...
My thinking is that if I have to aim that far out for wind I'd be dialing the solution for it. Normally I wouldn't go shooting in those conditions because it's very unpleasant by that point.
The same reasoning applied to the moa marks in the reticle on the horizontal. It's easy to see where 5, 10, 15, etc, of moa holdoff is in the reticle but without those marks the reticle appears cleaner.
But I certainly understand a persons preferences and that we all see this differently! Thanks for the input. If the APRL6 doesn't sell well this year Athlon will likely cancel it. That's the way it goes, aye.
In the APLR6 I like how the 1 moa marks get slightly larger within 5 moa then repeats that pattern which helps at a glance to see whether you are at, say 2 vs 3 moa. It gives a more district visual.
As well as the numbers crossing over from one side to the other side of the tree making odd or even number holds quickly discernable. Many times I've heldover using the wrong line with them being on the same side of the tree which has been extremely annoying to me!
My bud likes the APLR4 moa the best but I only use mil so my preference is the APRS6.
So we are clear, I'm not talking about wind holdoff.
For target size vs target distance situations, the +/- 40 MOA reticles gives you a 33% broader limit than the +/- 30 MOA reticle.
1) Imagine a smaller target sitting on a vehicle at 300-400yds but you need to estimate the distance precisely in order to make the shot (and you know that the vehicle wheelbase is 130").
2) Imagine a Gamo field target at 10 or 11 yards and you want to verify the distance to hit the 3/8" KZ (and you know that the faceplate is 7.2" wide or you see it sitting on a 7.625" wide cinder block).
3) Imagine paper targets on 36" wide moveable backstops and you want to see if the distances measure exactly of 40, 60, 77, and 100 meters for sight in verification.
The +/- 30 MOA comes up somewhat lacking in those three examples, but the +/- 40 MOA is just right. In my normal use, instances 2) and 3) come up often enough that I would miss the +/- 40 MOA reticle.
I say that the extra 10 MOA per side can be useful and save time while using the range finding reticle, so why eliminate those extra marks?
"...The same reasoning applied to the moa marks in the reticle on the horizontal. It's easy to see where 5, 10, 15, etc, of moa holdoff is in the reticle but without those marks the reticle appears cleaner...." Cleaner? - I don't care about that. If someone wants a clean reticle, a simple dot, crosshair or duplex reticle is cleanest. I prefer numbers that are easy to read with speed and precision. The extra numbers can facilitate that. I missed a shot today because the scope (not an Athlon) I was using had no numbers and I mixed up the 5 moa holdover stadia with the 7 moa. That would not happen if there were numbers on at least the 10 MOA line. I was OK with the numbers on one side (APLR2). Not so sure yet about some on the left and some on the right as on the APLR6. Time will tell. I think I'd prefer that they were on both sides, rather than alternating sides.
"...But I certainly understand a persons preferences and that we all see this differently! Thanks for the input. If the APRL6 doesn't sell well this year Athlon will likely cancel it. That's the way it goes, aye...." The gen2 Helos is so much better than the gen1 Helos, that it will probably sell better even in spite of that MOA reticle. The reticle is not bad, but could be better. Because the gen2 APLR2 Argos has the +/- 40 MOA, I'm still thinking of going with that Argos for any new FT guns. If the Helos gen2 had the +/- 40 MOA, I would probably stick with it for everything. Now it's a tougher choice.
"...In the APLR6 I like how the 1 moa marks get slightly larger within 5 moa then repeats that pattern which helps at a glance to see whether you are at, say 2 vs 3 moa. It gives a more district visual...." I think I like that new feature.
"...As well as the numbers crossing over from one side to the other side of the tree making odd or even number holds quickly discernible. Many times I've heldover using the wrong line with them being on the same side of the tree which has been extremely annoying to me!..." I'd prefer to have them on both sides.
"...My bud likes the APLR4 moa the best but I only use mil so my preference is the APRS6...." I like it too. One reason that I like the Midas Tac 6-24x50, but it appears to be slightly thinner (a little too thin in my opinion), especially at 16x with no reticle illumination. The thing I like about it is the 0.2 MOA center dot instead of the 2.0 MOA center cross.
Ideally, I'd like to see the +/- 40 MOA horizontal stadia marks (as is present on the APLR2, APL3, APLR4, and APLR5). And the thicker reticle (as is present on the APLR2, APLR3, APLR6). The center dot (as is present on the APLR4 & APLR5). And maybe the 1 MOA marks that get slightly wider (as is present on the APLR6). Maybe have an APLR8 reticle combining the best of all of them?
That said, the Athlon APLR? MOA series of reticles is already the best FFP MOA reticles available (in my opinion), but they could be even a little better.
. My UTG 4-16x56 that the Helos replaced is pretty close in angle rotation to the Helos, 170 degrees from start to stop, and 112 from 10-55, but always felt I was rolling the dice with it trying to range from 40-55. So far I feel my Helos seems to range pretty well - you once mentioned in a previous thread that you just accept a standard deviation of about 3 yds in the 45-55 yard range on your Athlons and I think my Helos is probably right there too, possibly a tad better. I am still pretty inexperienced in FT so my judgement in scope ranging quality should be considered a little suspect, but my scores are improving some since I started using the Helos. Maybe one of these days I will run into you at a match and we can compare scopes.