Would a reticle for a spotter be sufficient if it was SFP vs FFP.

[Demon061]

Contemplating just springing for the VIper PST instead of HST and sticking to SFP. Doesn't seem like it'd be a huge deal but a pretty darn big savings on buying the optic

 

[7magcreedmoor]

Having riflescopes with moa reticles in both SFP and FFP, I can see the merits of each type, but prefer FFP. Many folks fault the FFP reticle for being too fine at low mag, too coarse at high mag, but I don't find that to be the case with my Viper HSLR. The lines of the grid are 0.15 moa thick, with an open center 0.45 moa wide, with a dot 0.15 moa diameter dead center. Nothing I want to shoot can hide behind that. On low power, I am usually looking at a target I have no need to measure, so the "fade away" of the detail grid is no handicap, and the thick outer bars bracket the target for fast shots very well. I would want a similarly proportioned FFP in a spotter, but if it had to be SFP, I would want the lowest mag subtension to be one moa, with clearly marked (and tactile clicks if possible) intervals yielding half-moa, then quarter-moa, etc. as the need for fine measurements is greatest at the longest distances. If Vortex put it in their 50mm Razor, I'll buy it.

 

[DocB]

Observer and shooter have to be able to locate, communicate, shoot, followup rapidly, effectively and without wasted movement or communication. Both reticles should be as near to identical as they can get so observer and shooter will be seeing the same thing and speaking the same language. Concur with the fineness of the reticles.

IMHO to accomplish this both reticles should be FFP in the subtension of your choice. I prefer mils, but that's personal preference. Knob twisting for followups is wasted time and movement in crucial tactical and hunting long range situations. The shooter and observer have to keep their eye in the scope for followups and not be looking at knobs to be effective.

Horus reticles are designed with this purpose in mind. H32 and H37 observation reticles in FFP are ideal in this context. The shooter with a compatible Horus reticle facilitates rapid, effective communication of target location, hold offs and follow-up shot placement without removing the eye from the scope.

Of course, practice together as a team is paramount.

Just my humble opinion based on experience.

Good luck to my fellow shooters and good shooting!

DocB

 

[davkrat]

I would be fine with a SFP reticle in MOA that was on a useable scale like was mentioned. Maybe 2 MOA on the lowest power and 1 MOA at a higher power. The most important thing to me would be that it is in a obtainable priced scope. I would love to be able to call out MOS adjustments to my brother but without a $1500+ reticle equipped scope I can not. It's too bad MIL's are so tacticool and sexy and available in cheap-o lines of spotters and rifle scopes. I don't dial in MIL so why would I want to measure in MIL's? Oh right cause that's what the cool "snipers" do and doing the mental gymnastics of converting MIL to MOA is so much fun!

 

[bigngreen]

I very much don't get along with FFP, I would like a SFP because of cost and because the way I use my reticles on my rifles I want the value to change which is more useful to me.
I would like a MOAR-T reticle OR a bracket to the left side but make it in half MOA at the top end so you can get more resolution yet turn it down to half power and have a useful 1 moa value and leave the center and right open for clear glassing.

I would fall all over myself if I could get a Vortex Razor HD 11-33x50 with a reticle, it would be ideal for long range hunting with!!!!

 

[bruce_ventura]

Len, people seem to be reading your question two different ways. By "spotter" do you mean an SFP vs FFP spotting scope, or person spotting a shot using an SFP vs FFP rifle scope?

 

[Len Backus]

Spotting scope.

 

[bruce_ventura]

Well then it seems to me that this a moot question. A simple telescope has an inverted image. Most rifle scopes use an erector tube (essentially a second telescope) to invert the image a second time. The erector tube creates the second focal plane. All of the spotting scopes I can think of use a prism to erect the image, and there is no second focal plane. The reticle on a conventional spotting scope must be in the FFP location.

 

[davkrat]

Well then it seems to me that this a moot question. A simple telescope has an inverted image. Most rifle scopes use an erector tube (essentially a second telescope) to invert the image a second time. The erector tube creates the second focal plane. All of the spotting scopes I can think of use a prism to erect the image, and there is no second focal plane. The reticle on a conventional spotting scope must be in the FFP location.

When they are in the eyepiece like the Vortex option on their HD Razor which focal plane would that be?

 

[bruce_ventura]

The one in the Razor HD 85 mm scope is FFP. Even if it were SFP you would never know, because it's a fixed 30X eyepiece.