Can someone tell me why this isn't possible on a TR24?

The thick horizontal lines have the fiber.... the skinny vertical BDC is etched ala ACOG's.
Looking at other Accupoints, it seems as though there is a correlation to "line" weight to
fiber "dot or triangle" size. I.E..... the larger the dot, the larger the lines need to be.... just
an observation.

I don't see why this couldn't be done. I'd buy this bad boy in a heartbeat, as would a TON of
others.

-ZA

That looks awesome!

Bullitt has mentioned that the fiber in the Accupoint scopes is "free floating". My thoughts were that
the chevron setup could be free floating like the post setup, but then have one of the lenses etched with
the BDC. If the couldn't etch one of the existing lenses due to focal problems, maybe  they could insert a
flat lense with the etched pattern just in front of the fiber (or touching the front of the fiber)... that way it'd be
in focus.

Anyone have any thoughts?

-ZA

if trijicon made an accupoint with a BDC like on the ACOG, i would be one of the first in line to buy one.

The two black lines and the red triangle are all one piece of fiber, there is no glass to etch in an AccuPoint.  While the black lines look like etched glass, they are not.  You are looking at the edges of the round fiber that makes up the post.  We would like to put an ACOG style reticle in the AccuPoint but at the moment there is no feasible way to do so.

that makes sense...

Hey Bullitt....

Where is the fiber actually located? I assume in the bell housing, correct? Would it be possible to slip an ultra thin, flat piece of glass  with an etched reticle in there just in front of the
fiber?

Also.... can the fiber come from both sides like I have shown and be supported properly?

Also.... does Trijicon have any exploded views of these sights (owner's manual or anything) that can be shown publically?


Thanks.


-ZA

Same here. The TR24 looks nice but I need a better reticle in a variable power optic for my needs vs. the current offerings.

My .02.

All they need to do is put the mildot from the 3-9X and 3.5-10X into the 1-4X.  Instant BDC and ranging capability.

Yes.  

I also wouldn't mind seeing a hybrid reticule combing the mil-dot with the German#4.   I personally like the fat posts for centering your target on the move.

I  agree, while the mildot has some thicker posts past the center section I dont see any disadvantage to the even thicker posts of the German plus the center portion of the mildot and it would be EASY for Trijicon to implement, and it would work for ANY caliber, bullet choice and barrel length vs being stuck with a barrel length/caliber specific BDC.

I agree 110%.  It wouldn't clutter up the FOV at all.  THAT would be in my opinion the best possible reticule choice in a 1-4 Accupoint.  Good grief could you imagine the demand for something like that?

Guess that makes Devl and I first on the shipping list once they come available, right Bullitt?

I too, would buy a the tr24 NOW (this very second) if it had a BDC reticle.....  It would fit my needs as an uber optic.

ZA206...that reticle looks great!  Strong work. It looks like we can only hope at this point though.  I have confidence that Trijicon is working on this, they have a great reputation for being cutting edge.

my only problem with that is that the black lines don't lead to the POA.

Any updates from Trijicon about the R&D being done on this?

I still say this is the easier solution...



with the center illuminated section shaped like this...



Would be WAY faster to implement, not be caliber specific, be just as fast as the triangle or chevron for up close use due to the large illuminated area, and just all around kick ass!  In greeen of course.  Just fill in the lines between the first mildots with illumination...

It would give a center aiming point of 50/200, the first mildot would be almost exactly 300 at the top of the dot and the second mildot would be almost exaclty 400 at the bottom of the dot with heavy match ammo.  People with various ammo types and barrel lengths could just use the top of the mildot, middle of the mildot or bottom of the mildot to refine the aiming point off the first two dots and know their own ranges for those dots or for other begingin aiming point like a 100 yard zero etc.  Other mildots would be used far less frequently but still have a usable range like 550 yards for the third dot or whatever... and honestly how often do you guys use a 4X scope beyond 400 yards anyway?  And for those who would say the mildot covers too much of the target you could just find out what range the intersection of the top of the mildot and crosshair produces... then your actual aiming point is only covered below the point of aim.  To be even finer little hashes every half mil and at the mil marks could be used vs dots.  A universal BDC/mildot just makes more sense IMO and appeaals to a larger audience than a ONE caliber, ONE ammo type, ONE barrel length and ONE mounting height option.

preach it loud preach it proud Devl!

Glad someone else thought of this also.

I really, really like my 2.5-10 Mil Dot.

ETA- What he said...after.

If I understand it correctly the current stadia and dot on the Gemeran is .9 MOA across at 4X and quadruple that at 1X as its second focal plane.

A mildot is 3.5 MOA between dots (actually like 3.53" at 100 yards for an Army mildot but we wont get picky) then there is the size of a Army mildot which is 1/4 mil across... .25 x 3.5 = .875 inches at 100 yards.  So as you can see the DOT itself is about the SAME size as the reticle stadia thickness.  Obviously a DOT wont work with this reticle and power with current stadia thickness... you need either a wider hash or a thinner stadia.  A thinner stadia would be too thin.

I am going to make a TO SCALE representation of my mil-hash Accupoint idea.  The reticle thickness will be about .875 MOA.  I will make a similar TO SCALE German reticle for comparison.  Give me a minute and I will post pics.

So here we go so far... reticle is as close to scale as I could get it to the pixel.  Reticle size and FOV should be pretty accurate.  Every pixel is 1/4 mil or about .86 MOA.  This means the stadia is .86 MOA thick which is pretty much exactly the thickness of the thin portion of the German stadia (listed at .9 MOA).  The illuminated section is 6 MOA by 6 MOA crosshair and .86 MOA thick... to compare a TA31F chevron is a 5.5 MOA reticle in height and the reticle is 1 MOA thick so its about as visible and similar in size to the chevron.  These measurements are for 4X magnification... of course the size is X4 at 1X since this is a second focal plane reticle.  The thick sections of the stadia are 4.5 MOA thick at 4X and 18 MOA wide at 1X.  



Better contrast against foliage background to see illuminated section better.



Zoomed in on reticle...



The current German #4 is baisically like this...



As seen here...



As you can see thats not much illuminated area and has no aiming or measuring references... I dont think my reticle is too obtrusive, too hard to see when the illumination might not work or really bad in any way.  Something similar to my reticle would be ideal IMO... good BAC at 4X, lots of illumination up close for fast target aquisition at 1X, precise aiming points, ranging and hold over/windage references... and you can turn down the illumination for target shooting so you dont even get the bloominess of a TA31F in bright light.  The thick sections are even thick enough for use with no illumination but thin enough to not cover too much of your target area... I find the German #4 a little thick at the edges.

Or maybe I am just crazy.

Hokie approves.  Bullitt - get on it!

Oh yeah... the bottom edge of the illumination in the crosshair section would be your 25 yard zero when zeroed at 50/200 as well as your 300 yard zero.  You have to know hold overs inside 25 yards no matter what and do you really need to have an illuminated reticle capable of illuminating your aiming area beyond 300 yards?  BAC ACOGs dont even offer this feature, only  TA01 variants do.

Im with DevL

Great input Devl!

I don't want an illuminated .0001 MOA dot or a 2000 MOA triangle.


Devl's idea is stupid simple and genius practical. ZA'a is also nice, but I agree with the black lines matching the POA. Regardless, I think the whole TR2X line's reticles could use some vast improvement, and these ideas are much better than Trijicon's current offerings.

I think either suggestion here is an improvement on the initial offering.

As it stand I think I'd be getting a green triangle post, but I'd sell that in a heartbeat for either of the suggested reticles.

Let's see it trijicon!!!

Good work DevL....

I'd take your reticle in a heartbeat over the current TR24 offerings.

Maybe we can keep hounding them and they will build it! I just wish I knew
maore about the Accupoint construction... if I did, it would be easier to think
up "do able" reticle designs....

-ZA

I get it......the light gathered from the tritium element/light gathering window is reflected from the opposite end of the optical fiber, which pointed thus giving us the illuminated triangle (kind of like looking through a glass pyramid, the adjacent sides appear to be mirrors). The 'lines' below the triangle are the physical edges of the fiber rod, much like what you'd see holding up a clear plexiglass tube or rod. The only way to have a tritium illuminated BDC reticle would be to redesign the entire system. Tough to do within the confines of a 1" or 30mm tube.....

ZA,s Proposed TR24 Reticle ––-  Looks like a Winner to me    

Keeping this thread alive in hopes to get an update from Trijicon...

This seems like it could be done. They would have to fuse a few small peices of fiber inbetween the two vertical black bars. I'd like to hear if Bullitt thinks this is possible? Actually if they would just put a mildot reticle with target knobs in the 1-4x I'd be completely happy.

There have been a lot of great ideas but without feedback from Trijicon it feels like we're just spinning our wheels.  Although it may be too technical for me to comprehend I'd still like to know what the hurdles are, although I suppose that may reveal some trade secrets which I wouldn't expect Trijicon to do.  If we understood why it wasn't possible we'd probably let it go.  Just my .02

I guess all we can do is just keep submitting our feedback and hope that trijicon is listening.