I'm sure the results of your little test will serve to back your opinion on the matter.
I asked a simple straight forward question and added my methods as well.
Well, I think your above statement says a lot. I don't feel it was fair. Never mind, you are a sponsor selling your product and a world class shooter in every type of shooting known to man. In your own words, I am simply, in your mind, a person that would construe results to support my own views.
Well I think this statement says a lot. I don't feel it was fair.
That's simply because you took it wrong. I've provided pictures, and hard evidence of things supporting my views. How about you start? On with the test, if you've got something to share. ... or have you resorted to villainizing me because YOU took something I wrote wrongly? This crap below is ridiculous, and can ONLY be taken one way.
Originally Posted by Broz
Never mind, you are a sponsor selling your product and a world class shooter in every type of shooting known to man. In your own words, I simply am in your mind a person that would construe results to support my own views.
... and that is the third or fourth time you've insinuated that I hold views simply because I sell a thing. Pointing out multiple times how "you aren't selling anything" and how you "have no financial motivation." Despite overlooking it every time in the history of this thread, I won't be any longer.
I've been selling optics for a whopping couple months. I've been using and advocating FFP optics since around 2008. So nice try, but you are so far off base with your remarks all throughout this thread, it doesn't even begin to hold water.
So maybe you better take a breath. If you've got a test to perform... go do it. I hope the results will be more than text.
... or take your ball and go home because you aren't grown up enough to realize I had no malice in that statement. Now try and convince me you had no malice in yours.
The hunting scenario John describes is the situation where a FFP would be superior, to my mind. Time is of the essence because the animal is on the move, or could be expected to move into cover or over the top of the ridge. The hunter can turn the magnification to what best suits that specific shot without worry about the moa/mil distance between reticle ID markings. I'm going to inject that the game animal in that scenario is also not apt to be at extreme long range, where the dope has to be exactly correct, everything double checked, and the shooter's set up for the shot as steady as possible, in order to feel good about being able to connect.
The longer the shot, the more prep time required for shot preparation. This requires game animal activity and behavior that affords the time necessary to get set up to take the shot. As in the animal is bedded down, or busy feeding - not making tracks and moving cross-country. And the longer the shot, the more apt a long range hunter is to dial the dope into turrets rather than using reticle hold-overs. The longer the shot, the greater the advantage to using maximum magnification power, and having finer cross hairs for the refinement of the aiming point. I think this is the hunting scenario that Broz is focused on and most concerned about. The most challenging longer range shots. He wants the ideal power/reticle to match shots attempted at the very greatest distances. He's willing to hunt without the FFP benefits for the closer, less difficult shots where reticle holdovers are often good enough to get the job done. And he's evidently not convinced its worth the extra $1000-$1500 (I know I'm not) to get one of the premium FFP scopes with the finer reticles, because his SFP scope/reticles are working great for the shot scenarios he's prioritized - extreme long range.
That's what I conclude from all of the pros and cons being expressed. I see advantages to FFP for shots at less extreme range on game animals that won't stand still long enough to give the hunter time to determine and double check dope and then dial the dope on the turrets. Many have found reticle holdover completely acceptable out to ~7-800 yds on large game sized animals. The closer the range, the greater the allowance for some measure of error/guesstimation. But for the guy who's setting up to specialize on the longest of shots, the ultimate precision is required. The highest magnification power useful under the atmospheric conditions, the finer aiming point, and dialing dope into the turrets for precise aiming rather than the less precise reticle holdover method.
The first focal plane reticle subtends the same distance no matter what power. A problem with the ffp is that the reticle is maganified as the power is increased. One ends up with a thick reticle at the higher powers and a thin one at low.... just the opposite of what most people want. Good shooting....James