FFP reticles: "Christmas tree" vs not

**Pirate** · 09-09-2023, 17:32

I've got a Vortex Diamondback Tactical 6-24x50 with a EBR-2C MRAD reticle on my Howa 223, and it's served me well up to now for the purposes I use it for. It is however definitely a daylight scope, given the fine reticle, especially at lower magnification (although I tend to have it fixed at 16x...)

Sometimes however one might like to use the rifle in lower-light conditions, and an illuminated reticle will go a long way to make it more usable in such conditions. Enter scopes like the Arken EPL4 and the South Point Optics HR series... Both these offer illuminated reticles at acceptable prices (the Arken only lights up a center cross while the SPO does the whole thing) but both only give graduated vertical and horizontal bars, without the Christmas tree dots that seem to be the norm for FFP scopes.

How often do you really use the Christmas tree dots on your FFP scope? When i really started thinking about it, I realised that I tend to dial for distance, and when I do hold over it's never really a helluva lot, which places the target still close to the horizontal reticle bar. How would the absence of those dots limit the target-shooting performance of the scope?

Please share your thoughts.

**Edwill** · 09-09-2023, 17:53

It's only worth it if time is a factor, ie PRS/NRL type shooting. Once you get used to them, it's nice to be able to use it, and it's fast.

Downside is the can be very "busy" and distract away from target. The are also useless at very low magnification.
At high magnification the lines can also be a little thick for precise aiming.

Sent from my SM-G990E using Tapatalk

**shooty** · 09-09-2023, 17:55

I use the one without Xmas tree as its not that difficult to work to adjust without it as center line has markings on.

Xmas tree just makes it way to busy.

**Arnold** · 09-09-2023, 18:57

I have only ever used mine in a .22 PRS competition where time was an issue or where the stage description required no dialing.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

**Pirate** · 09-09-2023, 19:14

As a follow-up question: I know enough about optics (the science thereof, not the modern fancy name for riflescope!) that I've got an appreciation for how performance differs between the center and the ends of the field. Even high-end optical systems generally show noticeable performance loss from about 2/3 of the field outwards. That makes me wonder how far from the center you're comfortable to hold off, and still be assured you'll get the accuracy required?

This is more tangential to my previous question, and I fully realise the answer is dependent on the quality of the scope, but I'd still be interested in (for instance) how many mils you know you can hold off and trust the reticle and ballistics to take the bullet to the target.

**Heath Robinson** · 10-09-2023, 05:43

Only the lenses in the erector tube move with the reticle. All the other lenses are stationary.

Thus, for a given target (distance and wind) you are looking and aiming through the same point of most of the lenses in the scope, irrespective of whether you are aiming off or adjusting.

**Edwill** · 10-09-2023, 07:33

Originally Posted by Pirate

As a follow-up question: I know enough about optics (the science thereof, not the modern fancy name for riflescope!) that I've got an appreciation for how performance differs between the center and the ends of the field. Even high-end optical systems generally show noticeable performance loss from about 2/3 of the field outwards. That makes me wonder how far from the center you're comfortable to hold off, and still be assured you'll get the accuracy required?

This is more tangential to my previous question, and I fully realise the answer is dependent on the quality of the scope, but I'd still be interested in (for instance) how many mils you know you can hold off and trust the reticle and ballistics to take the bullet to the target.

I have tall target tested all my scopes, both dialing and with holder, I could not see any noticeable difference. Not sure if I would be consistently able to shoot any difference either way.

Sent from my SM-G990E using Tapatalk

**Pirate** · 10-09-2023, 08:49

Originally Posted by Heath Robinson

Only the lenses in the erector tube move with the reticle. All the other lenses are stationary.

Thus, for a given target (distance and wind) you are looking and aiming through the same point of most of the lenses in the scope, irrespective of whether you are aiming off or adjusting.

Yeah... Brain in the morning realises brain in the evening was less clever!
Effectively therefore the further the target and the windier it is, the further from the optional center we'll work.

Also makes me realise that sticking a scope on a 20MOA mount means you're working off-axis by ~6 mils right from the start, which may or may not have an influence on your on-target picture quality, depending on the optical performance of the scope....

@Edwill, thanks, what you described in your last post is essentially empirical confirmation of what Mr. Robinson explained.

**Heath Robinson** · 10-09-2023, 15:41

Just for interest's sake, I only have long-range experience with two relatively old scopes.

The one was a Tasco 4x44 on a .22 BSA. On several occasions I plinked coke cans at 300m with this combination. To achieve that, I had to adjust the scope all the way up, and still aim at the bottom thickening of the Duplex reticle. I have no idea whether the scope was behaving in a linear fashion at that point, but it was certainly repeatable and accurate.

The other is a 25 year old Night Force on a .308. I have on a number of occasions basically maxed it's adjustment out, both up and down (I had it set up such that the 100m zero was just 6MOA from bottom adjustment), have done tall target tests etc. It works. Groups shot at 6MOA incriments are the same distance apart within the accuracy tolerance of the rifle. But although this scope is both old and obsolescent by modern standards, it was top quality when it was made.