tapered crosshairs for constant picture in FFP scopes

C

Cbf123

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Saskatoon, SK
So one of the issues with FFP scopes is that the crosshairs get magnified along with the target when increasing the zoom level.

A few companies have tapered crosshairs on their FFP scopes--why isn't this more common? Done properly it would be possible to make it so that the crosshairs look essentially the same regardless of zoom level. This would seem to essentially give you the best of both worlds...fine crosshairs on the target at all magnification levels, but wider crosshairs towards the edges so that they don't turn invisible at low magnifications.

It might even make sense to use progressively finer hatching so that when you zoom in close you get more resolution, but when you zoom out it gets so fine that it doesn't obstruct the view of the target.

Thoughts?
 
It's a good thought. I don't know if anyone's done it yet.

There's been a couple of FFP/2FP threads in the last 2 weeks or so.....

Someone's gonna comment on this and say you don't know what you're talking about, so I'll pre-empt it:

"Done properly it would be possible to make it so that the crosshairs look essentially the same regardless of zoom level."

I hear what you're thinking, but I don't think it's possible. In an FFP scope, the thickness will ALWAYS change with zoom, and it will be proportional to the zoom seen on the field of view.

GGG
 
Gunneegoogoo said:
Someone's gonna comment on this and say you don't know what you're talking about, so I'll pre-empt it:

"Done properly it would be possible to make it so that the crosshairs look essentially the same regardless of zoom level."

I hear what you're thinking, but I don't think it's possible. In an FFP scope, the thickness will ALWAYS change with zoom, and it will be proportional to the zoom seen on the field of view.

GGG
Click to expand...

Sure, the crosshair magnification changes with zoom, but so does the field of view. Assuming the crosshairs taper down to nothing in the center, then I think the two changes would cancel each other out.

Take a long skinny triangle. Cut it halfway along the length and it'll be half as wide. Enlarge the smaller triangle till it's the same length as the original and it'll have the same width as the original too.
 
yes, but it'll be on a spectrum, a scale, as you zoom. If a pop can is covered at 3x, it'll be covered the same at 25x.

Am I correct is saying you're proposing sort of a FFP-2FP hybrid where the center of the cross hairs remains thin regardless of power (like 2FP), but the outer portions change with zoom (like FFP)???

I have NO IDEA if that's even possible. I wonder if some ultra precise Germans or Japanese could have the center part of the reticle on one lens, and the outer part on another??? Would likely bugger up focus....

If I'm not interpreting what you're asking, sketch it out for us and post it. It'd make for an interesting conversation. Hopefully no one buts in and calls us retards for even daring to think about it......

-J.
 
Last edited:
In concept, the varying thickness or tapered reticle in a FFP scope would do exactly what you are describing.

At high mag, the center area of the reticle is scaled to be clear, easy to read and not obscure much of the target (also the part of the reticle visible at high mag)... at min mag, the reticle "shrinks" making reading the central markings very hard... some fine markings can essentially dissappear and look like a "lumpy" line.

The compromise is to increase the thickness of the reticle from the center out so that this "outer" area becomes more visible at low mag leaving the center illegible.

You end up with what SFP scopes call the Duplex reticle - the thinner central area would have the numbering and hash marks (visible at high mag, lost at low). This is pretty much what you are asking for....

Yes, it would work... IF users are willling to have a reduced range of hash mark and numbering in the central portion of the reticle.

Jerry
 
I have a 2-10X42 Burris Veracity (FFP).

It has their version of the tapered crosshairs, but they have a kinda (hybrid) crosshair on the scope to start with.

There is the typical (but ultra fine) E1 reticle which is only in the middle of the lens (anyone who has looked through a Burris with an E1 will know what I mean - the E1 "doesn't extend to the edges of the scope in the first place) - then they have a tapered crosshair almost touching the E1 reticle.

At low magnification (2X) it's great - at high magnification you are basically just using the E1 reticle.

I like it - it's not the 'holy grail' or anything, but works well at least at a max magnification of 10.

Anyone interested in the reticle can have a look here - http://www.burrisoptics.com/reticles/ballistic-plex-e1-ffp
 
Gunneegoogoo said:
Am I correct is saying you're proposing sort of a FFP-2FP hybrid where the center of the cross hairs remains thin regardless of power (like 2FP), but the outer portions change with zoom (like FFP)???

If I'm not interpreting what you're asking, sketch it out for us and post it.
Click to expand...

I'm not thinking of separate sections, but rather crosshairs that smoothly taper from hair-thin at dead center, out to relatively thick at the sides. So at 1X the view would be something like this:

sP9uOn5.gif


While at 2X the view would be something like this:

gf6q2D5.gif


Note that the second is a 200% magnification of the first. It's gotten a bit fuzzy due to the pixelation, but the overall appearance of the crosshairs is still more-or-less the same as in the first one. Everything is twice as big in the second one, but the field of view is half as big and so the crosshairs look the same.

To get the most from this sort of reticle the hash marks (and any text) nearest the crosshairs should be smaller/thinner and should grow gradually larger as they get further away. As you zoom in, the finest hash marks become more practical to use, as you zoom out they become almost invisible and thus shouldn't be distracting.

In the Platonic ideal it would be a kind of fractal reticle...it would look similar as you zoom in, regardless of the level of zoom.
 
Old news....i have a kahles variable with a tapered reticle in the first focal plane..works fine.
 
AP said:
Old news....i have a kahles variable with a tapered reticle in the first focal plane..works fine.
Click to expand...

Without pics, a model number, or an explanation that's super, super helpful.....especially since everyone and their dog(s) have a Kahles optic.....
 
Cbf123 said:
I'm not thinking of separate sections, but rather crosshairs that smoothly taper from hair-thin at dead center, out to relatively thick at the sides. So at 1X the view would be something like this:

sP9uOn5.gif


While at 2X the view would be something like this:

gf6q2D5.gif


Note that the second is a 200% magnification of the first. It's gotten a bit fuzzy due to the pixelation, but the overall appearance of the crosshairs is still more-or-less the same as in the first one. Everything is twice as big in the second one, but the field of view is half as big and so the crosshairs look the same.

To get the most from this sort of reticle the hash marks (and any text) nearest the crosshairs should be smaller/thinner and should grow gradually larger as they get further away. As you zoom in, the finest hash marks become more practical to use, as you zoom out they become almost invisible and thus shouldn't be distracting.

In the Platonic ideal it would be a kind of fractal reticle...it would look similar as you zoom in, regardless of the level of zoom.
Click to expand...

So kinda like the Burris??
 
Gunneegoogoo said:
Without pics, a model number, or an explanation that's super, super helpful.....especially since everyone and their dog(s) have a Kahles optic.....
Click to expand...
like I said...OLD news... when did I become your ruddy research assistant?!?...do your own research. I am simply telling you what people theorized has been implemented.... Telescopic sights for rifles have been around a very long time and a great deal has been tried/discarded/'reinvented'. Suggest you purchase a copy of Bob Bell's 'Scopes and Mounts' for starters and inform yourself..you will find a description of early Bausch and Lomb Balvar's with tapered crosshairs employed for the same purpose. You don't have to be an expert on Kahles.
 
AP said:
like I said...OLD news... when did I become your ruddy research assistant?!?...do your own research. I am simply telling you what people theorized has been implemented.... Telescopic sights for rifles have been around a very long time and a great deal has been tried/discarded/'reinvented'. Suggest you purchase a copy of Bob Bell's 'Scopes and Mounts' for starters and inform yourself..you will find a description of early Bausch and Lomb Balvar's with tapered crosshairs employed for the same purpose. You don't have to be an expert on Kahles.
Click to expand...

Didn't say you were either an assistant, or ruddy.

When I have knowledge that may be useful to my friends, I share, but that's just me.

I'm well aware that telescopic optic's have been around for a very very long time. I'm also aware that dreaming is the basis of innovation and advancement, and I'm certain that something will advance optic's every year.

By the way, I haven't heard "ruddy" in oh, 25 years.....a nice blast from 1948.
 
Gunneegoogoo said:
Without pics, a model number, or an explanation that's super, super helpful.....especially since everyone and their dog(s) have a Kahles optic.....
Click to expand...

Gunneegoogoo said:
So kinda like the Burris??
Click to expand...

I'm just gonna say this:

Without pics, a model number, or an explanation that's super, super helpful.....especially since everyone and their dog(s) have a Burris optic..... ;)

Lol. Anyways. Neat idea, I know it can get pretty crowded in a FFP scope. This would help.
 
Hensoldt's NH1 FFP reticle is similar in concept. The picket is actually pointed (hard to see in pics) giving you a very small aiming point.

If you want the thinest crosshairs in an FFP, S&B's P4L Fine is very good, I have that ret in my scope.

4902264756_0507763258_b.jpg


Reticle_Concept_4_Subtensions2.jpg
 
ianfroese said:
I'm just gonna say this:

Without pics, a model number, or an explanation that's super, super helpful.....especially since everyone and their dog(s) have a Burris optic..... ;)

Lol. Anyways. Neat idea, I know it can get pretty crowded in a FFP scope. This would help.
Click to expand...

Ya ya, I get your point. Ya caught me.

Difference about when I said it is that I don't own a Burris!! I know f-all about it!!! My research assistant above does own a Kahles, so easily could've helped a brother out....

GGG

ps - this is the time when a good politician would say "good catch Ian, I threw that out there to see if you'd catch it...."

I'm a terrible politician.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom