Quote History Quoted:
My buddy got that scope to replace the vortex strike eagle and it for 3gun. Once he got rid of that trash vortex he started slaying distance. Same gun and ammo but he has a useful reticle now. I played with it and I really like it. My other buddies have the same scope with moa dot and the triangle. The mil dot seems to be better than the moa because the moa dots are kind of difficult to distinguish because of the extra width because of the fiber optic in there.
View Quote
Thanks for the feedback and heads up on the mildot reticle. This will be my third Trijicon scope, and I've been extremely impressed with the glass in them so far. I've never had anything super expensive like an S&B, but it's hard to imagine the glass in them could be much better. Probably the most expensive scope I ever had was a Mark 4, and I think Trijicon glass is even a little better than that.
I had a Trijicon 1-4 and 1-8, and I was very disappointed with the reticles in both, which was a shame because the glass was so good. The 1-4 had an MOA dot reticle with half MOA hashes, which made it completely useless. If were just simple dots it may have had some utility for someone with good eyes, but those half MOA hashes were just too much. Then the 1-8 had the thickest crosshairs I've ever seen on any scope. Since it was FFP, they made them like five times thicker than normal so they would show up at 1x, which pretty much ruined any hope of precision at 8x. Your only recourse was to use the first half mil hash above the actual crosshairs. I got a sweetheart deal on both of them so I didn't really research at all, and then ended up trading both for guns.
I think they got it right with the Accupoint 1-6 though. They kept the reticles simple. In my opinion, anything 10x or below should have a simple dot reticle with no half mil hashes or anything else to clutter it up. It just seems like relatively low power scopes have all gotten really cluttered in recent years.