Mark 6 1-6x reticule question

[gatordev]

The Mark 6 has made it on my short list for a lower-power optic for an AR and I'm having trouble understanding what the reticule actually looks like. I'm interested in the TMR-D but I've only been able to find one basic version of what the reticule looks like and I'm not sure "where" in the mag range it's supposed to be.

Does anyone have one they share some info? I'm trying to figure out how big the donut is when at full mag, as well as what it looks like with the illumination off (I'm guessing the donut is black, but again, I can't find any pictures to see that).

There's plenty of pics of the BDC versions, but I haven't found anything other than Leupold's single picture of the TMR-D.

[alamo5000]

"The illuminated center subtends 2.5mrad (8.6MOA) outside and 1.5 mrad (5.2MOA) inside."

If I am correct this is about 9" on the outside edge of the red @100 and about 5.4" on the inside edge @ 100. But I could be completely wrong.


http://www.leupold.com/wp-content/uploads/reticle/reticle-131-large.png

[gatordev]

Yeah, I get that, but I'm trying to understand what that practically means. It looks like the donut would get in the way if you're trying to be more precise on a shot. And trying to hit a 18" across piece of steel at 200 would seem to be even more annoying with that thing floating there.

That said, having reread the size dimensions, it does confirm that the picture on Leupold's site (and the one you posted) is at full mag, which is a little disappointing.

[schambers]

you're right... more or less, since the numbers are rounded.



"The illuminated center subtends 2.5mrad (8.6MOA) outside and 1.5 mrad (5.2MOA) inside."

If I am correct this is about 9" on the outside edge of the red @100 and about 5.4" on the inside edge @ 100. But I could be completely wrong.


http://www.leupold.com/wp-content/uploads/reticle/reticle-131-large.png

[schambers]

Illumination is used for fast target acquisition at close ranges and sometimes in low light conditions. Basd on the sizes listed above, the illuminated reticle would obscure the silhouette of an 18" target at 200. If your talking about using the optic in a competition, where you don't have time to turn the illumination off, you will be able to see that target through the donut hole. Your target will be obscured but you can still make a decent shot.

If you are just shooting at distance, the illumination isn't realy doing anything for you so you might as well turn it off.



Yeah, I get that, but I'm trying to understand what that practically means. It looks like the donut would get in the way if you're trying to be more precise on a shot. And trying to hit a 18" across piece of steel at 200 would seem to be even more annoying with that thing floating there.

That said, having reread the size dimensions, it does confirm that the picture on Leupold's site (and the one you posted) is at full mag, which is a little disappointing.

[gatordev]

Illumination is used for fast target acquisition at close ranges and sometimes in low light conditions. Basd on the sizes listed above, the illuminated reticle would obscure the silhouette of an 18" target at 200. If your talking about using the optic in a competition, where you don't have time to turn the illumination off, you will be able to see that target through the donut hole. Your target will be obscured but you can still make a decent shot.

If you are just shooting at distance, the illumination isn't realy doing anything for you so you might as well turn it off.

Yeah, I'm completely with you, but I have two concerns:

1) what does it look like WITHOUT the illumination? Presumably the donut will be black and still be obscuring.

2) Presumably I'd be using holds, so shooting at 200 would require .5 mil. Kind of cluttered, but probably close in enough that the error wouldn't be that great. But that assumes a big enough target. Trying to shoot an A/C zone starts to make it harder. At 300, I'd need ~1.1 mils. Now I'm trying to line that up while also having the donut obscuring a large portion of the target, and thus making it more difficult than it could be.

I wish there was a way to look through one, but I don't think I have that option where I live. Plinking at 100 yards would be just fine, but I can do that with an ACOG or PST for much cheaper.

[alamo5000]

Yeah, I get that, but I'm trying to understand what that practically means. It looks like the donut would get in the way if you're trying to be more precise on a shot. And trying to hit a 18" across piece of steel at 200 would seem to be even more annoying with that thing floating there.

That said, having reread the size dimensions, it does confirm that the picture on Leupold's site (and the one you posted) is at full mag, which is a little disappointing.

I guess it all depends on your intended purpose. Having a 5.4 inch (more or less) clear circle at 100 yards would be relatively OK. Take a look at my 2.5X scope review and look at the pics. It might give you some ideas.

I would have to think about it more to give other impressions but initially this is designed for a 200 yard zero from what I can tell.

[SINNER]

I know it's apples to oranges per say but I highly recommend you find a way to use that optic or at least take a look through it. I have 2 MK4 ER/T FFP optics. One has the mil dot and the other has the TMR. The entire reticle is etched so thin on the TMR it is almost impossible to use on anything other than white background targets. Even on a tan bodied white tail they just disappear. I really though the TMR would be an upgrade over the mil dot but it's a total disappointment.

[gatordev]

I know it's apples to oranges per say but I highly recommend you find a way to use that optic or at least take a look through it. I have 2 MK4 ER/T FFP optics. One has the mil dot and the other has the TMR. The entire reticle is etched so thin on the TMR it is almost impossible to use on anything other than white background targets. Even on a tan bodied white tail they just disappear. I really though the TMR would be an upgrade over the mil dot but it's a total disappointment.

An interesting point. Do you find it significantly thinner than other FFP scopes? I have an IOR that's a fairly thick (but still very usable) and a NF 3-15 that I find to be just right.

[SINNER]

I honestly find it thinner than every other FFP optic I own. It's hard to describe but it's almost a lack of contrast more than the actual thickness of the subtensions. They just do not stand out well. I do not own any FFP Nightforce optics but I find their 2nd FP reticles to be one of my favorites. I find the S&B reticles to be like the IOR based on your description. Slightly thicker than most but very functional.

[alamo5000]

Have you seen the US Optics JNG Mil reticle?

http://www.usoptics.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1250x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/1/6/164-jngmil-8x-p2_big.jpg

[gatordev]

Similar to the SWFA 1-6. That particular reticule is for the SR-8, which has .5 mil subtensions, but the SR-6 does not. Personally, I'd prefer having .5 mil ticks. Picky, I know.

[schambers]

Welcome to the world of optics!