What would a FFP have done for us here? Would you agree that the finer the reticle and the larger the target would help on this shot?
There are several ffp optics with just as fine of retcile as the one you were using for that shot. Gophers, clay pigeons, starlings... I've shot lots of tiny things at a thousand yards or better.
You already stated that you don't have to dial back your magnification ever, so yes, I already conceded that for YOU, there probably isn't a dire need for FFP. That is not the situation the majority of shooters are in, however. Most of us routinely have to dial back due to mirage or moving targets.
22x vs 25x. I would argue I'd have had a better view of that gopher than you did. ;)
22x vs 25x. I would argue I'd have had a better view of that gopher than you did. ;)
Moving targets at long range? you would dial back? Why? I am thinking if they are moving that much that you can't keep them in the scope you just as well stand up and throw the round by hand..
But YES!! you are definitely correct the 25X would surely make for a better shot. But lets say both scopes are 25X. Now when you crank the SFP the added 3x the target grows in size as the reticle remains the same. On the FFP the relation between the target and the reticle stays the same. That will add little or nothing for aim point ease of this long range shot on a small target.
Orkan, good discussion. I am considering what you are posting as well as posting my ways and beliefs. I can be stubborn but I do walk the walk and will always look at better options if they will indeed improve my shooting. I tend to shoot farther than most and that will single me out some. But I still think that in most cases if you don't pay the $3500 plus for a FFP you are not going to get all these usable options that you speak of. And further more, to me, the added $1000, $1500, or $2000 for a top of the line FFP is not a value for true long range and still I feel it could be less effective in some long range shots.
Where did I say long range? I simply said moving targets. A USO 5-17 FFP resides on my primary coyote rifle. MANY a running coyotes have been laid to waste with it, and a great deal more stationary coyotes.
Originally Posted by Broz
But I still think that in most cases if you don't pay the $3500 plus for a FFP you are not going to get all these usable options that you speak of.
Quite true. You have to pay for quality features. Same is true of SFP optics. A nightforce is not the end-all as it pertains to quality SFP optics either. Were they, the military wouldn't have to be looking to S&B, Premier, and Leupold to fill contracts. Not that the military does everything right... I'm simply saying that there is a lot more to the argument than meets the eye.
I too have enjoyed the discussion.
I would have but a singular request of you. Avoid perpetuating the myths of old regarding FFP that drew my ire, at least until after my visit in Sept. If you still maintain your beliefs after I've given you the opportunity to play with some of my gear, then so be it. Just understand that when you proclaim things regarding FFP as you did earlier in this thread, you are leading people to believe that FFP is not as capable as SFP. This is very much an untrue blanket statement that is born from not experiencing enough FFP optics.
With your experience drawn from a nightforce F1 3-15, and knowing a bit about your shooting habits, it is obvious to me why you hold the opinion of FFP optics that you do. Yet there are so many more options. To condemn an entire technology as a result of only using a handful of the options available is not wise. No more so than it would be for me to condemn the entire nightforce line without ever having used more than a couple of them.
So if you voice your opinion on specific FFP optics which you have used, simultaneously making it known that you do not have a enough experience with other FFP options to summarily judge all FFP optics capabilities, I will have no issue with that at all. It's the incorrect blanket statements which do harm.
Avoid perpetuating the myths of old regarding FFP that drew my ire, .
Calling BS here. I let it go before but will address it now since you are tossing it out again.
I have in no way "perpetrated any myth" I stated, for long range work, I prefer the fact that the SFP allows the target to grow in size as the magnification is increased while the cross hair remains the same size and in return will appear to be smaller on the target as it grows in size. THAT IS FACT.
Now I will ask you to not call me as one spewing BS when it is simply not true.
Just because I have only spent the money on one FFP, that was over $2000, does not mean I have not seen others or used others. I hold long range shoots, instruct long range, and have attended many long range shoots where I have seen many of the offerings. None of these have changed my mind on what I feel is best for long range.
If you want to talk about "blanket statement" I feel most of the time the FFP supporters are guilty of this in what they say. You just admitted that to get a well working FFP you need to buy one of the upper end scopes. $3500 plus. We both know that many....Many, of the less expensive FFP's do indeed have the problems of either a too large of reticle on top or too small at low magnification. But yet when the discussion of FFP's come along are we only to consider the $3500 plus offerings in regards to FFP? If we say FFP's do not have these problems then is that not a blanket statement? Or when they are brought to discuss we are stating Myths?
Where did I say long range? I simply said moving targets.
Did I not, in one of my first post define my findings were long range and I believe I stated 700 yards?
Let me look that up.
Ah yes, let me quote my first post.
"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. This I prefer for a more precise point of aim on a long range target. Even at only 1000 yards." [end quote].
This is no myth. But perhaps you are trying to portray a myth buy now jumping back to running shots in close while we were indeed talking long range. Which by the way I have also done on several occasions with a SFP. I stated quite clearly I was talking long range. If one prefers a thicker crosshair or FFP under that I have no issue. But still feel a scope would be better served, (like I stated once before) if the cross hairs were thicker on the low end and thinner on upper magnification to better suit dark timber, quick acquisition but also get thin for long range and a fine point of aim. Just the opposite of a FFP. Myth's sorry, no myths here in what I have posted.
Not at all... I was referencing my last post specifically where I mentioned movers, not the spirit of the long distance overtone of the thread.
Your position is that SFP is more capable than FFP.
My position is that of the opposite.
You have very little experience with FFP, and a great deal of experience with SFP.
I have a great deal of experience with both.
I can tell you that nearly anything a SFP optic can do, there is a FFP optic which can do it better. This driven by my direct, first-hand experience with both. You disagree.
Is it unreasonable to ask that you gain experience in the area you are lacking before solidifying that opinion and inciting others to follow? What if you find that your opinion is false, after you gain more experience? Wouldn't it be a disservice to those whom listened to your opinion earlier which was born out of inexperience?
I try to be extremely careful to gain a great deal of experience in a specific topic before handing out advice on it. My reputation can suffer greatly otherwise, and that will cost me dearly.
For instance, I've never hunted an elk in my life. I have opinions about it... but as I lack experience, I would gladly defer to your advice if we were talking about killing an elk. First hand experience is significantly important.
I do have enough experience to state what I did. It may be your opinion that I don't but I disagree. I am open to look at new options. If not why would I spend what I am on the Defensive Edge LRKM? That is far from a cookie cutter rifle. But I have stated nothing that is not mechanical fact.
I say at best, (and I need to see this first hand and why I offered you a day shooting with me) that there could be a FFP that can equal a SFP for a ELR shot. But I do not believe the SFP will give up anything. But there are far more FFP's that will fall short. And for me to pay double what a NXS cost me, the FFP better offer some serious advantages for (here it is again) the LONG RANGE shot.
I am not trying to degrade you. You choose to do that to me. We were simply having an in depth discussion about long range and the FFP/SFP. I respect your position and your experience and realize you have a business selling scopes and you like the Premier FFP's. I have no allegiance to any of them. I do like the Nightforce for the $$ spent. But it was not long ago I started a thread looking for other options that met my criteria. Proof of no allegiance.
all I have stated it true and factual, you know that. So now I will please ask you respect my posting to and not try to degrade it with simply your observations that you have no first hand experience in. At least until we have shot together and you have a chance to experience what I am capable of too. Then if you still feel I am uninformed so be it. But I feel you pull your pants on the same as I at this point.