Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Question regarding reticles

Sorry if this has already been covered somewhere else on the board, but I have not been able to find an answer for this anywhere.
I am looking at buying a decent/good rifle scope for a Remington 700. While I understand how a wire reticle works/is adjusted, I do not understand how an etched glass reticle works/is adjusted. Maybe I am just not getting it, but if the reticle is etched into the glass of a lens, how can it be adjusted (I know its possible just not HOW it is possible). Does it have something to do with mirrors or is it something else entirely?
I have used etched glass scopes before (ACOGs, a Leupold CCO, and a ELCAN M145) but since I didn't have to buy them, I was not that concerned with how they worked, just that they DID work.

They use a separate lens that is part of the erector assembly. Where ever it moves, the reticle moves with it. This applies to 2nd focal plane scopes. If you were to unscrew the eye piece assembly of your scope, you would see the wire reticle that is attached to the erector assembly. In a first focal plane scope the reticle assembly is located under (or very close to) the turret assembly where the adjustments move the point of impact.

Roy

So, if I am understanding you correctly, in an etched reticle there is etched glass with a wire reticle attached to it? If thats the case then what benefit does the etched glass give you other than allow the reticle to be backlit?

The reticle is "etched" onto the glass lense usually with some type of laser. The benefit by doing this is it allows the manufacturer to design more complex range finding type reticles than you could by using wire. Some folks feel that a etched reticle is sharper and less prone to reflections from inside the scope that can occur with wire type reticles. Etched reticles are much more common in European scopes and are more expensive to manufacture. Some folks like to argue that a glass etched reticle is stronger than a wire reticle, although, I'm not sure that they are.

Roy

Thanks for the information.

I own both and have used both for years.
My understanding is that the etched reticles are slightly more expensive to make over a quality wire variety. Etched reticles can be made more precisely for reticles like the Mil-Dot and the TMR, etc.
They are no stronger. What's more, when they break, they shatter and your scope has no reticle at all. Wire reticles, on the other hand, tend to break just one leg, probably because they can flex and spring back, rather than shatter. With just one leg broken the rest of the reticle is still intact and usually you can still use the scope. I've got a buddy who used a cheap Swift scope, complete with one leg of it's reticle broken, for over ten years. Never shifted zero, etc.
The only thing I've noticed about wire reticles is they might develop a little edge color fringe. Does nothing to degrade the image, the reticle sharpness or the scope's usefulness.
If the scope is properly focused, both are equally sharp.
I understand Leupold's reticles are now of the electroform process. The tech I talked to say they are stronger than either of the older designs, and able to produce any sort of reticle anyone would want. E

I'm sorry if I misunderstood in the last thread, that a tech actually said that. I took your "I understand that...." to mean you were extrapolating from the conversation. Sorry for the confusion.

If you talk with the people who use wire reticles in their scopes, they will only tell you their benefits. Same goes for the folks offering glass etched reticles. I think more has to do with the placement of the reticle rather than the type used. First focal plane scopes have a much lower rate of failure. Like I said, some folks just like to argue.

Roy

And they typically stay blacker.

The etched reticle I had shatter was a FFP one in a B&L Balvar 8. The wire one I had break was in an old 4X Leupold that had had much more abuse. Still useable after breaking. Not so the etched B&L. Granted not enough of a sample to make certain, but it fits with Barsness's comments and the Leupold people's comments.
Very few scopes in use in the US have FF reticles. Just from whom, or where, did you get that information ?
Leupold's experiences with both convinced them to go with the wire varieties for everything except for those requiring precise spacing, like the Mil-Dots. Apparently they are the most cost effective design based on their requirements for their lifetime warranty. E

Not surprised that Barsness stated this in his book. Where do you think he got alot of his information from? Leupold? Like you said, not enough information either way to form an opinion. When a reticle is located in the first focal plane, it is less prone to breakage from abuse. Just a simple fact. Doesn't mean that a etched reticle is stronger. I have spoken with several scope manufactures over the years and I still could not say with any certainty which design is "the strongest".

Roy

So you�re basing your generalization about the durability of etched reticles in modern scopes on an experience you had with this?



Do you really think it�s relevant?

You are killing me...........

Roy

That's a given.

Roy

E, what type of reticle does Leupy's premium scope, the VX-7 have?

And how about their toughest scopes, the "real" Mark IVs (10X, 16X)?