Trijicon®, Inc. Goes Long-Range with TARS™ High-Performance RifleScope

[cummins cowboy]

WHY WHY WHY are there all these new scopes with 34mm tubes?? is it because the optics makers wanna sell new rings too?? an extra 20 MOA that 34mm offers take me from 1800 yards to 2000 yards with my 243 ai. at the ranges you would be using that much adjustment 20 moa doesn't do much for you.

I also hope the adjustments feel alot better than trijicons current target turret scopes, because frankly a BSA feels better.

 

[Scot E]

I know of a few exceptions , but it seems there must be an issue with the size of the cross hairs at 20 to 25 X on FFP's. Maybe to get them fine enough they will be to small at the lowest setting. It has been said that one of the great features of FFP is that your reticles unit of measure will remain the same when turning down the power. I say at 15 X for long range it is already turned down. But then I don't call 600 yards all that long of distance for todays rifles and technology

I am not promoting this scope at all. In fact there are so many good scopes for 1/4 to 1/2 the price that it seems almost silly, and yes I am a FFP guy!
However, it is important to remember that with an FFP scope the size ratio between reticle and target stays the same throughout the power range. So if the reticle thickness is acceptable at 10x then it will be thin enough at 15, 20 or 25X as well. There is no such thing as it getting too thick at the higher powers, the ratio does not change. Not saying you don't understand this concept but I am just posting this in case there are guys trying to work their way through the FFP vs SFP concept. There is a lot of bad info out there on this and many guys have a hard time understanding the differences.

The only thing that can be said is that at the lowest power settings the center of the reticle may be too thin to see well in low light conditions. Again, this isn't because the reticle changed size in relation to the target but instead it is because the reticle size shrunk along with the target and may possibly be too thin to see well enough. Having said that, most FFP reticles at low power are very similar in size to their SFP counterparts. In fact some NF SFP reticles are thinner than popular FFP models. Also on low power FFP scopes always have an "outside" portion of the reticle that is much thicker then the "inside" measuring or aiming portion of the reticle and makes it very easy to bracket a target for close range shooting where low powers would be used. If your scope has illumination then the whole low power issue is completely a non-issue as well.

I attached some pictures of the SS 5-20x50 FFP scope. These were taken by Jon A and show the correlation of the reticle to target at various powers and distances. If you look at the last picture, 300 yard target on 20x, you can see that the center crosshair takes up a very small area on the target, maybe the size of a quarter. No issues at all with the reticle being too thick.

I don't shoot nearly as far as you do Broz so no doubt our requirements are going to be different but it isn't at all hard to see well enough to shoot big game with 9x at 600-1000 yards. I have done it a number of times. Having 15-20x seems more than adequate for almost any distance, at least for me. Maybe we are talking about what is necessary vs what is preferred? I personally would still fall on the 15x, maybe 20x at most, than anything higher. I just don't need the extra weight, size that a high power scope brings when much of its benefit is lost in a dimmer view with mirage issues.

Scot E.

 

[Broz]

Yeeeah!!!! Thats what I said. It might be because the reticle gets to small on lower power settings. You have done a great job of explaining that the ffp reticle does stay the same size in relation to the target. So we do understand that as the power is increased both the visual size of the target and the reticle grow together. But it is bennificial in some cases especially at longer distances, and some of us do like the option of having the target grow in size and the reticle stay the same. This to ME is a plus as I like aiming at bigger targets with respectfully smaller reticles. And I like power settings above 15 X to do this.

Jeff

 

[Scot E]

Yeeeah!!!! Thats what I said. It might be because the reticle gets to small on lower power settings. You have done a great job of explaining that the ffp reticle does stay the same size in relation to the target. So we do understand that as the power is increased both the visual size of the target and the reticle grow together. But it is bennificial in some cases especially at longer distances, and some of us do like the option of having the target grow in size and the reticle stay the same. This to ME is a plus as I like aiming at bigger targets with respectfully smaller reticles. And I like power settings above 15 X to do this.

Jeff

Yup, agree completely. That is one of the reasons why I still use SFP for my varmint guns, I like the larger target size.

I hope you don't feel like I am picking on you regarding this topic. I realize that we have chatted about this on a number of threads. I guess I just look at it from a newbie's standpoint and am trying to give good, solid info on any prevalent thread so any newbie looking or trying to wrap their head around this is getting the real facts. It just happens that you and I tend to post on similar threads and have opposite views on the value of FFP. Just don't want you to think I am hounding you on this. I have a very high respect for the shooting you do and the great benefit you bring to this forum. Just so you know where I am coming from.

Scot E.

 

[Broz]

No problem. It is of no issue to me if you repeatidly quote me and pic apart my posts. As long as you do it in the text as I ment it. This can bring forth good discussion between people with open minds. But this time you seemed to be repeating me like I said something incorrect when you basically just echoed me and then went on. I too try very hard to post accurate observations of what I see in actual field conditions. So I feel it is also important to represent the SFP scopes and their benefits as I see them since I have tried both ffp and sfp. After all the SFP's are pretty commonly used among a good portion of the long range hunting / shooting members.

Jeff

 

[Broz]

Yup, agree completely. That is one of the reasons why I still use SFP for my varmint guns, I like the larger target size.
Scot E.

This statement supports what I have been saying about FFP vs SFP all along. So are you not in a sense saying the SFP is a more accurate way to take point of aim? Then why would a person not want to take this advantage on all sized game. To me my shot placement on a bull elk is more important than a bull gopher.

That is all I was ever saying, I take advantage of what I feel will put the bullet where I want it at any distance or on any sized animal.

Jeff

 

[SidecarFlip]

Trijicon is in my backyard so to speak north and east of me a bit and they are a DOD supplier so the parameters that we are discussing in the WTH scope prices thread all apply.

My take is it's overpriced and I'm not a fan of their optics line in the first place and that includes their handgun red dots. My personal opinion is the entire civillan line is overpriced......

But then I don't comprehend why anyone would pay 1500 bucks for the Leupold HAMM-R or whatever it's called. I scratch my almsot hairless head in bewilderment. It's seems that a manufacturer attaches a quirky name and jacks up the price of admission.

My little 60 buck Tru-Glo 40mm red dot does the same thing on my target pistol. You can buy the most expensive equipment to impress your friends and your libido. If you can't hit anything down range in the first place and you don't practice, practice, practice (so you can). you might as well spend the money at a casino or spluge at a titty bar, that would get you more enjoyment.......... That applies to long range as well.

Some of this stuff is getting insane. Someone will buy it, it's a 'status symbol'. Again, the purchaser probably can't hit squat downrange anyway.... But they 'look' good....

Reminds me of the 80 grand Telsa Electric Roadster. It looks good but if the battery becomes completely discharged, the car becomes a 'brick' and impossible to recharge, so you buy a new battery for 40 grand and smile.....

American engineering at it's best.....

For 4 grand, I'd be getting an S&B or a Swaro, not that I'm spending that much, because I'm not.

Finally, I don't care at all for the turrets on the Trige. The graduations are way too fine, especially on the parallelax. The thing looks like a micrometer That needs to be re-engineered.

 

[Scot E]

No problem. It is of no issue to me if you repeatidly quote me and pic apart my posts. As long as you do it in the text as I ment it. This can bring forth good discussion between people with open minds. But this time you seemed to be repeating me like I said something incorrect when you basically just echoed me and then went on. I too try very hard to post accurate observations of what I see in actual field conditions. So I feel it is also important to represent the SFP scopes and their benefits as I see them since I have tried both ffp and sfp. After all the SFP's are pretty commonly used among a good portion of the long range hunting / shooting members.

Jeff

I guess I misunderstood this sentence.

"I know of a few exceptions , but it seems there must be an issue with the size of the cross hairs at 20 to 25 X on FFP's. "

This too me infers that there is an issue at high powers vs lower powers which simply is impossible. I realize you also stated that FFP benefit is that the ratio stays the same but the above statement seemed to contradict so I wanted to clarify.

I don't mean to pick apart your posts and am sorry you feel that way. You have a tendency to post very well thought out info and it is just easier to start a debate based off of good knowledge compared to some posts here that are so far off base that I don't even know where to start! So consider it a complement that I pick apart your posts okay!

Scot E.

 

[Scot E]

This statement supports what I have been saying about FFP vs SFP all along. So are you not in a sense saying the SFP is a more accurate way to take point of aim? Then why would a person not want to take this advantage on all sized game. To me my shot placement on a bull elk is more important than a bull gopher.

That is all I was ever saying, I take advantage of what I feel will put the bullet where I want it at any distance or on any sized animal.

Jeff

My reasoning is probably very similar to your reasoning for not using the very highest powers on some of your scopes even though it gives you the biggest target picture. You still drop down a bit to eliminate mirage or gain a brighter picture,etc.

Same for me. I like the benefit of using the reticle and there is too much chance for error to use it with an SFP scope IMO. So I compromise to the extent that gets me most of what I want while giving up the least amount. For me that is a good FFP with a graduated reticle that I can use for close range shots which also has a center cross that can still be used for the real LR stuff when I would dial in and hold dead on.

To argue that using FFP on big game vs varmints as the same is curious to me. Look at the reticle pictures I posted. The FFP reticle doesn't cover an inch on the target, so maybe that is 5-10% of the vitals of a big game animal. That same reticle could cover 50% or more of the vitals on a ground squirrel. To me centering the reticle on those two examples are very different things.

Scot E.

 

[Broz]

Well it would be my assumption that we both, as most, shoot center mass at long range varmints. But we both, as most, would shoot center vitals on game. So my point is, if you feel SFP is more precise for one, why not use it on both. You answer, if I read it correctly is that the big game target is bigger and the same precision of aiming is not needed. I feel it is, especially at the long distant shots where that "unimportant" inch or two can make a world of difference when needed.

I just know this, I put my crosshairs on a huge number of elk every year. Some are observed at 1200 yards and way beyond. I will sight on them for practice, getting calm and use to the process, and being ready if I decide to take the shot. Bottom line for me is, the bigger the target and the finer the crosshairs, the better I feel. If there is a burr in their hair the size of a golfball near the sweet spot I will use it for point of aim or reference to point of aim. I do aim that small on game. Just like shooting a gopher sized target taped to their side.

Over and out.

Jeff

 

[sp6x6]

All I can say is 47 oz? typo? My spotting scope doesnt weigh that

 

[Iron Worker]

I repeat what can this Trijicon tactical scope do that my Weaver Tactical can't ? Mine $750 as opposed to $ 4,000 bucks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bigngreen]

I repeat what can this Trijicon tactical scope do that my Weaver Tactical can't ? Mine $750 as opposed to $ 4,000 bucks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get a military contract

 

[Scot E]

Well it would be my assumption that we both, as most, shoot center mass at long range varmints. But we both, as most, would shoot center vitals on game. So my point is, if you feel SFP is more precise for one, why not use it on both. You answer, if I read it correctly is that the big game target is bigger and the same precision of aiming is not needed. I feel it is, especially at the long distant shots where that "unimportant" inch or two can make a world of difference when needed.

I just know this, I put my crosshairs on a huge number of elk every year. Some are observed at 1200 yards and way beyond. I will sight on them for practice, getting calm and use to the process, and being ready if I decide to take the shot. Bottom line for me is, the bigger the target and the finer the crosshairs, the better I feel. If there is a burr in their hair the size of a golfball near the sweet spot I will use it for point of aim or reference to point of aim. I do aim that small on game. Just like shooting a gopher sized target taped to their side.

Over and out.

Jeff

I understand the aim small miss small principal and use it as well. But to say you can't use that principal with an FFP scope is misguided IMO. Again, look at the pics I posted. Do you really think the reticle is taking up too much area to make an extremely accurate shot on an elk, deer or even an antelope? The reticle is not even covering a golf ball so you could still aim just like you want to could you not?

If you don't mind me asking, what scope and reticle do you use? If I can get my camera to take good pics I am going to try to compare a SFP and FFP reticle at the same power and distance and target to try and show how similar they really are now. Just hoping I can maybe get pics of the reticle you use.

I will sign off here too, sorry I got this so off topic, and start another thread once I get good pics.

Scot E.