German #4 Crosshair vs. Triangle Reticle


PDA






16n69
April 28, 2012, 07:03 PM
I am looking at the TR24-3G: AccuPoint 1-4x24 30mm Riflescope, German #4 Crosshair with Green Dot vs. the TR24: AccuPoint 1-4x24 30mm Riflescope with BAC, Amber Triangle Reticle, for my Dangerous Game rifle.

They are the same 1-4x24 scopes with non-battery powered illumination, just the "Triangle Reticle" vs. the "German #4 Crosshair with Green Dot"

Does anyone know the practical difference between sighting with these 2 different sight graphics?
Why is one offered over the other?

http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TR24-3G

http://www.trijicon.com/na_en/products/product3.php?pid=TR24G

If you enjoyed reading about "German #4 Crosshair vs. Triangle Reticle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
allaroundhunter
April 28, 2012, 07:06 PM
Why is one offered over the other?

Different strokes for different folks.

Some people like the more traditional crosshair style, and some like the Accupoint Triangle.

I prefer the crosshair-dot reticle as opposed to the triangle, I just feel more precise with a crosshair.

browningguy
April 28, 2012, 07:54 PM
I like crosshairs for precision, but for a dangerous game rifle I would go with the #4. It leaves the field of view a little more open, just look for the dot and pull the trigger.

16n69
April 28, 2012, 08:42 PM
I like crosshairs for precision, but for a dangerous game rifle I would go with the #4. It leaves the field of view a little more open, just look for the dot and pull the trigger.
did you mean "but for a dangerous game rifle I would go with the Accupoint Triangle Reticle
instead of the #4 (which is the crosshairs )?

Gordon
April 28, 2012, 10:49 PM
I did go the orange triangle and glad I did.

TonyAngel
April 28, 2012, 11:17 PM
You aren't going to be doing much precision shooting with a 4X anyway, so I wouldn't let that sway you one way or the other. The cross hair is a bit better for shooting at small stuff, like golf balls at 100 yards and stuff like that. On larger targets, the triangle is faster.

If I remember right, the illuminated portion of the reticle is larger with the triangle. The only gripe (if it applies to you) is that some say that the triangle makes holding over a bit more difficult.

Flintknapper
April 29, 2012, 02:37 AM
German #4 for me, just seems more intuitive to bracket your target than to look for one particular "spot" on a post. More points of reference with a cross-hair.

Doesn't matter when you have plenty of time to take aim (choose either one), but for quick alignment I like the German #4.

All of my scopes with the G-4 also have illuminated dots in the center, so you get the best of both worlds (easy bracketing AND a precision focal point).

Some will argue that the cross-hairs clutter the target and field of view, might be a "valid" point in some circumstances.

dubya450
April 29, 2012, 03:46 AM
I have that exact scope with the #4 recticle and like it. All I could find in the stores was the triangle one and really didn't like it so i ordered mine from optics planet. Just felt like it'd be hard to get used to for different range shots for hunting situations. That said, I think for a bear guide or someone similar the 1-4 with the triangle recticle would be great for taking an emergency shot where someone needs fast target acquisition.

wally
April 29, 2012, 05:35 PM
I think the triangle works better with both eyes open using the BAC technique, at 1X it pretty much works like a red dot that doesn't need batteries.

16n69
April 30, 2012, 09:21 PM
German #4 for me, just seems more intuitive to bracket your target than to look for one particular "spot" on a post. More points of reference with a cross-hair.

Doesn't matter when you have plenty of time to take aim (choose either one), but for quick alignment I like the German #4.

All of my scopes with the G-4 also have illuminated dots in the center, so you get the best of both worlds (easy bracketing AND a precision focal point).

Some will argue that the cross-hairs clutter the target and field of view, might be a "valid" point in some circumstances.
hmmm, crosshairs certainly more traditional and all I have ever had, and at low power, probably does not matter much with either, but I agree with the more points of reference.

Flintknapper
April 30, 2012, 09:57 PM
^^^^^^^^^^

In an open area...either is fine, but in a hunting situation...where you might have low light conditions... and worse...lots of background clutter (limbs, brush, trees, etc), a single post and dot can get lost quickly if not a starkly contrasting color.

Look through both and decide for yourself, the triangle might be just fine.

I happen to prefer cross-hairs.

DesertFox
April 30, 2012, 11:51 PM
The green dot on the #4 I looked through was WAY smaller than shown in the illustration. It was the tiny dot at the intersection of the crosshairs, not a 3 MOA green dot. Maybe .5 MOA - so small I could barely see it. I'd go with triangle for that reason alone.

twofourthree73
May 1, 2012, 12:58 AM
I owned a German cross hair accupoint and I now own one with a red triangle.

The cross hair dot is very small. It's hard to use the dot in a fast both eyes open situation at 1x. The triangle acts more like a red dot sight. I also own an aimpoint t1 for comparison.

If you want a 1-4x for the ability to use it like a red dot and then go for some magnification, the triangle works better because it's larger. It also has the ability to be precise with the tip. It stays nice and sharp. There is actually less clutter in the triangle reticule as the thick cross hairs get in the way much more for me than the thin lines under the triangle. It may be a little harder to shoot longer range targets with the triangle, but if you know your ballistics you can use the parts of the triangle as a crude BAC. For a 1-4x, i like it better. I like the triangle since it's like a red dot at 1x and more like an acog without the BAC markings at 4x. It's a little of a compromise but for a no battery optic from 0-300 yards it's perfect. You also have the ability to go farther if you need. The thick cross hairs on the german reticule will completely obscure the target at extreme ranges.

If you want a more traditional type of scope, go with the cross hair. The illustration of the german reticule above is misleading as the thick part of the cross hairs extend well into the middle of the scope.

TonyAngel
May 1, 2012, 06:25 PM
Desertfox makes a good point that I forgot to mention. The illuminated portion of the cross hair reticle is very small. I assume that this is to help with precise aiming. Still, the illumination isn't as pronounced as it is in Trijicon's other products.

As I said, if you need something fast, but perhaps not as precise, go for the triangle. If you decide that the cross hairs are what you want, I'd look at something other than a Trijicon. Better scopes can be had for the same or even less money.

Trijicon gets the prices that they do because their optics have the unique system of illumination and they are built tough. They quality of the glass is just ok. If you take the system of illumination out of the equation, you can get a scope that is just as tough with better glass.

marinetowgunner
May 2, 2012, 12:02 AM
Front focal #4 would be doing it right in my opinion in a 1-4, but hey nothing's perfect.

16n69
May 2, 2012, 11:58 AM
Thanks for all the input and from those who own one(or both)...think I will go with the triangle, since it is bigger than the mis-represented green dot on crosshairs that may be too thick...for DG I want an uncluttered as possible view and fast acquisition!

marinetowgunner
May 3, 2012, 12:32 AM
.....ignore this post.....why can't you delete posts?

If you enjoyed reading about "German #4 Crosshair vs. Triangle Reticle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!