Talk:Reticle

Alternate spelling

I've been having a slight disagreement with someone. They say that 'reticle' used to be spelled/said as 'rectile'. I said no, and they disagreed. I then searched online dictionaries, which yielded no results for 'rectile'. Does anyone here know if this is true? He's saying it used to be spelled and said as this, but that it has obviously been changed. That this person is defending 'rectile' (and no, I am not having my leg pulled) with such vigor makes me think that it may at one point, in some locales (and rarely at that) have been referred to as a 'rectile' (though I won't believe it at all until it is 100% proven). Does anyone have any input? 220.245.91.43 (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.24.49 (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Semiconductor meaning of reticle

In the semiconductor industry the term "reticle" is in common use for the optical mask used in modern fabrication processes.

See: http://www.siliconfareast.com/masks-reticles.htm

I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure if it's best to make a minimal mention on this page or to create a new one.

Any guidance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentmybike (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the Stepper article another name for that type of a reticle is a Photomask. So it looks like the article already exists? (not sure since there are no references to check this). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Graticule?

I'm reading an RAF book from 1952 that uses the term "graticule" instead of "reticule". I believe the terms are synonymous, especially given the images, but does anyone know if they might be used differently in other cases? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The Royal Navy used the term graticule as well, but I suspect that it is used to refer to an adjustable/rotatable reticule, does your RAF book describe a rotatable reticule?Damwiki1 (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it was a fixed crosshairs, shaped like sword with the sharp point upward. It did not move - in fact, it was stabilized. See this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the graticule did move and the wiki article, linked above states:"The inputs drove a mechanical calculator, on the "computor" as it was then spelled.[8] The output of the computor drove flexible shafts that rotated the sight head to the proper angles in azimuth and altitude..." (my italics). From what I can understand, the computer calculated the bonb aim point and adjusted the position of the graticule (sight head) as needed. When the cross hair was over the target, the bombardier released his ordnance. Also, by definition, a stabilized sight must move in relation to the observer, because the sight uses a fixed reference point. Damwiki1 (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, the sight as a whole moved, but the crosshairs within did not. Its no different than the example of the P90 - it even looks similar. Ahhh, according to this it is the same thing. I'll add it as an alternate form. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I would think "graticule" is derived from "graduated reticule", i.e. a pattern on a reticle that is more than just a crossed line that is used to mesure something in the field of view, aid aiming (ranging by comparing it to known wing widths or a mans height, display "bullet drop"), etc.

Actually the references on this point to something more basic: "graticule" is British English and "reticle" is American English. That should be noted in the intro and instances of "graticule" should be removed from the rest of the article per WP:ENGVAR

Refs:

Lebende Sprachen: Volumes 7-9; Volumes 7-9, Bundesverband der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer - 1962

A "graticule" is defined as "a scale on glass or other transparent material in the focal plane of an optical instrument, for the location and measurement of objects" (Strichplatte). The preferred AE term is "reticle", sometimes "reticule", which is also occasionally found in BE. It is used by most authors to denote exactly the same thing as graticule, though the dictionary definition (Webster) is somewhat different: "Reticle — a system of lines, wires, or the like, in the focus of the eyepiece of an optical instrument."

Journal of physics: Scientific instruments: Volume 14, Issues 1-6. Institute of Physics (Great Britain), Institute of Physics and the Physical Society - 1981

(An element of confusion in the older literature has arisen through the indiscriminate employment of the terms graticule, reticule and reticle on the one hand, and crosshairs, crosslines, crosswebs, and crosswires on the other. Current usage distinguishes crosswires and reticles, whilst the other terms are gradually falling into disfavour.) .

Microphotography: photography at extreme resolution, Guy William Willis Stevens, - 1957

Microphotographic processes are used for making fine graduated scales (graticules),* including eyepiece scales for ... Throughout this book, American readers should note that graticule and reticle are considered to be synonymous.

The Optical industry & systems purchasing directory: Volume 33; Volume 33 - 1987

Graticule. The English term for Reticle.

Current science: Volume 26, 1957

(The American terminology reticle is, for once, undoubtedly preferable.)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but the only references to military graticules, that I have come across have always referred to British gun/director sights, where the reticule can be rotated, either in response to external data or to transmit data to an external source. Damwiki1 (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

But as I mentioned, the graticule in the Mk. XIV definitely did not do that. Sadly, I don't have the scanned pages (188 pounds plus shipping!), but the index for AP1730A suggests they use the same term to refer to fixed sights on bomber guns as well. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, poking about in Google Books turns up all sorts of "still" graticules. I really do think this is nothing more than a synonym that just isn't being used in this context any more. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The entire Mk XIV doesn't move, so it is either the ocular or the graticule which moves in response to computer outputs, but in either case the graticule is a moving part, relative to the observer. If the bomber gun-sights are connected to gyro gun-sights, then the graticule in them will also move in response to external inputs. Damwiki1 (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I've provided several references that clearly state that "graticule" and "reticle" are directly synonyms. If you do not believe this is correct, you'll have to provide references of equal quality that state this - that they are not synonyms. You can't simply assume that since you have examples of moving ones that they have to move. It's the broken-leg/cast issue… Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that reticle, reticule and graticule are synonymous:

GRATICULE, a term which came into common use during the Great War, may be defined a being the measuring marks or scales, usually on a glass plate or disc, placed in a focal plane of an optical instrument for determining the size, distance, direction, position, or number of the objects viewed coincidently with the scale itself. The term " graticule " comprises therefore, the numerous appliances variously known as sighting scales, reticules, cross-lines eyepiece, and stage micrometers, diaphragms webs, etc., which are used in telescopes, micro scopes, and other optical instruments, and it is usual to refer to the disc or plate with the marks on it as a " graticule."Dictionary of Applied Physics, 1923. However, it also seems that the origin of graticule lies in the British Military and I think that some mention should be made of this, due to the likelihood of the term being encountered within British military technical manuals.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If my readings are correct, it's a synonym for reticle, but not the other way around. The vast majority of hits are on the gridded plates on the front of oscilloscopes and such. On the other hand, when I look for reticule it generally seems to be weighted more the other direction. I don't know how to nuance the distinction through! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there does seem to be subtle difference between reticle and graticule, with graticule weighted more towards a "measuring reticle" rather than any reticle.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning, do you think? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, mainly because the term is likely to be encountered while reading technical manuals and where the subtle differences are likely to be very important.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, check out the lead, what do you think? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks good.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I would note a few problems. An oscilloscopes scale mask is a different device (different encyclopedic "thing"), so actually does not need to be mentioned in this article, this article is about the optical sight aiming aid. Graticule goes to a dead page right now, it should be redirected to this article and HATNOTE to Oscilloscope/Graticule or it should be it should be redirected to Oscilloscope/Graticule, depending on which is the primary term. Since Graticule as an aiming aid only seems to be a synonym or WP:ENGVAR variant it should not have a section and should be in boldface in first paragraph and preferably in the first sentence with all other synonyms and variants per WP:MOSBEGIN. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Did a quick fix of Graticule. Its now (back to being) a DAB page.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think graticule should have a separate entry in this article because of its divergent historical and technical origins, and because we have a high quality reference for the same. I don't think WP:ENGVAR is meant to be so rigid, and the current wording seems appropriate according to WP:ENGVAR: Terms that are uncommon in some varieties of English, or that have divergent meanings, may be glossed to prevent confusion. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

<de-indent The problem is the "divergent historical and technical origins" observed in the Dictionary of Applied Physics, 1923 article is just that.... observed, and minority. We can write about "hmmmm... we do see evidence of a different definition in 1923" but that strays into original research and we don't track such word usage since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The 1923 definition for "graticule" is the current definition for "reticle"[1] and the current definition for "graticule" is "reticle"[2]. So there is no divergent meaning. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Graticule is a term "...uncommon in some varieties of English..." and on that account alone deserves a separate entry, but it also seems to be more a synonym for measuring reticle, than any reticle, in its most commonly encountered context. I think the article is fine as is, and fully meets the word and spirit of WP:ENGVAR.Damwiki1 (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thats all fine but you need to (>>>>insert reference here<<<<). We can't go by the time and context we see the word used in because that is WP:OR (and the current section with citation is WP:OR... its your observation, not someone elses). You actually need to cite current references that say exactly what you just said. I don't see that. All I see is that Graticule is a sometimes used British variant of Reticle and probably obsolete. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The reference I gave states the term came into "common use during the Great War" and it's primary definition of graticule is that it is a form of measuring reticle: GRATICULE, a term which came into common use during the Great War, may be defined a being the measuring marks or scales, usually on a glass plate or disc, placed in a focal plane of an optical instrument for determining the size, distance, direction, position, or number of the objects viewed coincidently with the scale itself. One of my main interests is in researching and refining articles regarding WW1 and WW2 British gunfire control systems, where the exact meaning of the term in its then current form is critical. Is there really a need for us to continue this lengthy discussion over a one sentence entry that is also well referenced? Again WP:ENGVAR states: Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

One source is not "well referenced" - and a reference 5 years after an event is not very reliable for 88 years of usage that came after the source (hence why historical context is part of WP:PSTS). I probably won't go much farther as far as talk discussion but will at some point cleanup this and the other noted problems re: WP:LEAD. All the section is saying right now is "graticle" is British English. As such it does not belong in a list of sub-sections of things, its not a different thing by the statement written, and has an obvious position in the article per WP:MOSBEGIN. That is not to say there is not a third place it could be --> a "History" section that seems to be missing from this article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)