MOA is a unit of measure. It doesnt change based on the thickness of crosshairs. If youre asking if thick crosshairs produce larger groups, i I could say maybe. Usually shooting groups, ones crosshairs are centered a bit away from point of impact, if not your first shot obliterates your exact point of aim and the subsequent shots cannot be aimed exactly at the same spot. If I am shooting with heavy crosshairs, I usually use the edges of the crosshairs to align the poa on the target so as to have a more precise and repeatable aiming point.

 

Never thought of it from that perspective, but it makes sense explained like that. I've been shooting exactly for the bullseye first shot then aligning the vertical and horizontal cross hairs on the rest of the target to line back up. Thanks

 

Toomany, that is some good thinking! I suffer with cross hairs right on center and if I get a flyer, I shift my aim point between the flyer and the group. Unless it is a test target. Or too windy and then I am useless. But for bragging, I want the small group and centered. Like you said there is no number to correlate thickness to precision. Or in my case, I usually want accuracy, unless testing. If the group is not centered it little satisfaction to me. How many OCD hours I spent chasing the POI a click at a time to get dead center. That is another story.

I want a fine duplex or fine cross hair and clear good optics. There is no such thing as a percentage spec here. Toomany has a good solution that will work with anything. Slick.

 

MOA is a unit of measure. It doesnt change based on the thickness of crosshairs. If youre asking if thick crosshairs produce larger groups, i I could say maybe. Usually shooting groups, ones crosshairs are centered a bit away from point of impact, if not your first shot obliterates your exact point of aim and the subsequent shots cannot be aimed exactly at the same spot. If I am shooting with heavy crosshairs, I usually use the edges of the crosshairs to align the poa on the target so as to have a more precise and repeatable aiming point.

Y

MOA is a unit of measure. It doesnt change based on the thickness of crosshairs. If youre asking if thick crosshairs produce larger groups, i I could say maybe. Usually shooting groups, ones crosshairs are centered a bit away from point of impact, if not your first shot obliterates your exact point of aim and the subsequent shots cannot be aimed exactly at the same spot. If I am shooting with heavy crosshairs, I usually use the edges of the crosshairs to align the poa on the target so as to have a more precise and repeatable aiming point.

Yes, thanks. I know what MOA is. Maybe i worded the question poorly. But we do often say a rifle shoots MOA or 1/2 MOA..

All that said...are you saying there is no advantage to reticle choice?

 

The advantage depends on what game you are playing. I have sightron 36x42 with ultra fine reticle and a strike eagle 25x50ffp with a massive chonkey Christmas tree reticle. On the same rifle as long as my poa remains unchanged they shoot exactly the same size groups. However, when shooting nrl the larger reticle and extra information let me make windage adjustments and find the target faster. For bench rest work where you may need to adjust your POA less than a click of the scope the ultra fine reticle let's me see more of the 10 ring and really let's me decide which side of the ring I want to aim at as wind and such shifts. With the thick reticle it covers the whole ten ring I can't really shade heavy left with it, because it just covers the target. On the other hand finding the ultra fine reticle against a dynamic backdrop is frustrating sometimes.

 

I agree. And great reply thank you. I too have that sightron on my MTR and for ARA it is perfect. I also have an Athlon FFP Argos with huge crosshairs. When that was on my MTR I would tuck the crosshairs up against a square pastie when shooting groups and it shot just as well..

Would you agree that with ARA shooting the fine crosshairs as you decribe might be worth 1/8th of MOA at 50 yards? Maybe a bit less?

 

“Aim small , miss small”. The obverse is “aim large, miss large”.

apply this to the question of thick versus thin when shooting groups or the various br targets.
thick anything will cause a disability.

 

It has always been my choice to use heavier reticle’s for hunting and thinner ones for target shooting Stephan. The thinner ones can be hard to see in the woods in low light conditions. But are the better choice for accuracy when shooting for groups or small targets.

 

A long time ago, I used a Redfield 6-24 scope for varmint benchrest competition that I had TK Lee replace the very heavy set of cross-hairs with a fine set of cross-hairs and a 1/8 min dot. My scores immediately improved by 20%. However, I used this same rifle for prairie dog hunts, but had to change to a different scope because I couldn't see the dot.

 

I had to switch to 3030 duel. I'm only seeing the thick part of the crosshair. The thin centers are barely visible to me. I shoot 2" dots on a white background now. I can see them at 50yds on 7-9 power. My groups are not quite as good as they were be fore eye damage from diabetes, but still good enough for small game, at 30 or 40 yards hopefully.

 

A good many reticle designs employ thick reticle lines at the periphery while thinner lines traverse centrally. These types of reticles are traditionally thought to be of particular value in lower light conditions or busy areas where you need to see the reticle better against the background. "Mature" shooters' eyes might similarly prefer or gain advantage from them. As noted above the junction of thick to thin can be employed as a form of stadia/reference as well. You might benefit from recording data at different target distances so that you can effect rapid calculations at known or approximate target distances.

Thin crosshairs are generally preferred in cases where you require extreme accuracy as they obscure less of the target and accommodate magnification well assuming adequate light and contrast. One often finds and benefits from illumination with such reticles, further improving visibility.

In long distance shooting and larger caliber sports, one will often find floating dots useful. With these reticles and at longer range targets this lessens the amount of target obscured.... and the clear halo around the dot helps with rapid centralized pickup.

The reticles i generally prefer have both vertical as well as horizontal stadia that aid in calculating and dialing corrections. This combination constitutes my preference as i still enjoy longer range rifle shooting at large metal targets as opposed to finer bullseye type sports.

just some thoughts

 

For serious target shooting I prefer thin crosshairs and a 1/8 MOA dot like my Weaver XR T-36. For all other purposes a "duplex" reticle that has thicker crosshairs that thin out near the center works just fine. The thicker crosshairs help center my eye at the point the thin crosshairs cross. As I continue to age, it is getting harder to see thin crosshairs. The 1/8 MOA target dot is a big help.

 

That's the word that I was looking for, duplex. Tasco has them and I took a chance on buying a 3x9 rimfire and a 4x12 rifle while they were on clearance. I'm happy so far.

 

I have a luminous crosshair on my 357max, but haven't tried it yet. I was always happy with groups under 2" at a hundred yds and took shots under 200 yards, freezer quality deer were good enough for me. I'd Rather fill 4 tags than wait for a big rack.

 

The width of the crosshairs do make a difference. They can be used for a reference not unlike the width of ones front sight. On your AR for example, it is 4” at one hundred, and the width of a man at 600 yards. Those references can be used for elevation and windage. I prefer 1/8 moa fine crosshairs for target work and duplex for hunting.

 

A reticle , dot, crosshair, size to gain improved accuracy needs to be matched with the correct size target at specific distance.
I see lots of Dot reticle on bench guns, but a 1/8" dot on a 50 target with a 22cal 10 ring leaves a 1/16" error of judgment centering it perfectly.
With target peep sites. Typically you change the front insert. That allows a white border of target paper around the actual typical black scoring rings..
If you choose a larger target, you insert a larger front insert.
A heavy crosshair, hunting type duplex may leave a very small area of bullseye in each of the 4 corners, that allows you to aim very precise and repeatable.
All depends
Target
Magnification
Reticle

 

They all work best with 2020 and clear vision. Old Eyes or damage, leave thin target crosshairs out. My new tascos aint clearer, or better than the Leopolds that I replaced them with, but I can see duplex and can't see thin. My groups shrank by half with duplex, I've gotten them smaller still shooting 2" black dot on a white background. That me though. Frankly speaking, I wouldn't be classed with top target shooters in my prime, and Myself, with field equipment and ammo, never saw improvement with target hairs over duplex and found them slower to use hunting.