Open letter to BDC designers

[1168]

BLUF: stop making M193 20” barrel BDCs. Just stop. Save your time and money.

55gr at ~1000 M/s shoots flat. Crazy flat. All the way to distances that it should never be used for. Its a laserbeam, but with wind drift. In fact, it sucks in wind past 300M. And in every other way, past that. I can’t think of many more ways to say that there is no need for a BDC for a fast-and-cheap short range load with piss poor BC. Even if everything else I say is dismissed as a crazy rant, know that 193/20” BDCs are dumb for duty optics. Every single one of them.

Honestly, its such a stupid application that I would instantly be turned off from a brand for even offering it on a “duty focused” optic, if it weren’t for the fact that nearly every manufacturer does it. Tells me that the dude who designed it neither shoots, nor studies ballistics. Certainly, he or she does not pay attention to who’s loading what, or why.

.Mil doesn’t care about 193. Cops that are issued 55gr ammo and near-roached M16 uppers aren’t shooting anyone at 500+meters. 3 Gunners have the Vortex JM-1 reticle, which you can’t do better than for this niche, and is sub-optimal outside its niche. Basically its the only BDC that makes sense for light/fast on a medium-range UKD 10” target with short ID/engagement times, and thats the ONLY place such a BDC makes sense.

Soooo, when does a BDC even make sense? Easy. Medium engagement distances with a velocity and BC where drop is more of a concern than wind. Simple, right? Ok, lets define that. Call it 300m-600m. 800 is stretching it, IMO, and I only rarely use LPVOs for this. 400m-600m is what I mostly like them for, but I do like to have the extra 700 and 800 hashmarks for screwing around, as an optional “luxury”. You’ll use a slightly heavier, higher BC bullet at more modest velocity to design an optimal reticle. Like, a 68-70 grain (full power)223 or 5.56 16” would split the difference between M855a1 14.5” and Mk262 18”. I tend to shoot from 62-70 gr, myself, as do many professional users. Upside down Cristmas trees on autoranging reticles such as Steiner LPVOs/prisms and Triji ACOGs have are the best kind of BDC, IMO. The whole point of a BDC is to get quick hits without clicking dope, right? So, right-side-up Christmas trees make less sense. Because if I’m measuring my wind, and I have an alternate method of ranging, I should just be clicking dope.

Steiner accidentally does a really good job with this. I say accidentally, because they offer both M193/M16 and slow/heavy .308 options on their more expensive optics. Strangely enough, they split the difference on their entry level P4Xi, and arrived at subtension values on an auto-ranging reticle that very well match everything from 12.5”-16” with 62-70gr bullets. It’ll even work well with light 62gr -69gr 3-Gun loads from an 18” or 20”. It looks like they did this to cut down on SKUs, but it actually works really well. Be more like Steiner. Keep your 308 reticles. They might even work OK for AK dudes. I know they work pretty well for Grendels. They do OK, but not great, on Mk18s. I’m sure they’re great for LE snipers trying to make that difficult 87yd shot with a .308 F-class gun. But ditch the M193 reticles in favor of something more middle ground, like the P4Xi has.

TLDR? Just do M855/14.5” autoranging instead of M193/20”, and I’ll make it fit the other guns. No one has a M16 loaded with M193 and topped with a 1-6x. No one. Thats been obsolete since the year after I was born. Until then, I’ll continue to prefer the 3 or so brands that roughly do that. As will the DoD, who rather obviously agree with me.

Sidenote, fiber optic illuminated center dots are sweet. I assume there is a reason so many choose the other methods, but I prefer fiber dots for several reasons.

[sinister]

M193/20-inch M16A1 was the standard when the ACOG was introduced. It got Trijicon their intro to the US military and helped win them their initial M4-NSN SOPMOD contracts. The rest is history.

M16A2 and A4 with Green Tip got them their Marine Corps contract and Army RFI sales.

M4A1 with M855 got them their Big Army contract and supports Euro military contracts (HK416 countries/armies).

Mark 18 and IPSC/USPSA? Rounding error numbers. Does the potential market justify a whole new product line? TA01B meets your barrel and bullet weight variances, and Steiner, Vortex, and others are following their generic arcs.

How many are you proposing buying from them, OP? Maybe a half-dozen over your lifetime?

[1168]

I believe that you and I agree on each of your points, but we may have arrived at different conclusions. Allow me to explain:

M193/20-inch M16A1 was the standard when the ACOG was introduced. It got Trijicon their intro to the US military and helped win them their initial M4-NSN SOPMOD contracts. The rest is history.

M16A2 and A4 with Green Tip got them their Marine Corps contract and Army RFI sales.

M4A1 with M855 got them their Big Army contract and supports Euro military contracts (HK416 countries/armies).

In this contract timeline, the reticles have kept up with the ammo in use at the time. They have evolved in the direction that I advocate, and today have arrived at exactly what I described in my OP. Matching M855a1 and 14.5” barrels; close enough for 12.5”-16” with most “medium” weight .224 bullets.

Mark 18 and IPSC/USPSA? Rounding error numbers.

Please don’t allow my points about these niches to distract you from my main point, which is about a more middle ground, common in duty weapons. I only included those topics for relate-ability with a larger range of people. Competitors helped prove that LPVOs are useful; what I’m talking about is the duty adaptation of this technology during the past couple decades. Which is focused on 10.3”-16” barrels. Rarely are 55gr bullets relevant.

Does the potential market justify a whole new product line? TA01B meets your barrel and bullet weight variances, and Steiner, Vortex, and others are following their generic arcs.

Lets flip that. Does the potential market of M193/20” shooters justify a whole product line? Certainly not more so than 62gr/14.5”-16” combos. If the former is true, so is the latter. But not necessarily vice-versa.

We can debate on why the m193/m16 reticles sell well, but I suspect its because most buyers don’t know better, not because that's actually what they shoot. Says .223 on the scope box; so does the ammo, so it should work, right?Kinda like the existence of 7mo NREMTP accelerated courses.

How many are you proposing buying from them, OP? Maybe a half-dozen over your lifetime?

I don’t matter as a purchaser, hence my point about the DoD agreeing with me. I can name 3 recent contract magnified optics that have the type of BDC reticles I’m advocating for, and zero that use a M193 BDC in current use. You have access to info that I don’t, so maybe you know of some.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find that Sig only put those mil-dots in there to distinguish their reticle from Triji, Steiner, and Elcan. Notice that there’s no mention of the somewhat popular budget brands in there. They all do the M193/20” thing exclusively instead, but seem to be running a little low on contracted models for door-kickers.......

[jwfuhrman]

so it should work, right?Kinda like the existence of 7mo NREMTP accelerated courses.

I laughed WAY to hard at this...... considering the quality of EMT and EMT-P's that are coming out now a days.

[1168]

An example of what annoyed me into this post: “The ranging reticle is calibrated for 5.56 (.223 cal) flat-top rifles to 800 meters.”
Spec sheet says: .223/5.56. Details end.

The takeaway? This manufacturer knows so little about ballistics that they think 223 is 223 is 223 and a barrel is a barrel is a barrel out to 800 meters. Yeah, sure.

Obviously that isn’t true, given the manufacturer. And I could email them for clarification. But why the $&@% are they not more specific when interfacing with the COTS buyer? Given the fact that almost every designer of reticles that just non-specifically says “.223” really means “55@3k”, it would be easy to dismiss that optic as not suited for me.

[sinister]

I can't speak for Trijicon. When I worked government tenders and contracts the old saying worked, "Money talks and bullshit walks."

The entity (whether a government buyer or commercial distributor) that says, "I'm willing (or am going) to pay $10 miilion dollars for the product that does X, Y, and Z, and will put down the payment no more than 90 days to the manufacturer who gives me close to (or the exact specified) product I want when I sign the contract" will either get manufacturers to kick-start their design and manufacturing departments or ignore the proffered tender. Simple.

SIG has learned from the field that they'll make money giving the customer what he wants, instead of telling them what they should buy.

The customer is always right, since he's paying. His requirements may be stupid, or wrong, and confusing -- but it's still HIS money.

Products that don't sell usually get discontinued. I have no idea if the TA01-NSN ACOG still makes money for Trijicon, but I do see LOTS of manufacturers cloning others' products with common features (mil-dots, Christmas-tree reticles, BDC reticles, parallax adjustment knobs on the tube's left, counter-clockwise adjustable knobs, cantilever mounts, Docter-style open red-dots, etc.).

As for 55@3K -- those designers are probably long-retired, and the staff that works at Trijicon may not have even been born when the originals hit the street for the Contra wars.

[ggammell]

Closed letter from BDC designers...

Mil/MOA reticles exist.

[BobinNC]

Closed letter from BDC designers...

Mil/MOA reticles exist.

This ^^^

[1168]

I guess I’m all wet then. I’ll stick to optics using the type of reticle I described that have recent DoD contracts (Trij, Elcan, Sig). Maybe they buy them just for me, since apparently I’m the only one that wants that sort of BDC reticle. Hobby manufacturers can just keep making hobby reticles for hobby shooters, who probably enjoy them.

Well, that, and the P4Xi. It also has a nice reticle, though its not of the same grade as a Razor.


Edit: you both make points that I’d like to discuss in a more postive manner. I’ll update and edit later.

[1168]

Edit: try not to read this in a hangry basement dweller voice. Use Morgan Freeman’s instead. It was not my intent to sound so negative.

Closed letter from BDC designers...

Mil/MOA reticles exist.

The first half of of your reply makes a ton of sense. These manufacturers are telling me that I am not their target market. So, ****’em. I’m honestly not sure why I felt like any of them deserve my business, anyway. I’ll continue to use DoD contracted optics, on and off duty, and stop hoping that the commercial-focused market will cater to me. Perhaps I’m just spoiled.

To address the second half of your reply, yeah, sure that works. And for a long-range shooter that may suddenly need to engage 300m targets, thats probably the most sensible gear choice, with some practice. But, going the other direction, a short range setup that can stretch a little, or a GP carbine, an auto-ranging BDC makes sense. You can argue that point, but the profession of killing has spoken already. Magnified medium range optics that are issued to roided out twenty-somethings on 14.5” guns have a tendency to have EXACTLY the reticle I’m asking for.

I can't speak for Trijicon. When I worked government tenders and contracts the old saying worked, "Money talks and bullshit walks."

The entity (whether a government buyer or commercial distributor) that says, "I'm willing (or am going) to pay $10 miilion dollars for the product that does X, Y, and Z, and will put down the payment no more than 90 days to the manufacturer who gives me close to (or the exact specified) product I want when I sign the contract" will either get manufacturers to kick-start their design and manufacturing departments or ignore the proffered tender. Simple.

SIG has learned from the field that they'll make money giving the customer what he wants, instead of telling them what they should buy.

The customer is always right, since he's paying. His requirements may be stupid, or wrong, and confusing -- but it's still HIS money.

Products that don't sell usually get discontinued. I have no idea if the TA01-NSN ACOG still makes money for Trijicon, but I do see LOTS of manufacturers cloning others' products with common features (mil-dots, Christmas-tree reticles, BDC reticles, parallax adjustment knobs on the tube's left, counter-clockwise adjustable knobs, cantilever mounts, Docter-style open red-dots, etc.).

As for 55@3K -- those designers are probably long-retired, and the staff that works at Trijicon may not have even been born when the originals hit the street for the Contra wars.

You're absolutely right. Except that part about the 55@3k designers being retired. A brand new company that started up in the past few years has exactly that reticle, so they’re not ALL retired just yet. You’re definitely right about the customer always being right. As I’ve thought about this, I’ve realized that I was totally wrong. For all the bluster on the internet about “hard use” and “duty grade” most people don’t and never have carried a M4 for a living. And most people don’t shoot much. And when they do, no shit, many tend to shoot 55gr. None of this is meant to offend anyone in particular, because it certainly doesn’t apply to everyone, and there’s no shame in that, anyway.

Increasingly I realize that M4c is not the place to share lessons learned from actual intended use of the carbine. And I have to learn to read an audience better when I toss out what my homies and I believe to be those pearls.

Stay safe and have fun!