Different Sizes of MRDS Windows

[RJ]

I had asked a question on window size over in the Romeo X thread, asking for confirmation that the window size of the Romeo X Pro and Romeo X Compact were the same - they are.

It turns out I had been working updating all 12 of the EPS and EPS Carry MRDS Quick Reference Cards to Revision 12, which includes (where I know the data) the physical window size. So I had this on my mind. I got kinda bored this weekend so I did some research and dug out what I believe are the optic window sizes for several popular dots, and put them into a graphical representation, large to small:

117111

(The numbers are width x height, inches. For Holosun, I got the numbers off their web site. For the Romeo X, I asked a user on the Gen Pop Sig web site for a measurement. The Trijicon values are measured using a steel ruler on a printout pdf that Trjicon supplies online. Close enough for government work, maybe).

Some thoughts/questions.

Does window size even matter? Consider an optical spherical cow: Ideally, the optic reticle would appear in free space, projected as a hologram. At present, the technology is such that the reticle is refracted off a prism (normally glass) over the emitter, with infinite focus. The glass is not sufficiently robust enough to stand on it's own, so we have to have a shroud (typically 7075 T1 aluminum) which encloses and offers some protection against impact.

Does a large window offer an advantage over a smaller window, if one's index is sufficiently developed? Perhaps for novice MRDS users, working to acquire the dot on presentation consistently? But does a M/GM shooter really worry about window size?

Anyway, food for thought.

[GJM]

The RMR measurement is misleading as it doesn't account for the deck of the RMR that protrudes into the display.

Yes, all things considered, a larger display is more forgiving to shoot -- especially support hand and with a less refined index.

[feudist]

Is vertical height more useful-forgiving-important than horizontal width?

[GJM]

Is vertical height more useful-forgiving-important than horizontal width?

For me, I find width more important. I am not trying to track the dot alongs its entire path in recoil, but rather focusing on the scoring area. However, a bit of misalignment usually manifests in side to side issues for me, and wider is more forgiving. I recently saw this when I went from an EPS Carry to a full size EPS on a Macro.

[MVS]

I was going to post this somewhere else like the Macro in competition thread or something, but since the question was asked here. Yes. IMHO window size matters. On my 365 Legion I have an EPS carry. On my 2 IDPA guns, 320 TXG X-Carry (SRO) and 320 Legion AXG (507Comp). I decided to shoot my 365 in this weekends match. I went down 45 points. It wasn't all due to the optic but for comparison at the match a couple of weeks ago, I was down 9 points. The difference in large part lied with a lot of one handed shooting in this match and me trying to shoot at the same speed as I would with the full size gun/optic. It didn't work out. The problem with the small window size is compounded by a slightly different index on the 365 Legion. The other issue doesn't have anything to do with the window size and that is the narrow grip.

[GJM]

I was going to post this somewhere else like the Macro in competition thread or something, but since the question was asked here. Yes. IMHO window size matters. On my 365 Legion I have an EPS carry. On my 2 IDPA guns, 320 TXG X-Carry (SRO) and 320 Legion AXG (507Comp). I decided to shoot my 365 in this weekends match. I went down 45 points. It wasn't all due to the optic but for comparison at the match a couple of weeks ago, I was down 9 points. The difference in large part lied with a lot of one handed shooting in this match and me trying to shoot at the same speed as I would with the full size gun/optic. It didn't work out. The problem with the small window size is compounded by a slightly different index on the 365 Legion. The other issue doesn't have anything to do with the window size and that is the narrow grip.

When I transition between my 320 Legion based limited optics gun, and the macro, I need to be especially careful to shoot in time with the macro as opposed to trying to simply mimic how I shoot the 320. The time doesn't end up being that different, but each needs to be treated as its own thing in my experience. When I was working with the macro more, I shot a Saturday Sunday match with the 320 game gun on Saturday and the macro (with PMM) on Sunday, and shot 91.6% of my match points with the macro. One hand, with the small window, is definitely unforgiving in terms of how I align the pistol between my dominant eye and the target.

[Clusterfrack]

I agree with GJM that width is more important, and that size does matter. I tried using a 509t2 on a Shadow2 for rainy USPSA matches, but it slowed me down too much compared to a SRO. On long, precise shots I don't think there's much if any difference. But fast "paint with the streak" type shooting is way better with a bigger window. I can shoot anytime the sight picture is appropriate, regardless of where the dot is in the window. As well, the thickness of the window frame matters. The Acro is the worst in that regard.

[JCS]

Bigger is definitely better.

I would prefer a tall window over a wide window. I don't care so much about width and helping me pick up the dot on the presentation. That can be refined in dry fire. My missed indexes are usually on the vertical plane anyways.

I care more about seeing the dot return. I'm not following it with my eyes, but shooting a 507k vs SRO, the dot appears suddenly because it leaving the window on the smaller window. It's much easier to time shots to vision with a bigger vertical window.

[GJM]

I also have a preference for a circular display window like the SRO or Romeo three max. While it isn't appropriate for EDC use, the Sig Romeo 3 Max is my absolute favorite competition optic.

[1Rangemaster]

I’ll begin with a caveat: I don’t have experience with all the sights listed in the OP. That said, I think a larger window is better or more forgiving of misalignment or an index that’s off. Anecdotally, I saw this when I shot some rounds with a Holosun Comp (BIG window) a few weeks ago that was on a colleague’s pistol. It was “easier” to find the dot/see the streak for me. Typically, I’m shooting an ACRO on an MOS Glock for reference. The ACRO frame is thicker, and there is the visual clutter of the battery cap.
But, for context, I would still go with the ACRO or other enclosed optic for duty/self defense. First, I like the enclosed emitter for durability. Second, I’ve had the experience of a partially blocked window with an open single lens. That affected my preference. For me then, the smaller closed emitter is my choice. I just realize that I will have to work a little harder and be disciplined about practicing my index dry.
For competition, no argument- the larger window would be the way to go. There may be some visual advantage to a circular window, e.g., an SRO or the C&H Comp. That big Holosun did impress me.
None of this matters much unless one works with the sight. I’m sure there are folks who can do acceptable work with an RMR. They would have to work harder at it IMHO.

[2501]

You won’t notice window size making a difference if you’re just doing standing two handed shooting a static target directly in front of you. The moment any movement, transitions, lighting, or varied shooting positions come into play, window size absolutely matters.

[GJM]

Tall or wide is mostly a theoretical discussion, since as a practical matter, the tall ones are also pretty wide and vice versa.

[MVS]

I also have a preference for a circular display window like the SRO or Romeo three max. While it isn't appropriate for EDC use, the Sig Romeo 3 Max is my absolute favorite competition optic.

I thought I preferred round but then I started using a 507Comp and I think I prefer it with the 8 MOA horseshoe over my SRO's. Bonus is that it seems to ghost less than the SRO. My buddy at work that I shoot with prefers round. Even on the ACE VR game he went back to the SRO after trying the 507Comp. I stayed with the Comp.

[RJ]

A day or so before I posted this, I had asked Sig C/S what the optic window size(s) of the Romeo X Pro and Compact were; today they came back and confirmed they were the same.

117191

Thing is though, they indicated "24 mm", which is weird because this is almost an inch by an inch (1" = 25.4 mm). I put a 24 mm x 24 mm box at the bottom of my chart, thusly:

117192

Does anyone actually have a Romeo X, and if so, can you see where a 24 mm opening would fit into the optic? I think there's something I don't understand about Sig's answer here...thanks!

[Clusterfrack]

@rj, want to add: Acro Window Size: 0.6H x0.6W" ?

[RJ]

@rj, want to add: Acro Window Size: 0.6H x0.6W" ?

Sure, give me a second...

ok:

117193

[HeavyDuty]

A day or so before I posted this, I had asked Sig C/S what the optic window size(s) of the Romeo X Pro and Compact were; today they came back and confirmed they were the same.

117191

Thing is though, they indicated "24 mm", which is weird because this is almost an inch by an inch (1" = 25.4 mm). I put a 24 mm x 24 mm box at the bottom of my chart, thusly:

117192

Does anyone actually have a Romeo X, and if so, can you see where a 24 mm opening would fit into the optic? I think there's something I don't understand about Sig's answer here...thanks!

I’ll check when I get home.

[HeavyDuty]

Romeo-X Compact: Front window 20.64mm wide x 15.64mm tall at the highest point. So, 0.81”w x 0.62”t.

[RJ]

Romeo-X Compact: Front window 20.64mm wide x 15.64mm tall at the highest point. So, 0.81”w x 0.62”t.

Thanks Ken.

Seems odd that Sig indicates the window size is 24 mm...maybe they applied some marketing windage to the actual glass size. Thanks for the numbers though, it helps.

[WobblyPossum]

Could that be the size of the housing surrounding the glass? If so, that’s an incredibly misleading way to sell an optic.

[Sensei]

I also have a preference for a circular display window like the SRO or Romeo three max. While it isn't appropriate for EDC use, the Sig Romeo 3 Max is my absolute favorite competition optic.

I plan to put a R3 Max on my P226 X-Five STAS. I’m a little bummed that the X-five uses the Delta Point Pro footprint and cannot directly interface with the optic’s Max footprint. I believe that Springer Precision makes an adapter plate.

https://shop.springerprecision.com/optics-mounts-for-sig-sauer-p226-x5/

I’m still waiting on a Romeo 2 (dot circle reticle) that has been back ordered at EuroOptic since December. That one will go on a P226 X-five Legion. That one should directly mount to the DeltaPoint Pro footprint and the optic’s integral rear sight should work perfectly with the taller factory front.

[RJ]

Revised the graphic with the latest data, and reordered the blocks roughly by "size".

Sig's "24 mm" sizing seems quite at odds with actual user supplied measurements for the Romeo X optics. Hmmm.

117774

[HeavyDuty]

I wonder if that 24mm spec is diagonal, like a TV?

[RealSelf]

I'd say that I really like the idea of both Romeo-X models having the same window size as you can go from small to full pistols and have the same exact sight picture. Is this a huge deal, no, but it's nice.

[RJ]

I wonder if that 24mm spec is diagonal, like a TV?

Ken you might be on to something. I drew a 0.94" circle and put it behind a box of the size you reported. Lines up very close.

117797

[RJ]

Revised graphic.

117798

[Sensei]

It looks like the Trijicon RCR will be sandwiched between the RMR and 507c/EPSc at 0.88 X 0.64

[Sensei]

This thread is worth a sticky…

[breakingtime91]

This thread is worth a sticky…

Agreed. I didn't realize how much smaller the 507k/epsc actually is. I like the rounder window of the 507c/407c for concealment. Edge doesn't catch my shirt like a square optic.

[RJ]

It looks like the Trijicon RCR will be sandwiched between the RMR and 507c/EPSc at 0.88 X 0.64

Yep, sure does.

119518

[taadski]

509T is .90 x .66 according to their factory specs.

The SCS (open emitter versions) are .77 x .58.

[Disciple]

Yep, sure does.

119518

This image is small on my display at only 524 pixels tall. Could you upload a higher resolution copy?

[RJ]

This image is small on my display at only 524 pixels tall. Could you upload a higher resolution copy?

Give me a minute.

[RJ]

This image is small on my display at only 524 pixels tall. Could you upload a higher resolution copy?

Attached is a PDF file created by exporting the original. This is what I screen grab, but obviously below optimal in terms of resolution, so this should be clearer on screen.

If you want a hard copy, print it without scaling; the objects "should" measure the actual size of the box(es) as shown...

[RJ]

509T is .90 x .66 according to their factory specs.

The SCS (open emitter versions) are .77 x .58.

Eek, just saw this data, I'll try and work this in.

[Disciple]

Attached is a PDF file created by exporting the original.

I cannot "like" your post for some reason. Thank you.

[RJ]

Eek, just saw this data, I'll try and work this in.

123613

[RJ]

I cannot "like" your post for some reason. Thank you.

You're welcome!

[RJ]

Oops, posted without checking my work. I’ll fix the error soon(tm).

[RJ]

123624

[titsonritz]

How does the Steiner MPS compare/fit into the scheme of things?

Steiner website specs state:
Objective Lens: 20x16mm; Ocular Lens: 21x16mm

So ~0.79”x0.63”;0.83”x0.63”
Wouldn’t that place it just under the RMR?

[Doublestack45]

The Holosun 507comp, from their website.


Window Size
1.1×0.87

[The_Quartermaster]

Again, in the community there are zero absolutes only subjective POV. I am told that wider is better in here, yet this isn't an an absolute that's a true absolute. My score and times did so much better when I converted from the RMR to the ACRO.

I overlay, I don't see a side or a battery compartment, only a dot being overlaid and situation awareness of the target itself. And I prefer to do it without direct mounting for the added advantage of the slight height increase it gives me. Again, my scores and times and even accuracy improvements is the actual narrative.

[rayrevolver]

Found this on Optics Planet, called a ZeroTech Optics Trace H.A.L.O 1x28mm.

The data says it's 20mm x 28mm, which sounds massive.

Fully enclosure too. I am NOT going to be a guinea pig but seems like a massive optic for the RMSc footprint.

https://www.opticsplanet.com/zerotech-optics-trace-h-a-l-o-1x28mm-enclosed-micro-reflex-sight.html?_iv_availability=in-stock&_iv_deal-types=coupons&_iv_code=4TM-RD-ZTOR6-TRAE28-FDE

[RJ]

Thought since I haven't updated this in a while, I would toss in the latest (Jan 25) compilation, previously posted elsewhere on the forum.

128442

[crosseyedshooter]

I’m measuring about 18.4mm wide X 13.1mm tall viewable window on the EPSc with a 6.28mm deck height.
And roughly 18.2mm wide X 14.5mm tall viewable window on the Romeo X Compact Enclosed with a 5.94mm deck height.

128880

[RJ]

I’m measuring about 18.4mm wide X 13.1mm tall viewable window on the EPSc with a 6.28mm deck height.
And roughly 18.2mm wide X 14.5mm tall viewable window on the Romeo X Compact Enclosed with a 5.94mm deck height.


Thanks, that's good info. I am using Holosun's published data for the EPSc, and I don't recall precisely where I got the R X data at the moment (from HeavyDuty maybe?) I'll see if I can incorporate this into a revision for February.

[RJ]

I spent some time recasting the original data from my graphic tool into a spreadsheet, to make it easier to do updates. I also decided it would make sense to try and group by optic window size in square inches, rather than manufacturer nomenclature.

I also refreshed the data with some new optics for comparison, but retained manufacturer data unless there was no other info, just to try and keep things the same. If you have user data which differs, you can compare your number to the data I have, of course, but for comparison purposes I think this is consistent at least.

I ended up with three "sizes": window less than 0.50 square inches, between 0.50 and 0.75, and larger than 0.75.

Interesting to me there were a bunch in the "less than 0.50" size, with multiple optics being in this category, but with different footprints. I don't know, perhaps in general optics are getting smaller...Not sure what to make of this, but it was a curiosity.

What follows are the screen grabs out of the spreadsheet, so resolution is not super high, but I think readable. Data is generally by size in square inches, descending, larger on top and smaller on bottom.

[RJ]

Here are the three window size groups. I put the smaller group first, as I think these are getting more and more common. Next is medium, which includes all of the "traditional" size optics, followed by the larger, competition centric optics.

128983

[RJ]

Medium:

128986

[RJ]

Large:

128987

[crosseyedshooter]

Here are the three window size groups. I put the smaller group first, as I think these are getting more and more common. Next is medium, which includes all of the "traditional" size optics, followed by the larger, competition centric optics.

128983

The Romeo X figure looks like it's rotated on its side. Without getting caught up in the numbers, the window is more tall than wide when compared to the EPSc that's definitely more wide than tall.

[RJ]

The Romeo X figure looks like it's rotated on its side. Without getting caught up in the numbers, the window is more tall than wide when compared to the EPSc that's definitely more wide than tall.

Ok but:


Romeo-X Compact: Front window 20.64mm wide x 15.64mm tall at the highest point. So, 0.81”w x 0.62”t.

This is what I am basing this on. Can you guys get together and work this out? I don't have one of these optics.

[crosseyedshooter]

Ok but:

Can you guys get together and work this out? I don't have one of these optics.

Here's a pic from post 46 (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?60256-Different-Sizes-of-MRDS-Windows&p=1649103&viewfull=1#post1649103). Romeo X Compact Enclosed on left and EPSc on right.

129013

[RJ]

Ok I'm really confused now.

First you say this:



And roughly 18.2mm wide X 14.5mm tall viewable window on the Romeo X Compact Enclosed with a 5.94mm deck height.


so...wider than tall.


Then you say this:


The Romeo X figure looks like it's rotated on its side. Without getting caught up in the numbers, the window is more tall than wide when compared to the EPSc that's definitely more wide than tall.

So...taller than wide.

Which is it? Taller than wide? Or wider than tall?

[HeavyDuty]

Ok but:



This is what I am basing this on. Can you guys get together and work this out? I don't have one of these optics.

Fresh measurements:

Romeo X Compact enclosed - 20.7 mm wide, 15.7 mm tall front window

And a new one - Romeo X SIG-LOC is the same.

[taadski]

Another data point, Rich; the 507 Comp is wider than tall. The dimensions listed are accurate, but the diagram reference is sideways. Which is particularly noticeable next to the SRO. FWIW.

Maybe I missed the source document posted, but is it still possible to view the whole optics list together somewhere? It’s a lot more valuable for me seeing the whole array.

Thanks for all the work, btw.


t

[RJ]

Another data point, Rich; the 507 Comp is wider than tall. The dimensions listed are accurate, but the diagram reference is sideways. Which is particularly noticeable next to the SRO. FWIW.

Maybe I missed the source document posted, but is it still possible to view the whole optics list together somewhere? It’s a lot more valuable for me seeing the whole array.

Thanks for all the work, btw.


t

The list is in a spreadsheet, for ease of maintenance/update. What sort of form would you like the "whole optics list" to take?

I'll take another look at the 507comp, this is yet another optic I've never seen.

[RJ]

I just noticed some other funkiness with a few other things in the spreadsheet, so I’ll take a pause on updating until I can figure this out.

[taadski]

The list is in a spreadsheet, for ease of maintenance/update. What sort of form would you like the "whole optics list" to take?

I'll take another look at the 507comp, this is yet another optic I've never seen.


The renditions before splitting it up into the size categories was great. It’s nice to be able to compare them across the board like you’d had it. Just my opinion, but I think there are plenty of people competing with an Acro sized optic or something and on the other end of the spectrum, folks who duty or conceal carry more of a “competition” sized optic.

Just spitballing. Thanks for considering it.

And re the 507 Comp, here’s a quick shitty pic of it next to an SRO for reference. 1.1 wide with a window height just a skosh greater than that of the SRO.


129017

[RJ]

Ok, I can do that. It was getting a little hard to read ‘all’ of them on one graphic, which was a reason I split them up. But I understand getting the big picture, graphically (and simply) of relative optic size.

Once I square away the data I’ll ponder how to make this easier to visualize.

[crosseyedshooter]

Ok I'm really confused now.

First you say this:



so...wider than tall.


Then you say this:



So...taller than wide.

Which is it? Taller than wide? Or wider than tall?

I guess it’s just an optical illusion my brain is playing on me. Better to stick with the measurements.

[RJ]

I guess it’s just an optical illusion my brain is playing on me. Better to stick with the measurements.

It’s all good.

Heck I’m amazed any of the stuff I post here is read, let alone someone taking the time to check the data. So, thanks.

[RJ]

Updates a/o 2/1/25.

129041

All values are width x height in inches.

[RJ]

Notes:

All shape "sizes" were checked against source data, back to the manufacturers, in all cases but one (Sig R X, but see below).

Adjustments were made to RMRcc (the window size specified in the RMRcc User Manual was smaller than what I had).

I fixed up all three competition optics. I had screwed up width and height on these.

I added a "SRO Hood" graphic under the SRO window box, to help visualize the actual shape of this optic, which is more or less round.

The Romeo X Compact window size is per @HeavyDuty's data. Sig says it uses a "24mm aperture", so I drew a circle under the box that size. Interesting, it matches up almost perfectly with the "rounded" square shape I picked out of the Libre Office library of shapes. Hmmmm...

I changed all the shapes to be semi-transparent for future use. This came in handy for the SRO and Romeo X Compact. I'm pondering a group update to the MRDS QRCs to include the "shapes" on the upper right side of the flip of the card. That'd be a lot of work, but might be worth it long term as it is perhaps more useful than what I have in there now (a bunch of screen grabs of the reticle shape.) Another hmmm...

...and finally, a PDF export of the "Spreadsheet" is attached. This has the window shapes, source, sizes, square inch calculations, etc. In theory, if you download and print this without scaling, the "windows" should be actual size.


Thanks for all the input on this, I appreciate it. Hopefully it continues to be of use.

[Jamie]

Thank you for the hard work @RJ.
And for the pdf!

[HeavyDuty]

* Like *

[taadski]

*Like” here also. Thanks Rich. Did the like button disappear on other’s logins also? Mine has been missing the last several days. Glitch? Change?

[RJ]

Did the like button disappear on other’s logins also? Mine has been missing the last several days. Glitch? Change?

Yep.

Apparently the "like" button was associated with code that caused the loss of performance of the site over the past few months. LL has disabled it until the source of the error can be corrected and the like system restored.

[Doublestack45]

129068
Notes:

All shape "sizes" were checked against source data, back to the manufacturers, in all cases but one (Sig R X, but see below).

Adjustments were made to RMRcc (the window size specified in the RMRcc User Manual was smaller than what I had).

I fixed up all three competition optics. I had screwed up width and height on these.

I added a "SRO Hood" graphic under the SRO window box, to help visualize the actual shape of this optic, which is more or less round.

The Romeo X Compact window size is per @HeavyDuty's data. Sig says it uses a "24mm aperture", so I drew a circle under the box that size. Interesting, it matches up almost perfectly with the "rounded" square shape I picked out of the Libre Office library of shapes. Hmmmm...

I changed all the shapes to be semi-transparent for future use. This came in handy for the SRO and Romeo X Compact. I'm pondering a group update to the MRDS QRCs to include the "shapes" on the upper right side of the flip of the card. That'd be a lot of work, but might be worth it long term as it is perhaps more useful than what I have in there now (a bunch of screen grabs of the reticle shape.) Another hmmm...

...and finally, a PDF export of the "Spreadsheet" is attached. This has the window shapes, source, sizes, square inch calculations, etc. In theory, if you download and print this without scaling, the "windows" should be actual size.


Thanks for all the input on this, I appreciate it. Hopefully it continues to be of use.

[RJ]

I'm pondering a group update to the MRDS QRCs to include the "shapes" on the upper right side of the flip of the card. That'd be a lot of work, but might be worth it long term as it is perhaps more useful than what I have in there now (a bunch of screen grabs of the reticle shape.) Another hmmm...


I did some prototyping on what this might look like by amending a typical MRDS QRC (COA in this case) with this info. Screen grab of MRDS QRC for COA at (prototype) Rev 16 below.

On the "B" side, instead of repeating the optic name in shadow boxed 14 point bold, Rev 16 cards would instead have the optic name, dot color, MOA, and aperture, in 10 point non-shadow bold, to the left. The low-res screen grab of the optic currently on the right would be replaced with a simple rounded box to represent the aperture window, in "actual" size.

129127

There are 70+ QRCs posted on the web site, so this would be a fair bit of effort. But applied across the board, it would give I think a bit more useful info about the optic, in terms of the dot, color, and aperture than what I have in there now.

[HeavyDuty]

I like it. Thank you for all the effort this takes!

[psalms144.1]

Updates a/o 2/1/25.

129041

All values are width x height in inches.
Is the COA window really smaller than an EPS C or SCS Carry? That's surprising, given the size of the optic...

[RJ]

Is the COA window really smaller than an EPS C or SCS Carry? That's surprising, given the size of the optic...

Aimpoint says it’s 15mm x 15mm…15/25.4=0.591, so…yeah.

129138

[Jamie]

Is the COA window really smaller than an EPS C or SCS Carry? That's surprising, given the size of the optic...

Thank you RJ.

That is disheartening. I have a 509t on my well worn and born again Gen 3 19. But I have a Gen 5 just waiting for me to decide how I want it cut.
I was hoping for a few more innovative designs, possibly, to come out the first of this year and was pretty stoked about the COA. (I am still stoked about what seems to be a pretty darn good mounting solution).

Your comparison chart is truly helpful RJ. I am very comfortable with the size and clarity of my 509t and might just stay with that optic for my G5.

Decisions, decisions...

[RJ]

Ok, I made a start at a process to create all the needed graphics for the MRDS to reflect "window" size. So the text is easy, that's just the optic name, MOA, color, etc. The tricky part is how to draw the dot. More specifically, what size do I draw them at?

Here's a start at two I'm working on, the COA (since it was on my mind) and my HS 407k GR, which I have here at my desk.

129163

I'll leave out the mathematical mumbo jumbo (*) I used to arrive at the dot sizes, but these "windows" are scaled to actual size on my drawing tool...so how the dot looks in the window "should" in theory be correct.

I dunno. I am sitting here looking at my 407k, and can't quite get past that my drawing looks a little small, relative to the actual dot I see.

I don't have any other dots handy, but if someone has one, with a single MOA dot (or a multi reticle, I guess, like a 507c), that I can add to these two, can you let me know? If so, I'll build a dot picture, then ask you to look at your dot, and tell me, do you think it's "the same" as what you are seeing?

(I dunno if anyone has a COA, but that would be another one to try).

* I can post the math stuff, but I doubt anyone's interested.

[HeavyDuty]

Ok, I made a start at a process to create all the needed graphics for the MRDS to reflect "window" size. So the text is easy, that's just the optic name, MOA, color, etc. The tricky part is how to draw the dot. More specifically, what size do I draw them at?

Here's a start at two I'm working on, the COA (since it was on my mind) and my HS 407k GR, which I have here at my desk.

129163

I'll leave out the mathematical mumbo jumbo (*) I used to arrive at the dot sizes, but these "windows" are scaled to actual size on my drawing tool...so how the dot looks in the window "should" in theory be correct.

I dunno. I am sitting here looking at my 407k, and can't quite get past that my drawing looks a little small, relative to the actual dot I see.

I don't have any other dots handy, but if someone has one, with a single MOA dot (or a multi reticle, I guess, like a 507c), that I can add to these two, can you let me know? If so, I'll build a dot picture, then ask you to look at your dot, and tell me, do you think it's "the same" as what you are seeing?

(I dunno if anyone has a COA, but that would be another one to try).

* I can post the math stuff, but I doubt anyone's interested.

I have calipers, and can offer:

RMRcc both 6 and 3.25 MOA
RMR 6 MOA
ACRO P-2
Romeo X Compact Enclosed 6 MOA
Romeo X Compact Open circle dot
Romeo X SIG-LOC circle dot
Steiner MPS

[RJ]

I have calipers, and can offer:

RMRcc both 6 and 3.25 MOA
RMR 6 MOA
ACRO P-2
Romeo X Compact Enclosed 6 MOA
Romeo X Compact Open circle dot
Romeo X SIG-LOC circle dot
Steiner MPS

Ken, Awesome! TYSM! Let me pick one of those to draw and I’ll post back in a day or so for you to eyeball.

Reason I’m being particular about this is if I can do this mathematically, then all the 70+ MRDS QRC updates will go a lot faster.

[RJ]

Right, so four of the optics have been prototyped for the "new" look. These represent the largest and smallest windows, both red and green, with single and multiple reticle dots. So a representative cross section.

On the right is the existing graphic I am using for Rev 15 and prior. To the left is the proposed replacement for Rev 16, consisting of new text with the optic window size and other info, as well as a new graphic drawn "to scale", for lack of a better word:

129182

If you have one of these optics, please could you eyeball it and tell me if the reticle looks like a reasonable approximation of what you actually see with Mk I eyeball?