Athlon HMR comparison

[oldsparky]

Has anyone seen these two reticles to compare? I have the AHMR MOA but wonder if the BDC 600 would be easier to see? I put them both in Sterlok to see the holdovers and don't think one has an advantage for me. Except if one is easier to pick up in shadows or dark areas.

 

[UCChris]

I think properly subtensioned reticles are better for consistent long range shooting, since it's very easy to measure your misses with the reticle. 

If you are mostly shooting close range with the occasional holdover, then BDC reticles can be pretty awesome!

 

[JungleShooter]

I would check the manufacturers' webpages to find how thick/thin the crosshairs are.

Athlon is excellent in providing this data. Many others not so much.... 

My Scope Specs Tables usually include this info.  

If you are mostly shooting close range with the occasional holdover, then BDC reticles can be pretty awesome!

Chris,

Help me understand your comment. Do you mean to say that BDC reticles are "fine/ usable" for shooting within your PBR with only a few holdovers —

or do you mean to say that they "are better than reticles with evenly spaced hash lines"?


Matthias

 

[UCChris]

I would check the manufacturers' webpages to find how thick/thin the crosshairs are.

Athlon is excellent in providing this data. Many others not so much.... 

My Scope Specs Tables usually include this info.

 

If you are mostly shooting close range with the occasional holdover, then BDC reticles can be pretty awesome!

Chris,

Help me understand your comment. Do you mean to say that BDC reticles are "fine/ usable" for shooting within your PBR with only a few holdovers —

or do you mean to say that they "are better than reticles with evenly spaced hash lines"?

Matthias

Hey Matthias, sorry for the confusion! I find that I like BDC reticles when shooting mostly within PBR and occasionally holding over for the longer shot. 

If I'm going to be consistently shooting at holdover/dialing ranges, then the evenly spaced subtensioned reticles make it much easier to see how far the misses are and, consequently, make corrections much easier to do.

 

[oldsparky]

Good idea Matthias. the BDC reticle is thicker so it should be bolder and easier to see. One thing that I don't understand is, todays etched reticles seem to me to be harder to pick up or see in some light for my eyes. They must not be for everyone because all manufactures seem to be going to them. Unless they are cheaper or easier to produce. 

 

[oldsparky]

I would like to add.... I was asking because sometimes I seem to focus on something so close I may miss seeing something important or obvious 

 

[JungleShooter]

Thanks for the explanation, Chris. That makes sense to me.





Sparky,

the AGE of our eyes has a huge effect on our ability so see a bulls in the distance, or see the fine lines of a reticle. 

Ask me how I know...!



So, yeah, maybe manufacturers are making thinner reticles, especially for target scopes. However, I would guess(!) that scopes for hunting don't follow that trend (generally, hunting scopes would be scopes with BDC reticles, and those without holdoff hashlines). 

And then, maybe the eyes are just a little older....



The following brands, if I recall correctly, publish the line thickness of the crosshairs (there are probably others): 

Athlon, Riton, Sightron, Nikko, Sightmark, SWFA, Falcon, some Discovery, some Vector, Riton, Vortex, Bushnell, Hi-Lux.



Matthias

 

[Solo1]

Have a look at the athlon argos. Don’t know about the scope you have but the element helix ffp was hard for me to see in low light got an argos and the reticle is a bit thicker and illuminated! Works much better for me