Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
FFP vs SFP
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mikecr" data-source="post: 201671" data-attributes="member: 1521"><p>The only competition I can imagine lending an advantage to FFP scopes would be those which exclude use of laser ranging. </p><p></p><p>But this is a LONG RANGE HUNTING site, and if you're not laser ranging, if you're using only a reticle instead, your shooting system lags what it could be. </p><p>Might as well fall back to open sights..</p><p>JMO</p><p></p><p>-There is the argument of time. Well stalking is part of hunting, and there is time to do so at long ranges regardless of scope. Once I choose a position, I can set my bipod, measure, calc, dial in, load, level, hold off, and inject lead. One minute.</p><p>-There is the implication that use in IBS competition makes FFP good enough(rather than advantaged -my bad). But quite the opposite implication is defined in equipment lists and standings. There is no denying that SFP scopes are good enough.</p><p>-There is the apparent problem of reticle cal at a certain power. Well anyone could go to that power to range and return, if it makes them feel good about not having laser ranging. </p><p>-There is the promotion of some FFP reticles that aren't too large. Well thats good enough, but it never was an issue with hi power SFP scopes.</p><p></p><p>There is also the apparent problem of cost with FFP scopes. Not my problem, but I can relate.</p><p>I also believe Mils are for ranging, and MOAs are for holdoff, and neither is accurate enough -optically.</p><p>They're for use when all else fails in my book.</p><p></p><p>I know, I'm bull-headed..</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mikecr, post: 201671, member: 1521"] The only competition I can imagine lending an advantage to FFP scopes would be those which exclude use of laser ranging. But this is a LONG RANGE HUNTING site, and if you're not laser ranging, if you're using only a reticle instead, your shooting system lags what it could be. Might as well fall back to open sights.. JMO -There is the argument of time. Well stalking is part of hunting, and there is time to do so at long ranges regardless of scope. Once I choose a position, I can set my bipod, measure, calc, dial in, load, level, hold off, and inject lead. One minute. -There is the implication that use in IBS competition makes FFP good enough(rather than advantaged -my bad). But quite the opposite implication is defined in equipment lists and standings. There is no denying that SFP scopes are good enough. -There is the apparent problem of reticle cal at a certain power. Well anyone could go to that power to range and return, if it makes them feel good about not having laser ranging. -There is the promotion of some FFP reticles that aren't too large. Well thats good enough, but it never was an issue with hi power SFP scopes. There is also the apparent problem of cost with FFP scopes. Not my problem, but I can relate. I also believe Mils are for ranging, and MOAs are for holdoff, and neither is accurate enough -optically. They're for use when all else fails in my book. I know, I'm bull-headed.. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
FFP vs SFP
Top