tech bullshit as we are.  It is Simon's job to get it to the point where you can hand an average guy the rifle with a short explaination of how the reticle works and he can kill people. Snipers spend hours microadjusting equipment.  Calculating shots.  They train for it and can spend hours/days setting up a shot.  The DMR concept is basically similar to the automatic rifleman concept.  A member of the section/squad with a different tool.

But still mils and .1 mil clicks are easier to memorise and work with than MOA hold offs and hold overs.  Is it a metric vs English kind of thing?  Metric is easier to use but we all are used to English system?

I guess it does not say much for our soldiers if they cant memorise 10 mil height to torso height/range figures and 9 hold offs on the mil scale.

Quoted: I like the RET.  a lot of guy I know would like 1.5-6x with a red dot that would work like a Aimpoint.

Way to plug my idea, Mike!  I just sang that same tune to Simon yesterday.


Simon, You've got my attention.  Daytime illum would be verynice for cqb work, but as you say, LOTS of heathens have been shot using scopes with NO illum whatsoever.

I really like your concept.  Only suggestion I would have (besides the 50,000 hour Aimpoint dot) is that I really think a grunt (or me) would be better served by a maximum low-end magnification of 1.5x.  That's why I suggested 1.5-6x mag to start with.  At 1.5x, you have a capable CQB optic, especially if the reticle is designed so that it's bold and easy to pick up at low mag - like your big bold circle.   BUT, at 2x or 2.5x, it's really not doable with any kind of precision - you just have to leave both eyes open and put color in the hole and shoot.  So far so good, but not a comfortable feeling in a tac shooting match, so I can imagine it would suck if the targets are shooting back.

Everybody has an opinion, but I feel pretty strongly about this one... for the sake of the trigger-pullers.  In reality, most engagements are going to take place at 0-300 yds anyway, even if you have a 10x optic.  Hell, most military sniper engagements are within that range.  

Anything a decent rifleman can hit at 10x, he can hit at 6x.  At 1.5-6x mag, I feel like I can handle anything from contact distance to 600 yds.  With my 2.5-10 Nightforce, I feel pretty severely handicapped at anything under 30-40 yds.

Also, in regards to putting a Docter on top of or on the side of a scope.  In my admittedly limited experience, a person will tend to look through (or at) the scope when under stress and in a hurry.  If he's got time to make the decision to move his head and look through the Doc, he probably doesn't need to look through the Doc.

just my two-bits.  



ETA:  Oh yeah - I really like the range estimation marks on the reticle.  Might consider doing man-size or "half-man" marks, so the shooter just brackets the target's body, or half-body, height, reads the number, dials the BDC knob and fires.  This would be VERY fast for 300-600 yd shots!  My reason for the full-body, or "half-man" brackets is because the larger the target you are ranging, the more accurate the range estimation will be.

And, I know everybody likes to think "precision", but 1moa clicks on the elev knob will put your shot within 1/2 moa (or 3 inches) of point of aim at 600 yds - there are so many other variables involved in making that 600 yd shot that I doubt being 1/2 moa off the mark is going to make any difference.  Most DMR shooters won't be able to shoot better than that in real world conditions.  Anyway, 1 moa clicks would be faster and might make it easier to get from zero to 600+ in less than one full rev of the knob...

DevL..... You look but you don't see. That's not a BDC...it's a rangefinding scale. It works with a BDC knob that is calibrated for the particular calibre and loading (e.g. 115gr 6.8mm SPC milpressure). You just change knobs as necessary. The reticule remains the same and is compatible with any knob. You could also use it with std. 0.5 or even 0,25MOA knobs.

The MOA scale allows you to adjust 2 clicks per MOA or 4 clicks a hash. Much eariser than work the mils then converting to MOA and working how many clicks.  Mil is a legacy system that is institutionalised. Most soldiers couldn't mil nor memorize tables. With this reticule, they don't have to. It does take away the mystique I agree but I could teach you to range, dial and holdover with this setup in an afternoon.

1 MOA = (Range (yards)/100) inches. Does it get simpler? It's trickier if you;re Metric driven like I am....

If you don't bring baggage with you....this is great way to do things. Mils are clunky and cumbersome. Yes...people get real good with it.....but I'm not targeting that segment. Actually...I think that they too would like simple and stupid.

Mike.....a  S&B 1.5-6x FlashDot Zenith. I'll eb speaking to S&B soon. We'll see if anything transpires. 6x is a little low to run 700 yard shots with IMO....but good for 400-500 yards.
I like the Flashdot and the hollow centre circle is where a 2MOA Flashdot-type  illumination would go. Yes...I don't tell you guys EVERYTHING......

Simon

Eye relief  would be ideally 3.5-4.5 inches IMO so that it could be used with heavy recoiling calibres without bruising eyes. Not a problem with a EER type mounting on an AR.

Simon

Once again, this is not meant as a GP scope. I agree that lower base mag and Flash Dot type illumination would make this more useful for all-round work but this is a DMR optic built to make use of the extended capabilities of emerging claibres like 6.8mmSPC and 6.5mm Grendel taht excel at longer ranges. Yes.you could apply all the goodness here to a lower mag solution and I might well pursue that in due course.

The reticule will also work on fixed power. 2FP isn't so hot because you can't use the ranging and stuff easily outside of max mag.

The neck-waist system is consistent and works with partly occluded targets. Full height is adds stuff and is much more variable.

0.5MOA delivers the precision that the host rifle deserves..... This is a proof-of-concept exercise to begin with. When we have the 0.5MOA up and running...we'll be in a good position to determine whether they're necessary. I know what our target performance is and I'll need 0.5MOA to do it justice.....

Simon

Personally, being a simple guy, I think MOA would be the way to go. Eye relief sounds good enough. I'd probably stick it in an EER so I can NTCH.

The only problem with long eye relief is that it limits what you run on your 12 o'clock rail if you use a 7.0-9.0 rail system. Anything longer and you've got an assload of space to use.

What will the weight be?  Did we cover that already?

It will be what it will be. This is not meant to be the 'final' product as it were but rather a stepping stone. A proof-of-principle unit that people can play with a determine what is good or bad and what is useful abd what is not. I would like for this scope to be as small and as light as possible but it's really pointless to go on about these thinsg unless you have something to benchmark it against. And that's what I'm doing...creating a benchmark to work from.

When you have a tangible item to hand...then comaprisons become valid.

My target weight is sub 20 oz.s That will not be possible with the SN-3 but it has all the other qualities I am looking for.

Illumination target is flash dot level.

Simon

Simon,

I'll quit harping on the magnification issue and leave it to you, since you are the one paying for this experiment...  BUT, in my opinion, you are somewhat missing the boat by not going down to 1.5x on the low end.  I'll ask you to re-read my last post, and consider the reality of the squad level DMR vs the theoretical.  I think your magnification fits the theoretical more than the reality.  I'm not an expert, but it looks to me like the shooter would have a lot more need for 0-100 yds capability than 600-800 yd capability.

Quoted: It will be what it will be. This is not meant to be the 'final' product as it were but rather a stepping stone. A proof-of-principle unit that people can play with a determine what is good or bad and what is useful abd what is not. I would like for this scope to be as small and as light as possible but it's really pointless to go on about these thinsg unless you have something to benchmark it against. And that's what I'm doing...creating a benchmark to work from. When you have a tangible item to hand...then comaprisons become valid. My target weight is sub 20 oz.s That will not be possible with the SN-3 but it has all the other qualities I am looking for. Illumination target is flash dot level. Simon

Understood, and agreed. I'm awaiting the first benchmark, and I'm certainly looking forward to the progress to the final product.

A Shooter....the reality is that I probably wouldn't have half as good ammo and bits on a DMR than the one being built. Also..USO don't do 1.5x..... and I'm not at all confident that S&B will eb able to deliver in the time frame if they play at all. But please don't be disheartened because this is THE BEGINNING.....and not THE END. We start with what is ont he table as it gets us up and runnign fast....and then we work to make it the way it should be.

My intention was always to enable the DMR to comfortably shoot out to 500m and more mag gives me that lattitude. We might well find that we never work past 6-8x but we never know until we try. The objective of this exercise was to see the how much of the 6.8 can be exploited within a platform that is still reasonably useful for infantry work.

Give us a chance fellas....

Simon

Is this scope applicable to the discussion, perhaps as a more economic yet viable alternative?  CDNN has them pretty cheap.

Brand New • 1.5-6x42 Variable Scope • 30mm Tube • German #4 Reticle • Aspherical Lens • 19 to 7m FOV @ 100m • Multi-Coated Lenses • 1/4" @ 100yds Click Elevation and Windage Adjustment Turrets • Power Adjustment Ring • 8cm Eye Relief • German MFG. • Nitrogen Filled • Water, Fog and Shock Proof

Docter is nice glass....but;-

1) No custom reticule capability in anything under VERY LONG. German No. 4 doesn't cut it.
You can't range quickly.

2) 0.25 MOA knobs ONLY. No BDC at all and thus compeltely nullifying the whole point of a RF-BDC correlation.

It's a hunting scope. I deal with Docter for the Doctersight but I won't go to them for a DMR optic. They have no rapid prototyping capability at all.

I'm not building this scope to sell...nor am I unduly concerned about unit costs as  this is a proof-of-concept unit. (sense of deja vu). It will cost 1K just to cut the new reticule. The whole point of this exercise is to build an optic suited to the role, rather than try and get by with an optic off the shelf.

Simon

tag

Quoted: A Shooter....the reality is that I probably wouldn't have half as good ammo and bits on a DMR than the one being built. Also..USO don't do 1.5x... Simon

Hey Simon,  I understand.  Time might be your biggest limiting factor.  

Just FYI, I got an email from Wendell at USO today saying "We do have a 1.5-6 in the works" in response to my query about the fact that their website does advertise the SN-4 as being either 1-4x or 1.5-6x...  But they have been advertising that option for years and I've never seen one, or heard of anybody that has one.  

hat

Quoted: what i"d like to see is a trijicon tr21 type 2x10 or 4x12 w/BAC 30mm tube 44 to 50 obj. w/tritium illumination w/range finding bullet drop sighting and i"d like ta mount it on a m1a scuot w/ a national match upgrade

TR20R.........

Bump as there is more to this and i don't want the thread to be lost.

Quoted: Bump as there is more to this and i don't want the thread to be lost.

.... tell us, tell us!