Are these reticles useful, or are just a novelty?
>>29981440
they kick ass. useful and they make the ak very handy.
>>29981440
not really
I've been faster at practicing judging distances and checking my brain with a range finder than trying to do common core calculations based on the RFR.
>>29981484
What about the reticle that the PSO has. Is it useful in a combat setting?
>>29981546
if you train enough, you wont need it, think about snipers, they have a spotter. fukkem, but if you want it get it.
>>29981440
Why don't these have a top line in the crosshairs?
Here OP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpS7iWplQZI
stop being a faggot
>>29981440
I love BDC reticles. Mine is the PA 1-6x scope and it works great out to 600 yards with 77gr reloads. Sorry the pic is sideways.
>>29981948
That picture is awesome
>>29981971
As in the sight picture
I want a custom.one etched for me but don't know who can do that. Anyone got any recommendations?
>>29981440
Real range finding reticles are very useful. On the TA31F the lines correspond to the width of the human torso from shoulder to shoulder. Quickly hold over, find the right line and shoot.
>is range finding useful?
indeed
>>29982014
Thanks. I was hesitant on the purchase because gun snobs hate cheaper optics so I couldn't find much good info on it. Haven't regretted it for a second.
somewhat related, heres an infographic for rpgs
>>29981838
Why should they?
>>29981440
>>29982064
>>29981948
The problem I have with these range-finding reticles? None of us will probably ever use them as intended.
Think about it. All of these reticles that I've seen depend on things like "torso width" and "average man height" and "running speed," but in all the thousands to tens of thousands of times that you have shot a long range rifle with a scope, how many of those times has your target been an actual human???? Probably none, unless you have been in the military, SWAT or some sort of private mercenary company.
This shit probably works great for actual soldiers, but almost none of us here are, and there are huge segments of the scope-buying market that are just regular civilians - maybe hunters, long range target shooting enthusiasts, or otherwise "preppers," but they're not regularly shooting at humans; they're regularly shooting at things like steel gongs, paper targets on a stand, or game animals. I think the scope manufacturing industry needs to wake up and realize that their range-finding reticles are cool in theory, but for most of us, it's literally just useless clutter in the eyepiece. They need to figure out a more practical way to range find with civilian scopes.
>>29982740
mil sizing.
much more flexible - you're not tied to a specific load. even better when you have mil/mil or MOA/MOA turrets and reticule
>>29982740
People shoot human-scale targets reasonably often, and you don't even necessarily need to be shooting at something like that for these sorts of reticules to be useful. Look up what "man sized"actually means for your optic (usually somewhere in the ballpark of 6') and eyeball things in the environment that should be about that height. Unfortunately there's not really a better way of doing quick and dirty rangefinding, Mildots are very accurate but are sorta clunky, and you still need something of known size to use perfectly.
>>29982740
I know the height of my target which means that I can just go out, set it up, compare it to my range finder thingy in my scope and know how far away it is. Just because it was "designed for people" sized targets doesn't mean it's not really useful. I use all the lines and whatnot as reference points when I'm shooting.
The PA scope even has marks for where to aim with wind at X00 yards and they help a ton.
>>29982740
Who cares? I want one for the cool factor. For actual long range shooting I'd want a mil dot reticle or some such, but for playing around with my gun and playing dress up I can tell you right now what I want.
>>29981440
on first focal plane optics, yes. second focal plane won't work, but in FFP, the ranging reticle is based on units of angular measurement, such as minutes of angle, and if you know the dimensions of your target, say, you have a mil dot reticle scaled to 1 MOA per hash mark, then a six foot tall man who is two feet broad should be (at 800 yards) nine MOA tall and three MOA wide if he isn't quartering toward or away. if he is sideways, he should be ten inches deep and thus one and one quarter MOA.
>>29982940
Like the width of a windshield or a dead body or the hight of a window
What type of laser range finder does /K/
>>29981484
>trying to do common core calculations based on the RFR.
Do you not know how OP's reticle works?
>>29981484
>>29981440
For those interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadiametric_rangefinding
>>29982740
>They need to figure out a more practical way to range find with civilian scopes.
>what is Mil-dot
>>29981440
They're neat as fuck, OP
>>29981484
since you appear to be talking about milady reticles. I have to point out that the majority involved is simple trigonometry, but in practice you only need to be able to multiply and divide.
neither of those are common core.
>>29984314
sfp only means that there is a specific power that the reticle will subtend properly for your measurements
it's fine if the scope maxes out at 12x or less, trying to range a target at 20x can suck if they are too close, but at 12x anything too close to range doesn't really need to be ranged
>>29985112
>milady reticles
God damn it autocorrect I spit out my morning coffee
>>29982393
What targets is a TBG-7V for?
>>29982740
That's why most of the PSO/POSP style scopes don't use man size for range finding anymore. They are all leaning towards hunting. The rangefinder on my POSP is usable for deer mainly.
>>29981948
You broke my damn neck
>>29982393
>Igor, idi atsiuda naxuj, backblast
>Idi nx, ja drink mi vodka
My optic mount setup should be done soon, anyone want to reccomend a reasonably priced optic with a range finding reticle for it?
>>29985133
Thermobarics are for buildings/caves. They ruin your day in enclosed spaces.
>>29987413
POSP 8x42d
>>29981440
Why not just go dual scope and binoculars and let you brain fill in the depth and distance? We are already hard wired for that using BOTH eyes.
If you are spending $1-4K for a gun or just a scope, just kick the credit card captain in the nuts and go telescoping with laser designation range finding?
>>29988618
Dual 3.5" telescopes for $150 each. A bit clunky, but many times more light gain, longer focal length, filters for IR easily put on. Nightvision and cameras easily attached (up to two of them or more). no for CQB, but sniping with long, long range weapons.
>>29981440
When you have any somewhat complicated reticle, you can figure out distances by remembering the sizes as you view them in the optic. My strike eagle has a number of subtensions and a CQB circle. I know what someone at 400 meters looks like in reference to my subtension and could aim accordingly if need be.
ARMA 4
>>29987839
Wouldn't I have to cut the stock to fit? I like it, though. Would give it a Syrup SVD vibe.
