This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reticle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've been having a slight disagreement with someone. They say that 'reticle' used to be spelled/said as 'rectile'. I said no, and they disagreed. I then searched online dictionaries, which yielded no results for 'rectile'. Does anyone here know if this is true? He's saying it used to be spelled and said as this, but that it has obviously been changed. That this person is defending 'rectile' (and no, I am not having my leg pulled) with such vigor makes me think that it may at one point, in some locales (and rarely at that) have been referred to as a 'rectile' (though I won't believe it at all until it is 100% proven). Does anyone have any input? 220.245.91.43 ( talk) 07:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
A reticule is actually a woman's handbag and not a sight at all. This is a common mistake thanks to the auto-correct on MSWord. Wikipedia shouldn't cement this error by redirecting from reticule to reticle. 71.231.201.228 ( talk) 23:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Agreed, this confused me just now. See http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861701697 for the definition of reticule -- don't see why there isn't a page for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.24.49 ( talk) 18:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
bascially I agree a reticle is some lines. They can be etched into e.g. glass but you also can simulte them by a computer and overlay them on an image. However, I strongly disagree that a reticle is an astronomical instrument. As in my daily work I use reticles also in a measurement microscope, for measuring small items. 02:39, 4 August 2006 User:210.202.48.252
I'm moving this:
here because it's redundant--FPS games are simulations of firearms, so use of crosshairs is pretty obvious. I may stick it back in later, but I'm going to do some expanding right now so I'm going to store it here for a bit. scot 01:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The article looks largely good, though I think there may be a few small bits that could be improved.
Modern variable power optics normally do have the reticle in the second focal plane. The problem with early implementations of second focal plane reticles was not so much fragility as a zero point that shifted when the power was adjusted, due to slight variations in machining tolerances unavoidable with 1950s technology. The instructions for older variable power scopes normally said that the scope should be zeroed with its power adjusted to the highest setting, in order to minimize the errors this introduced. The instructions for some very cheap variable scopes still do say this.
The biggest problem with etched glass reticles, as far as I am aware, is not fragility (some such units are very massively constructed indeed) but rather the way they can accumulate dust and metal shavings that are worn away from the adjustment gears in use. The particles stick to the glass reticle surface and are perfectly in focus, where they become at the very least distracting, and in some instances can reduce visibility through the scope. As the scope itself is normally sealed to keep out moisture and prevent fogging, it's not possible to clean the reticle or fix this in the field. This problem was why Steyr switched from an etched glass fine-dot-in-a-circle reticle on the AUG's integral optic sight to a wire crosshair.
I have no source for that except for discussions on Usenet and various message boards, and I think those probably don't meet Wikipedia standards, but I offer this information as a starting point for anyone who wants to investigate and find verifiable sources for them.
I also think the chart of common reticles is good but could use two additions and some clarification.
Probably the second most popular telescopic sight reticle among hunters who used optical sights in the US before World War II was the post-and-crosshair. It was similar to the reticle the chart describes as the "German reticle," but it often had the coarse center post tapered from top to bottom, and it had a very fine horizontal crosswire going all the way across. Scopes with these reticles were quite commonplace, and the old Lyman M84 "Alaskan" was issued to US Army snipers for decades after World War II with a post-and-crosshair reticle. It's no longer very common today--in fact I don't know of any optics with such a reticle in production now, though my knowledge is hardly encyclopedic--but I think it is sufficiently noteworthy to merit mention in a historical context.
The reticle described as the "SVD reticle" looks to me like the old Warsaw Pact standard small arms optical sight reticle, incorporating a range-estimating scale and a series of chevrons below the center that are holdover points for various ranges.
A similar reticle, minus the chevrons running up the center, was a common feature of some West German military small arms optics in the 1960s and 1970s, but I don't think it was ever made a NATO standard.
The reticle described as "rangefinding type" with the two horizontal crosswires looks to my admittedly inexpert eye like the rangefinding reticle of the old Redfield ART military small arms scope from the mid 1960s. If there is an article about it, a link to that article may be in order, as I do believe that reticle was unique to the ART.
The article might also say that the mil-dot reticle and variations of it have become the de facto standard for Western military snipers due to its utility as a rangefinder in the field, with appropriate hyperlinks to the appropriate articles.
Lastly, the one labeled as "rangefinding type" with the sort of Christmas-tree pattern of horizontal lines below the center seems to me to be not a rangefinding reticle at all, but rather one with multiple holdover points and horizontal lead indicators for moving targets at different ranges. Such reticles are found in a few newer models of scope for hunting and sporting purposes and I am not aware of any military organization using them. They are new, uncommon, and in my opinion not noteworthy unless the article is going to have an exhaustive list of all known reticle patterns--of which there is an astonishing variety indeed.
In the semiconductor industry the term "reticle" is in common use for the optical mask used in modern fabrication processes.
See: http://www.siliconfareast.com/masks-reticles.htm
I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure if it's best to make a minimal mention on this page or to create a new one.
Any guidance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentmybike ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm reading an RAF book from 1952 that uses the term "graticule" instead of "reticule". I believe the terms are synonymous, especially given the images, but does anyone know if they might be used differently in other cases? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 14:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, the sight as a whole moved, but the crosshairs within did not. Its no different than the example of the P90 - it even looks similar. Ahhh, according to this it is the same thing. I'll add it as an alternate form. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 21:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Well I've provided several references that clearly state that "graticule" and "reticle" are directly synonyms. If you do not believe this is correct, you'll have to provide references of equal quality that state this - that they are not synonyms. You can't simply assume that since you have examples of moving ones that they have to move. It's the broken-leg/cast issue… Maury Markowitz ( talk) 20:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
GRATICULE, a term which came into common use during the Great War, may be defined a being the measuring marks or scales, usually on a glass plate or disc, placed in a focal plane of an optical instrument for determining the size, distance, direction, position, or number of the objects viewed coincidently with the scale itself. The term " graticule " comprises therefore, the numerous appliances variously known as sighting scales, reticules, cross-lines eyepiece, and stage micrometers, diaphragms webs, etc., which are used in telescopes, micro scopes, and other optical instruments, and it is usual to refer to the disc or plate with the marks on it as a " graticule." Dictionary of Applied Physics, 1923. However, it also seems that the origin of graticule lies in the British Military and I think that some mention should be made of this, due to the likelihood of the term being encountered within British military technical manuals. Damwiki1 ( talk) 23:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
<de-indent The problem is the "divergent historical and technical origins" observed in the Dictionary of Applied Physics, 1923 article is just that.... observed, and minority. We can write about "hmmmm... we do see evidence of a different definition in 1923" but that strays into original research and we don't track such word usage since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The 1923 definition for "graticule" is the current definition for "reticle" [1] and the current definition for "graticule" is "reticle" [2]. So there is no divergent meaning. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 03:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
There are lots of dictionary entries that state reticule is a alternate spelling of reticle. Here's a couple: [3] and: "... ( reticle ) A grid of fine lines in the eyepiece of an optical instrument (telescope or microscope) to determine the scale or position of the object being..." from: [4]. Can we please stop changing the article over this point? Damwiki1 ( talk) 17:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reticle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've been having a slight disagreement with someone. They say that 'reticle' used to be spelled/said as 'rectile'. I said no, and they disagreed. I then searched online dictionaries, which yielded no results for 'rectile'. Does anyone here know if this is true? He's saying it used to be spelled and said as this, but that it has obviously been changed. That this person is defending 'rectile' (and no, I am not having my leg pulled) with such vigor makes me think that it may at one point, in some locales (and rarely at that) have been referred to as a 'rectile' (though I won't believe it at all until it is 100% proven). Does anyone have any input? 220.245.91.43 ( talk) 07:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
A reticule is actually a woman's handbag and not a sight at all. This is a common mistake thanks to the auto-correct on MSWord. Wikipedia shouldn't cement this error by redirecting from reticule to reticle. 71.231.201.228 ( talk) 23:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Agreed, this confused me just now. See http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861701697 for the definition of reticule -- don't see why there isn't a page for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.24.49 ( talk) 18:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
bascially I agree a reticle is some lines. They can be etched into e.g. glass but you also can simulte them by a computer and overlay them on an image. However, I strongly disagree that a reticle is an astronomical instrument. As in my daily work I use reticles also in a measurement microscope, for measuring small items. 02:39, 4 August 2006 User:210.202.48.252
I'm moving this:
here because it's redundant--FPS games are simulations of firearms, so use of crosshairs is pretty obvious. I may stick it back in later, but I'm going to do some expanding right now so I'm going to store it here for a bit. scot 01:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The article looks largely good, though I think there may be a few small bits that could be improved.
Modern variable power optics normally do have the reticle in the second focal plane. The problem with early implementations of second focal plane reticles was not so much fragility as a zero point that shifted when the power was adjusted, due to slight variations in machining tolerances unavoidable with 1950s technology. The instructions for older variable power scopes normally said that the scope should be zeroed with its power adjusted to the highest setting, in order to minimize the errors this introduced. The instructions for some very cheap variable scopes still do say this.
The biggest problem with etched glass reticles, as far as I am aware, is not fragility (some such units are very massively constructed indeed) but rather the way they can accumulate dust and metal shavings that are worn away from the adjustment gears in use. The particles stick to the glass reticle surface and are perfectly in focus, where they become at the very least distracting, and in some instances can reduce visibility through the scope. As the scope itself is normally sealed to keep out moisture and prevent fogging, it's not possible to clean the reticle or fix this in the field. This problem was why Steyr switched from an etched glass fine-dot-in-a-circle reticle on the AUG's integral optic sight to a wire crosshair.
I have no source for that except for discussions on Usenet and various message boards, and I think those probably don't meet Wikipedia standards, but I offer this information as a starting point for anyone who wants to investigate and find verifiable sources for them.
I also think the chart of common reticles is good but could use two additions and some clarification.
Probably the second most popular telescopic sight reticle among hunters who used optical sights in the US before World War II was the post-and-crosshair. It was similar to the reticle the chart describes as the "German reticle," but it often had the coarse center post tapered from top to bottom, and it had a very fine horizontal crosswire going all the way across. Scopes with these reticles were quite commonplace, and the old Lyman M84 "Alaskan" was issued to US Army snipers for decades after World War II with a post-and-crosshair reticle. It's no longer very common today--in fact I don't know of any optics with such a reticle in production now, though my knowledge is hardly encyclopedic--but I think it is sufficiently noteworthy to merit mention in a historical context.
The reticle described as the "SVD reticle" looks to me like the old Warsaw Pact standard small arms optical sight reticle, incorporating a range-estimating scale and a series of chevrons below the center that are holdover points for various ranges.
A similar reticle, minus the chevrons running up the center, was a common feature of some West German military small arms optics in the 1960s and 1970s, but I don't think it was ever made a NATO standard.
The reticle described as "rangefinding type" with the two horizontal crosswires looks to my admittedly inexpert eye like the rangefinding reticle of the old Redfield ART military small arms scope from the mid 1960s. If there is an article about it, a link to that article may be in order, as I do believe that reticle was unique to the ART.
The article might also say that the mil-dot reticle and variations of it have become the de facto standard for Western military snipers due to its utility as a rangefinder in the field, with appropriate hyperlinks to the appropriate articles.
Lastly, the one labeled as "rangefinding type" with the sort of Christmas-tree pattern of horizontal lines below the center seems to me to be not a rangefinding reticle at all, but rather one with multiple holdover points and horizontal lead indicators for moving targets at different ranges. Such reticles are found in a few newer models of scope for hunting and sporting purposes and I am not aware of any military organization using them. They are new, uncommon, and in my opinion not noteworthy unless the article is going to have an exhaustive list of all known reticle patterns--of which there is an astonishing variety indeed.
In the semiconductor industry the term "reticle" is in common use for the optical mask used in modern fabrication processes.
See: http://www.siliconfareast.com/masks-reticles.htm
I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure if it's best to make a minimal mention on this page or to create a new one.
Any guidance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentmybike ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm reading an RAF book from 1952 that uses the term "graticule" instead of "reticule". I believe the terms are synonymous, especially given the images, but does anyone know if they might be used differently in other cases? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 14:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, the sight as a whole moved, but the crosshairs within did not. Its no different than the example of the P90 - it even looks similar. Ahhh, according to this it is the same thing. I'll add it as an alternate form. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 21:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Well I've provided several references that clearly state that "graticule" and "reticle" are directly synonyms. If you do not believe this is correct, you'll have to provide references of equal quality that state this - that they are not synonyms. You can't simply assume that since you have examples of moving ones that they have to move. It's the broken-leg/cast issue… Maury Markowitz ( talk) 20:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
GRATICULE, a term which came into common use during the Great War, may be defined a being the measuring marks or scales, usually on a glass plate or disc, placed in a focal plane of an optical instrument for determining the size, distance, direction, position, or number of the objects viewed coincidently with the scale itself. The term " graticule " comprises therefore, the numerous appliances variously known as sighting scales, reticules, cross-lines eyepiece, and stage micrometers, diaphragms webs, etc., which are used in telescopes, micro scopes, and other optical instruments, and it is usual to refer to the disc or plate with the marks on it as a " graticule." Dictionary of Applied Physics, 1923. However, it also seems that the origin of graticule lies in the British Military and I think that some mention should be made of this, due to the likelihood of the term being encountered within British military technical manuals. Damwiki1 ( talk) 23:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
<de-indent The problem is the "divergent historical and technical origins" observed in the Dictionary of Applied Physics, 1923 article is just that.... observed, and minority. We can write about "hmmmm... we do see evidence of a different definition in 1923" but that strays into original research and we don't track such word usage since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The 1923 definition for "graticule" is the current definition for "reticle" [1] and the current definition for "graticule" is "reticle" [2]. So there is no divergent meaning. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 03:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
There are lots of dictionary entries that state reticule is a alternate spelling of reticle. Here's a couple: [3] and: "... ( reticle ) A grid of fine lines in the eyepiece of an optical instrument (telescope or microscope) to determine the scale or position of the object being..." from: [4]. Can we please stop changing the article over this point? Damwiki1 ( talk) 17:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)