I wonder if they don’t know the specs? Just told their Chinese fab shop to make it bigger or something?
I wonder if they don’t know the specs? Just told their Chinese fab shop to make it bigger or something?
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
Or..... Whatever size it is once the numbers are bashed around the internet you'll have all kinds of people bitching about the size who've never even looked at it .......so it may not be ideal to give out that information.
It may make a few true shooters unhappy however I think even if the size was told to a person and they knew the size of another exactly the same reticle.....would they be able to judge the difference for themselves without actually looking at it?
I couldn't imagine buying any reticle without actually physically seeing it and looking at targets with it regardless of what anybody else says.
YMMV
I just sold the older version to a friend with astigmatism. So far he is very impressed.
https://www.primaryarms.com/blog/Int...yclops-Reticle
This model has a diopter ring, and I *think* you could actually make the reticle bigger at the expense of crispness. But you could turn down the brightness and use the chevron for accuracy or superbright like a red dot.
Not a bad optic, just a little heavy compared to an Aimpoint T-1/T-2 etc.
I believe a fellow named Dimitri designs all the ACSS reticles. Trijicon even licenses some of them for ACOG models. Dimitri is a long distance shooter who certainly understands the math behind what he's doing.
I think many people have had somewhat better success using ACSS BDC reticles than some other BDC reticles that wern't designed and vetted extensively by good shooters in the past. I'm not sure what the state of things is in 2021; perhaps the other big players have stepped up their game as well. BDC's obviously have limitations due to all sorts of variables, but I know Dimitri has obsessed over how to acheive the best compromises, and he actually tests the piss out of stuff in the real world with a wide variety of equipment, ammunition, and under variable conditions.
It's probably more like having Brian Litz design your BDC than the marketing department at Leupold.
All that being said, I've personally been underwhelmed with some of the ACSS reticle designs. I'm a fan of thick crossbars for low light situations or even shadowy backgrounds in daylight. They very obviously work better in scopes without illumination. I know the ACSS reticle has illumination, but I still don't trust batteries 100%, let alone my ability to induce user error by not having it adjusted correctly. This article sums up my feeling pretty well with exemplary images.
https://thenewrifleman.com/why-the-g...4-still-rocks/
I think if you are going to an etched reticle for a 1x scope, you may as well etch the damn reticle with a #4 German style on the exterior so it's actually usable without illumination in low light. No one would ever design a non-illuminated hunting reticle that looked like the ACSS, and for good reason.
The article linked in post #1 of this thread has a great picture of what the reticle actually looks like in contradistinction to what Primary Arms puts on their website. It gives a better impression of scale. Imagine trying to use this in thick woods with deep shadows. Then imagine it with some hybrid of a German #4 around it.
https://thenewrifleman.com/primary-a...ace-a-red-dot/
I will probably still buy this optic to replace my red dot. I have pronounced astigmatism in my sight eye, and I could use the diopter to with witness marks to adjust for both corrected and uncorrected vision. That is a pretty big deal to me. I just wish it had cross bars too.
The one thing that doesn't really do is give me a sense of scale. If there was a target or object of known size in the view finder it would give a better impression. As it is the reticle over a blue sky we have no idea if the camear is zoomed in that would make it appear bigger than it is or using a wider angle lens that would make it appear smaller than it is.
The linked article has exactly those types of photos if you are interested. I was referring to the relative size of the reticle compared to the tube of the optic. The manufacturers website has images (not photos) that make the reticle seem much bigger than it actually is.
https://www.primaryarms.com/primary-...-gen-2-reticle
I decided to hold off and see how these shake out. I cancelled my preorder for now.
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
Shipping notice received.
Taking a break from social media.