All kinds are traded and sold here on regular basis
Optics & Accessories For Sale - Sniper's Hide Forums
1st Focal Plane Reticle
- Thread starter statjunk
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
All kinds are traded and sold here on regular basis
Optics & Accessories For Sale - Sniper's Hide Forums
MontanaRifleman
Well-Known Member
Mark,
Have you actually ever used a FFP scope? The problems you see with them appear to be largely imagined. My Premier reticle covers 2.16" at 1000 yds. If you opt for the XR reticle it covers 0.9" at 1000 yds. The S&B P4 reticle covers 2.4" at 1000 yds. The P4F covers 1.26". The Vortex PST 4-16 covers 2.16" at 1000 yds. The PST 6-24 covers 1.44" at 1000 yds.
Could you explain how those thicknesses would hinder you in making a shot big game hunting?
As for the rest of the debate, it's really been hashed and rehashed here so many times I prefer to direct people to the search function in lieu of re-typing a book. So just a couple quick questions:
Do you ever use your reticle for anything? Ever? If the answer is no, you always even dial your wind, etc, then FFP really gives you no advantage, you are correct. Stick with SFP.
If you do hold wind or anything else with the reticle, have you never shot in conditions where the mirage was so bad you had to dial down in power? Or low light conditions where it helped you see the target by dialing down in power? If so, how fun was it holding with the reticle then? If not, you're lucky and since you always have perfect conditions when you shoot FFP gives you no advantage.
Jon,
No, I haven't used them and explained that I was speaking form ignorance and asked for someone correct me if I was wrong back in post #15...
More recently, Joseph tried explain it to me, but I didn't get a follow up to my reply to his post when I asked if I was "missing something?"
Thanks for your explanation, and no, I don't think a reticle covering 1.4 - 2.4" @ 1000 yds would be a problem. I have not actually measured mine at that range, but I'm guessing it would be about the same.
Now.... my assumption is that if the, let's say, NP-R2 reticle was in FFP that it would appear 4x's smaller on the 3.5x15 power scope on the low power setting of 3.5x than at the high power setting of 15x, to maintain the constant 2 MOA subtension through out the range. Is that true?
I did acknowledge that in mirage conditions, you would want to power down. However, it would have to be very light mirage for me to attempt a shot on game @ LR, so that argument is a little on the weak side, IMHO of course.
So can you explain the differences in the "appearance" from one power setting to another.
You're right about this being hashed out numerous times, and I don't always jump into this discussion, but the OP was only getting one side of the story, so I though I would give him the other side, to the best of my understanding, and had some idle time on hand
In short, my basic argument remains the same. At long range on high power, there is no difference in benefit between the two. At shorter range, I am hold dead on or maybe a slight holdover, so I do not see a practical benefit between the two (especially consider the cost difference) and if the reticle is made to look "smaller and more busy on low power", that is unappealing to me. Please do correct me if I misunderstand.
Thanks,
Mark
Last edited:
The FFP is a more robust design and less likely to lose it's zero. Also 22 power can be a bit much at time and the FFP reticle is calibrasted properly at all power settings. The FFP scopes deos cost more to produce and that is it's only draw back in all other areas it is the better design IMHO and expereince
Jon A
Well-Known Member
Yes, but typically they'd make a FFP reticle a bit thicker so it doesn't disappear at low power. I believe they only currently make the MLR in FFP and some weren't happy with the thickness and have said they may be changing it in the future. So I can't answer specifically for NF.
It's easier just to show you. Most of the reticles I like for hunting simply look like a simple duplex at low power, nothing busy about them. For an example well suited to low power and close in brush hunting, the Premier Gen II on 15X and 3X:
On low power it's a simple duplex. This reticle was in my S&B 3-12 also and those were the best low light brush hunting scopes I've ever had. Not only does the reticle work very well, but the little cross in the middle illuminates and on 3X it just looks like you have a duplex with a glowing red dot in the middle. Talk about fast.
Though personally I prefer hashes over dots I can certainly make due with the above. Some would prefer a thinner reticle and especially if getting a 5-25X and/or don't go stomping around in the brush with it I'd suggest the XR reticle for them (or the P4F instead of the P4 in current S&B's).
Since many here don't go stomping in the brush and like higher powers, here's another example of a thinner one in a higher power scope--PST 6-24X (Scott at Vortex posted these):
24X
6X
I don't plan on brush hunting with this one, though the entire center cross illuminates so it should do OK. The 4-16X has a thicker reticle better suited to low power use.
Anyway, hopefully that gives you a better idea of how they work.
DONTSTROKEME
Well-Known Member
For $600 I would get the 3-9 Variable Super Sniper scope. It is very clear, FFP, MIL/MIL and 30mm. I am running one on my 18" 7mm-08 with 162gr AMAx and a 20MOA base. My 300 yard zero is near the bottom of the elevation turret and it has plenty of travel ready and waiting.
The 3-9 is no good for Long Range work?
At a recent match (not tooting my horn as much as the equipment I used) I was the only person to get a hit on a 10" by 12" steel plate at 1160 yards within 5 minutes and 16 rounds total. I belive I hit around the 11 or 12 th round. There were 4 targets with 4 rounds each in order to get 2 hits per target.
Not the best thing ever but I was the lowest magnification scope there and the shortest barrel, like I sadi it was not so much me as the equipment. And the beauty of 9x at LR...even with comprimised shooting form you generally can still see your own hits/misses.
But for the money I would go with the FFP Super Sniper 3-9x44 MIL/MIL.
It is a very thin Mil-dot reticle and in no way obscures the target.
The 3-9 is no good for Long Range work?
At a recent match (not tooting my horn as much as the equipment I used) I was the only person to get a hit on a 10" by 12" steel plate at 1160 yards within 5 minutes and 16 rounds total. I belive I hit around the 11 or 12 th round. There were 4 targets with 4 rounds each in order to get 2 hits per target.
Not the best thing ever but I was the lowest magnification scope there and the shortest barrel, like I sadi it was not so much me as the equipment. And the beauty of 9x at LR...even with comprimised shooting form you generally can still see your own hits/misses.
But for the money I would go with the FFP Super Sniper 3-9x44 MIL/MIL.
It is a very thin Mil-dot reticle and in no way obscures the target.
Here are a few affordable ffp scopes I recently found...
Horus Vision are all in FFP $550-$1500
Weaver has some FFP in $600-$800 range
Vortex PST has two FFP model in $800-$900 range
SWFA SS has one at 3-9x42mm $600
There are more, just haven't found them........yet.
I alway thought that the SFP is dangerous to uneducated shooters shooting past the 250 yd mark. SFP is a nice challenge to the educated shooters and can actually increase range but is only needed for like ~1500 plus yard shooting on lower power when running out of elevation...
FFP is nice to have to eliminate math (power change on SFP requires math) and use the larger view of field advantage with true values (FFP -one moa means one moa!!).
Last edited:
I don't get why people say this so often. Shooting off a benchrest vs sticks/bipod is NOT the same. I don't know maybe you can hold your gun very very steady. I've looked through my 12x scope at a 5" x 5" target (my "acceptable" kill zone on a yote) at 500 yards and wow! Not only was it tough to just even see, but the smallest wiggle would move the reticle completely off the target. Sure using a benchrest you can keep the reticle on the target, but i don't have that luxury when hunting. A more powerful magnification makes it much much easier IMO.
MontanaRifleman
Well-Known Member
Jon, thanks for post the pics..... as they say.... worth a 1000 words... maybe more. It makes things a lot clearer. Still like my SFP a bit better though on the low setting. Have fun with your FFP.
How do you find the PST travel? Is it accurate, precise, relaible, etc? How would you compare it to a NF?
-Mark
Thanks for the help when I asked for clarification
sscoyote
Well-Known Member
Pretty good MR, you are the ambassador of diplomacy--well done!
MontanaRifleman
Well-Known Member
Boss, it takes a lot more than that to make me mad. Just a little confused by your post since I though I had made my perspective and experience (or lack of) clear.
Cheers,
-Mark
Cheers,
-Mark
Jon A
Well-Known Member
I can second the above that the 3-9 SS is a very good scope for the money. Naturally, most here will want more power but it's a solid all around performer that can get the job done at long range when needed. Bigger news is their upcoming 4.something-20ishX50ish scope. That's one that will be of great interest to many here, it might give the PST's a run for their money.
A couple more not mentioned that many here may not know about are Bushnell's latest. They have a new 3-12 and a 6-24 based on the 4200 Elite series with illuminated FFP mildot reticles and 0.1 mil knobs to match. They aren't in the same class as the PST's, but the 4200's have always had a good rep for quality and durability so these should be solid and reliable scopes for those on a budget. I think the 6-24 has fairly limited travel though so keep that in mind.
Up the scale a little is IOR. Their 2.5-10 has been improved with new knobs, reticle and better illumination. That's a fine scope and is as durable as any scope you'll find. While everybody surely knows of my durability problems with the 3-18, I can't help but be intrigued by their new 3.5-18X50 with all new redesigned internals (supposedly bulletproof now), illumination and a 50mm objective to make it better in low light (the 3-18X42 wasn't the best low light scope). If you aren't going to be pounding the brush with your rig, their new 6-24X56 FFP is making my mouth water. A very thin FFP reticle, illumination and the big 10 Mil knobs. It's probably as close as you'll get optically to the S&B/Premier 5-25 or Hensoldt 6-24 with those features for significantly less money.
Of course the big ones everybody is waiting on are the PST's. That's a price slot that really needed filling. Just another month or so….
While they are still certainly more limited, I'm happy to see more and more affordable FFP choices are showing up. I think the gap between FFP scopes for "rich guys" or "cheap made in China junk" is gradually being filled.
Sorry I missed this before. It's not weak at all, and here's why:
Nearly every hunting season for me, even when I DO have luck and am successful amounts to one. Single. Shot. Bang, done. And in the Fall, no, mirage isn't usually a huge problem.
However, of the hundreds and hundreds of rounds I shoot between hunting seasons so that I don't forget how, much less try and get better, a large majority of them are spent during the summer months. Depending upon where you shoot, the summer can mean MOST of the time, mirage is a problem from mild to just plain nasty. I'm a big believer in practicing how you play so if one plans to hold for wind at the moment of truth, on the shot for all the marbles, he really ought to be practicing that way too.
And so with a high powered scope in the heat of the summer…. Sure, one can scale things down and do math, dial down to ½ power, etc, but after doing that, dealing with those issues, then moving to FFP, all that stuff just seems so silly to me now. Maybe it's just me, but when I try and think of one single reason why I would want a SFP that would make up for dealing with the "silliness" above that would come with it, nothing comes close. Of course again, for those who don't ever use their reticles for anything, nevermind.
Unfortunately, I'm still waiting on the PST's like everybody else. I will have full and detailed reports on two of them soon (hopefully). If the 4-16 survives the summer on my 300 RUM (which will be no easy task) and passes all my other tests, I plan to use it this season. The 6-24 will be used as more of a plinker, but on the other hand that means I'll probably put three times as many rounds through it so anything not right with it will bother me quickly.
