Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 7/10/2005 7:00:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/11/2005 11:42:53 AM EDT by pathfinder74]
Previous thread (archived)



To those that have one of the three options of reticles... preferably those who have sampled 2 or more of the choices, which one do you prefer?

Which one is the easiest and/or in your opinion the easiest for quick and dummy-proof range finding?

Kind of seems to me the NATO-style reticle might be the easiest to figure out without having to do any kind of "mental-math calculations".


NATO Reticle


Dragunov Reticle
Link Posted: 7/10/2005 8:01:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2005 8:04:13 PM EDT by Matth3wdean]
It depends on what you are Ranging. The NATO and Dragunov are good for ranging people, they have it in the reticel on the lower portions. The Dragunov shows that it is calibrated for a average 1.7m tall person. Not sure what the NATO is calibrated to, but I think it is similar to the average human. The circles on the CQB represent 10 plates at 300m, 400m, 500m, and 600m, so roughly a head.

I would prefer the Dranunov becuase you get the human ranging, plus it gives to tick marks for windage holds.

Matt

ETA: It is funny how the paper work for tactical optics from IOR comes from them with directions on how to range Deer....in a tactical reticel.
Link Posted: 7/10/2005 9:12:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Matth3wdean:
ETA: It is funny how the paper work for tactical optics from IOR comes from them with directions on how to range Deer....in a tactical reticel.



Is the average deer about the same height as the average man using the reticle the way they show it in the pictures above?
Link Posted: 7/10/2005 9:26:13 PM EDT
I think so. Springfield Armory did the same thing with their rangefinding reticle. I guess deer are politcally correct to advertise with?
Link Posted: 7/10/2005 9:28:36 PM EDT
Anyone have any pictures through a Dragunov or MP9/NATO reticle?
Link Posted: 7/10/2005 10:01:14 PM EDT
I can get you a photo through a real PSO-1 scope, which glows white at night. I think the IOR's are green. Its 0800 here now, so you'll have to wait awhile for a night photo.
Link Posted: 7/11/2005 4:58:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Kisara:
I can get you a photo through a real PSO-1 scope, which glows white at night. I think the IOR's are green. Its 0800 here now, so you'll have to wait awhile for a night photo.
tinyurl.com/66apk



I'll take a day photo of the reticle while I'm waiting.

Link Posted: 7/11/2005 10:44:01 AM EDT
btt
Link Posted: 7/21/2005 7:18:45 PM EDT
hey kisara,if your really as hot as your photo suggest then i think you should post a dozen of those reticle pics.......... granted they have you in them!
Link Posted: 7/22/2005 7:11:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/22/2005 7:25:19 PM EDT by pathfinder74]
From the archives:
Mounts for IOR M2
IOR M1 & M2 series question


Got my IOR M2 Dragunov reticle today. Nice scope. Couple of things I noticed so far:
- I was half expecting the reticle to be green like the one in the above picture.

- Regarding eye relief: I'm not sure if I can't get a good relief with the eyecup on because the scope isn't sitting high enough off the receiver or because it's not sitting bak far enough... or a combination of the two. When I take it off I can get a good sight picture, but I also have to get up on it.. pretty close to the charging handle. I'm not wondering, and I brought this up in another thread, whether or not there is a cantilever mount that would bring it up and back further at the same time.

- In order to bring it back far enough to get a good view through I had to move my BUIS forward so that it sits between the rings.

Link Posted: 7/24/2005 6:53:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2005 6:55:22 PM EDT by Fenian]
I've got an M1 and an M2, both with nato reticles. The .223 version is the older nato, which is just a very small crosshair, and that's it. The .308 version is the Nato one pictured above. FWIW, the .223 reticle is green, the .308 is red. Of the 2 reticles, I deninitely prefer the newer one.

Sorry I don't have a pic through either one, though. I'd fire up the digital camera now, but it's a *little* dark out now.

I had a PSO1 with the Druganov reticle, and that thing just confused me...plus, the markings are really small...it just sorta looked like clutter to me.
Link Posted: 7/25/2005 9:39:55 AM EDT
This is really bugging me.

In order to get a full view through the scope I have to remove the eye-cup. I have to move up on it to where I'm about one finger width from the eye piece of the scope.

Is this right?

I like the eye-cup because it kind of blocks out everything around the scope. But I can't seem to figure out what the best way would be to be able to get the full view while using it.

If I crank my head around and have a really goofed up cheeckweld and the buttstock is in a weird position on my shoulder I can get somewhat of a good picture but it makes holding the rifle very awkward.

Suggestions?
Link Posted: 7/25/2005 12:27:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/25/2005 12:29:01 PM EDT by Fenian]
Pathfinder, the problem with the IOR is the *lack* of decent eye relief. No matter what they say, in practical terms, it's about an inch. The lens is recessed a bit in the tube...so the eye relief may be 2", but if it's an inch deep in the tube, then you have to have your eye 1" away from the end of the tube.

It's almost as bad as the .308 version. Eye relief may be a hair longer, but still, my glasses are MUCH closer to the end of the scope than I'd like on my FAL. There really isn't too much you can do, other than ditch the eye cup and go to flip up covers. Mounting the scope back helps, that way you're not going nose to charging handle, which I don't like personally.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 10:46:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:
This is really bugging me.

In order to get a full view through the scope I have to remove the eye-cup. I have to move up on it to where I'm about one finger width from the eye piece of the scope.

Is this right?

I like the eye-cup because it kind of blocks out everything around the scope. But I can't seem to figure out what the best way would be to be able to get the full view while using it.

If I crank my head around and have a really goofed up cheeckweld and the buttstock is in a weird position on my shoulder I can get somewhat of a good picture but it makes holding the rifle very awkward.

Suggestions?



I have an M2 w/ the CQB reticle. Take off the eye cup, throw it in the trash, and get the 3A butler creek flip open covers (1.30 inch, both front and back). This solved my similar problem - I couldn't get the eye cup thingy to work. The eye relief is kinda short, but I've never been bitten (even with the massive recoil of a 20" AR), and I am otherwise very happy with the scope. The scope/rifle combo was holding under 1" yesterday at the range w/ fed 69 grainers (3 shot groups).

Link Posted: 8/1/2005 4:38:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fenian:
Pathfinder, the problem with the IOR is the *lack* of decent eye relief. No matter what they say, in practical terms, it's about an inch. The lens is recessed a bit in the tube...so the eye relief may be 2", but if it's an inch deep in the tube, then you have to have your eye 1" away from the end of the tube.

It's almost as bad as the .308 version. Eye relief may be a hair longer, but still, my glasses are MUCH closer to the end of the scope than I'd like on my FAL. There really isn't too much you can do, other than ditch the eye cup and go to flip up covers. Mounting the scope back helps, that way you're not going nose to charging handle, which I don't like personally.



I would think lack of eye relief would be a good thing on an AR. Every picture I see with someone looking through a scope with good eye relief either has their cheek weld way back on the stock because the occular lens extends back behind the CH, or they end up using a cantilever style mount, e.g., LaRue to push the scope far enough fwd where they can use a more normal cheek weld. I wouldn't want short eye relief with a heavier kicker, but for an AR is it really a problem?
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:41:01 AM EDT
It's personal preference, I guess. I just don't like my nose on the charging handle on 16" rifles, and remember, I wear glasses.

The M2 could use another inch of eye relief, imho...but it's still a great scope.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 9:27:46 AM EDT
This is why I was wondering before if a cantilever mount similar to those used for Aimpoints could be used for this scope... it would raise up a little more and bring it back and over the charging handle. This might be enough to accompdate being able to continue using the eye-cup.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 7:28:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:
This is why I was wondering before if a cantilever mount similar to those used for Aimpoints could be used for this scope... it would raise up a little more and bring it back and over the charging handle. This might be enough to accompdate being able to continue using the eye-cup.



I don't see why not...iirc, someone around here did just that with this scope...I remember seeing pics. I think it was last year, and it was an Armalite mount, methinks.

Link Posted: 8/2/2005 9:13:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 10:06:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 10:09:39 AM EDT by BMM4A3]
I have an M2 with the CQB reticle. I have used the NATO reticle as well, and while both are good, I prefer the CQB. I find it easier and faster to range find with the CQB reticle because everything is located on the axes. I don`t hun though and since the NATO and Drugunov reticles are calibrated to human/deer sized objects they might be more favorable.

I had the same kind of problem with position and eye relief. I wanted the scope to be higher and further back. I found that mounting the scope on that POS RRA carry handle put the scope exavtly where I wanted it. And as a bonus the holes in the rings cowitness with the iron sites so I can use irons without remiving the scope



Excuse the crappy picture...
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 11:09:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CSGunWorkscom:
pathfinder74 I woold like to see a PIC if we can.
CS GunWorks



No need...
I think I figured out the eye-cup problem. I had the scope mounted as far back on the receiver rails as it could go, which was probably too far. I just took it out and played around with it and tried moving it forward like those in the pictures and it seemed to fix things a little.
But I think I probably need the higher rings. I'm pretty sure I have the medium rings (that I bought from you). Seems if the scope was up just a little higher I'd have it right where I need it. Plus it would clear a little more space for my ARMS BUIS. which sits under the scope but is a VERy close fit.

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:54:21 PM EDT
I cut the eyecup on mine down so that it is only about half as long. At this length, it just barely contacts my glasses. I still lose a little field of view, but its not as much as before, and allows me to get a quicker sight picture. I tried using a BC cap, but I was still getting my glasses tapped with it on. When I got my TA31F, I compared the useable eye relief (from rear of housing to my glasses) on both and found it to be the same (as best as I could measure with a ruler). So with that in mind, the eye relief isn't unacceptable by "industry" standards, but it would be nice if there was a little bit more.

I have been thinking about cutting down the housing on the rear of the scope. I think you could easily remove 1/2" of the housing and still have enough left to attach a BC cap and be able to adjust the diopter.

Mine has the dragonov ret and I like it. You really don't even need the windage adjustment with it, since it has horizontal lines at 1 mil increments. Ideally, someone should develop a drag ret that has lower chevrons matched to the bullet drop of 5.56, then you wouldn't even need the BDC.

Link Posted: 10/5/2005 11:23:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jason_h:
I cut the eyecup on mine down so that it is only about half as long. At this length, it just barely contacts my glasses. I still lose a little field of view, but its not as much as before, and allows me to get a quicker sight picture.

I tried using a BC cap, but I was still getting my glasses tapped with it on. When I got my TA31F, I compared the useable eye relief (from rear of housing to my glasses) on both and found it to be the same (as best as I could measure with a ruler). So with that in mind, the eye relief isn't unacceptable by "industry" standards, but it would be nice if there was a little bit more.

I have been thinking about cutting down the housing on the rear of the scope. I think you could easily remove 1/2" of the housing and still have enough left to attach a BC cap and be able to adjust the diopter.



I'm having a similar problem. I'm not sure if it's because the rings are just a little too short (they're the IOR DQ high rings) or if it's because I may need to trim the eye cup down.

I really like the eye cup (for looks just a pinch more than function), but right now I don't get a full site picture with it and I have to get my cheek in the same position to get thr right picture (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).

When I take the cup off I can see perfectly through it.

I'm wondering if I put a set of these on the rail and mouted the scope on them if it would bring it up high enough to get a full sight picture with the eye cup. By doing this, though I fear I'll be bringing the scope up too high off the receiver and risk a loss of accuracy.

Suggestions?

Mouting an IOR M2 thread
Mouting an IOR M2 thread dupe
Top Top