Talk:Reticle

Redirect from Reticule

A reticule is actually a woman's handbag and not a sight at all. This is a common mistake thanks to the auto-correct on MSWord. Wikipedia shouldn't cement this error by redirecting from reticule to reticle. 71.231.201.228 (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Agreed, this confused me just now. See http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861701697 for the definition of reticule -- don't see why there isn't a page for it.

Definition of "reticle"

bascially I agree a reticle is some lines. They can be etched into e.g. glass but you also can simulte them by a computer and overlay them on an image. However, I strongly disagree that a reticle is an astronomical instrument. As in my daily work I use reticles also in a measurement microscope, for measuring small items. 02:39, 4 August 2006 User:210.202.48.252

Moving

I'm moving this:

Crosshairs are also a very common subject on computer games, typically first-person shooters. Most of these games implement some form of crosshair so that players can aim accurately. Versions of popular games with no crosshairs exist, usually as a more challenging game mode - Quake 2 Iron Sights, for example.

here because it's redundant--FPS games are simulations of firearms, so use of crosshairs is pretty obvious. I may stick it back in later, but I'm going to do some expanding right now so I'm going to store it here for a bit. scot 01:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Improvement

The article looks largely good, though I think there may be a few small bits that could be improved.

Modern variable power optics normally do have the reticle in the second focal plane. The problem with early implementations of second focal plane reticles was not so much fragility as a zero point that shifted when the power was adjusted, due to slight variations in machining tolerances unavoidable with 1950s technology. The instructions for older variable power scopes normally said that the scope should be zeroed with its power adjusted to the highest setting, in order to minimize the errors this introduced. The instructions for some very cheap variable scopes still do say this.

The biggest problem with etched glass reticles, as far as I am aware, is not fragility (some such units are very massively constructed indeed) but rather the way they can accumulate dust and metal shavings that are worn away from the adjustment gears in use. The particles stick to the glass reticle surface and are perfectly in focus, where they become at the very least distracting, and in some instances can reduce visibility through the scope. As the scope itself is normally sealed to keep out moisture and prevent fogging, it's not possible to clean the reticle or fix this in the field. This problem was why Steyr switched from an etched glass fine-dot-in-a-circle reticle on the AUG's integral optic sight to a wire crosshair.

I have no source for that except for discussions on Usenet and various message boards, and I think those probably don't meet Wikipedia standards, but I offer this information as a starting point for anyone who wants to investigate and find verifiable sources for them.

I also think the chart of common reticles is good but could use two additions and some clarification.

Probably the second most popular telescopic sight reticle among hunters who used optical sights in the US before World War II was the post-and-crosshair. It was similar to the reticle the chart describes as the "German reticle," but it often had the coarse center post tapered from top to bottom, and it had a very fine horizontal crosswire going all the way across. Scopes with these reticles were quite commonplace, and the old Lyman M84 "Alaskan" was issued to US Army snipers for decades after World War II with a post-and-crosshair reticle. It's no longer very common today--in fact I don't know of any optics with such a reticle in production now, though my knowledge is hardly encyclopedic--but I think it is sufficiently noteworthy to merit mention in a historical context.

Zeiss still offers a post-and-crosswire reticle as an option in some of their hunting optics. Their current catalog lists it as the "No. 2 reticle."

The reticle described as the "SVD reticle" looks to me like the old Warsaw Pact standard small arms optical sight reticle, incorporating a range-estimating scale and a series of chevrons below the center that are holdover points for various ranges.

A similar reticle, minus the chevrons running up the center, was a common feature of some West German military small arms optics in the 1960s and 1970s, but I don't think it was ever made a NATO standard.

The reticle described as "rangefinding type" with the two horizontal crosswires looks to my admittedly inexpert eye like the rangefinding reticle of the old Redfield ART military small arms scope from the mid 1960s. If there is an article about it, a link to that article may be in order, as I do believe that reticle was unique to the ART.

The article might also say that the mil-dot reticle and variations of it have become the de facto standard for Western military snipers due to its utility as a rangefinder in the field, with appropriate hyperlinks to the appropriate articles.

Lastly, the one labeled as "rangefinding type" with the sort of Christmas-tree pattern of horizontal lines below the center seems to me to be not a rangefinding reticle at all, but rather one with multiple holdover points and horizontal lead indicators for moving targets at different ranges. Such reticles are found in a few newer models of scope for hunting and sporting purposes and I am not aware of any military organization using them. They are new, uncommon, and in my opinion not noteworthy unless the article is going to have an exhaustive list of all known reticle patterns--of which there is an astonishing variety indeed.

The current image was created by User:Jellocube27, it's a vector version of a raster image I created; I've never dealt with SVG images, so it may be best to go to Jellocube27 to get things modified.

The post and horizontal crosshair is probably worth adding, maybe replacing the German reticle. The two horizontal crosshairs is more common than you think; it was used in a number of sporting models, and was an option from Premier Reticles on their custom Leupold reticles (back when they did this--I think they're out of that business now). The "Christmas tree" is becoming common on sporting scopes--functionally it's much the same as the Soviet Block type I called an SVD type (since it's usually found on models sold as an "SVD Sniper Scope") but the symmetric horizontals allow simultaneous holdover and drift estimations in addition to rangefinding; often they'll have additional stuff such as http://www.straightshooters.com/hawk/hawk31250sr6ir.html, which uses a separate addition for rangefinding, leaving the "tree" for holdover and drift. My goal in creating the image was to cover the broadest possible range with a minimum of examples, and I think I covered things pretty well; there are a few I knowingly left out, like one complex model that had a grid covering the entire lower left quadrant, allowing the shooter to measure horizontal and vertical offsets, and do a "one shot zero".

The "German reticle" with the thick center post and thick horizontal bars on each side is very popular today on European hunting optics and is historically significant because it was once very common in European military optics as well. I think it's common enough to be noteworthy.

The article is short on references, since I wrote it from memory, so it would be good to have some. I'll stick in that link to a Christmas tree reticle to get things started. If you have any helpful links on first vs. second plane scopes, or glass vs. wire reticles, I'd appreciate it, because that's stuff that's going to be harder to find, I think--first vs. second plane because first plane scopes are impossible to find these days, and glass vs. wire because some things just can't be done with wire, and this require glass. Acutally, now that I think about it the fragility issue and the dirt issue you bring up both seem far-fetched, as they'd apply to the inner

Fragility varies. Springfield Armory, Inc. sells a line of telescopic sights under their own brand name, manufactured by Hakko Optical in Japan. They mostly have rather complex (I'd go so far as to call them "busy") etched-glass rangefinding reticles. In 2001-04 there was a rash of problems with these reticles becoming detached and rattling about inside the scope, as some production runs were partially assembled by a Hong Kong subcontractor that was securing the reticles in place with a dab of glue from a hot glue gun. This can also happen with a wire crosshair, as it is normally mounted in a plastic ring secured with a dab of hot glue in the cheaper Chinese imports sold under the "Tasco" and "BSA" brand names in the US.

optics as well; the only potentially valid point I can see is the issue of light transmission, since an extra layer of glass means more internal reflection.

Given that a typical scope already has anywhere from ten to fourteen lenses inside it, adding another layer of glass doesn't harm much, especially with modern lens coatings.

Turns out I was wrong about first focal plane scopes--they're coming back. Premier Reticles is now making custom glass reticles for a first focal plane scope... scot 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. A company called US Optics, mainly known for their military optics, has now patented etched-glass first-focal-plane reticles that are designed to present different images at different magnifications, in order to maintain utility across the full range of magnifications.

Thanks for your comments, and I hope you'll come back and help work on the aritcle. scot 21:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Crosshair and Reticle are different things

• A Reticle is a glass disk with an etched pattern, grid, or lines on it that can be used for mesuring or aiming. A Crosshair is just one of the paterns found on a Reticle. Reticle should never have been re-directed here. 69.72.2.71 (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  To be picky, the article covers reticles, and what really should probably happen is that it should move to "reticle", and "crosshair" should point to that. Also, your definition of reticle is either lacking or ambiguous, since it seems to imply that all reticles are etched, which is not true; according to dictionary.reference.com, a reticle is "a network of fine lines, wires, or the like placed in the focus of the eyepiece of an optical instrument." The important thing is that it's a pattern placed at the focus; the shape and method of execution are irrelevant. scot (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  I requested a move from Crosshair to Reticle, see Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Uncontroversial_proposals. scot (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)