Originally Posted by Broz
The fact is, I shoot long range, not just to 700 yards now, but regularly to a mile and beyond. I much prefer the SFP for the FACT that it allows the target to grow in size as the magnification is increased while the cross hair lines remain the same size and appear finer on the target.
I already pointed out that a nightforce reticle at 22x covers the same area as a Premier GenIIXR. One is NOT finer than the other, and due to the Premier's 25x magnification, it actually provides for a finer hold point than a nightforce,
whom are known for having some of the thinnest and most precise reticles in the industry.
The image above is through a Premier 5-25 with GenIIXR reticle. The target is a full size IPSC steel at a distance of 1125yds. The head on the target is 6" square. Even with the diminished quality of through-the-scope pictures, you can plainly see that quartering the head on that target would be a piece of cake. Could on convincingly argue that a SFP optic of equal magnification would be better?
I do a lot of mile, mile plus shooting, just as you do. In no situation have I been handicapped by a FFP reticle. I dial back my magnification quite frequently. Having my reticle scale correctly at all powers is very important to me.
That's the beauty of America. We can both have what we want.
I'd simply appreciate it if you would try to take care not to perpetuate myths which are easily proven untrue. I cannot say that SFP reticles are too thick, or too thin, or can't do a thing well... anymore than you can say it about FFP reticles. What an optic is capable of is purely a function of reticle/optic design.
Even with SFP optics, you won't find anyone advocating a 22x nightforce for deep, dark, woodland hunts. They'll recommend a 4x with a thick duplex. So the idea that the scope which is suited for mile shots is also best suited for dark up-close engagements has no bearing in reality. Again, it is an argument against FFP in that "the reticle gets too small at low magnifications." This is yet another blanket statement that DOES NOT apply to all FFP reticles.
There are FFP optics which are suited very well for dark, up close engagements. Those optics overcome the problem the same way
SFP optics overcome the problem. The reticle is made thicker and illumination is provided.
Ten years ago, the things you said would probably ring true, as there were much fewer FFP options then. Times change, and there are more FFP optic options than ever before. So much so that there is increasingly few situations where I would not recommend an FFP. Known distance competition such as benchrest would be one, and dangerous game or very close brush hunting would be another.
That being said, I would like to see someone argue that a March 8-80 FFP would fail at benchrest, or that a USO 1-8 DFP would not work well up close in the brush.
The point here is that the FFP "facts" of old, are no longer true. If you disagree, then lets start talking about specific situations where you believe FFP will not work well, and I'll choose a specific optic make and model for that situation that I've found to work well, or believe would work well. It will be a good academic exercise and those that are truly looking to decide for themselves will be presented with the data by which to make an educated decision.