So if you shoot at 5x with the MOAR reticle the first tic for windage is already over 8MOA. So if you need 2MOA you can divide the "space" between the center and the first tic mark with the needed precision, instead of simply increasing magnification ? This at distances of 400-600 yards ? I personally don't know too many people who would choose to shoot with a scope on Min magnification at those ranges. Nor would I be capable of the kind of interpolation you are suggesting. At 8x on my 4-16 one can recognize the tic marks just fine and for 400 yards I would be on 16x. Field of view of the NXS at 100yds on 5x is 17.5ft thus at 400 it is 70ft. You are going to shoot at an object with a vertical dimension of 14-20" with the scope set to a field of view of 70-105ft ? By choice ? And that makes FFP scopes unsuitable ?
What do you think we used before variable scopes, I don't have any issue toasting something on 4x IF my reticle comes to the show, if I'm walking my scope is on min or if I'm sitting calling it on min and if I pull up and I have my cross hair why screw with it when I should be shooting.
I had my first look at the 6-24x50 Viper FFP tonight. It looks like at 24x the field of view is 50MOA or just a hair over. I was surprised that at 6x the reticle is far more legible than at 4x on my 4-16 (min magnification for both). At 24x one can no longer see the broad outer lines of the reticle, the central portion fills the field of view.
If I ever get my Remington back from Mc Gowan, I will be able to provide a more detailed report...
So you just plain reject technology ? Clearly a Weaver 4x or 6x is a heck of a lot cheaper than a good FFP scope. You would deliberately choose not to dial up the magnification when it is at your disposal.
Sorry, if I have it I am using it. If you won't use it when you have it, it follows pretty well why you would not pay for anything additional.
The benefit of the FFP is that my graduations are on over a wide range of magnifications, but I will not claim that one can read them on Min magnification. Few hunters I have spoken to would choose to engage a target at 400-600 yards without increasing magnification when it is available. However, I am not forced to use a specific magnification or apply a scale to the reticle. Provided I can see it, I can use it. If I can't see the reticle and the target is not right in front of me, I am dialing up the magnification. It takes less time to do that than trying to hit on the second shot.
Sorry, I must just be a bit slow on the uptake... Seems there is no question in this thread. Its just a chance for the establishment (2nd FP) to bash on anyone dumb enough to buy a FFP, even though those of us who bought the Vortex scopes are out less money than you... Vortex seems to have great customer service too and judging by waiting times on some models, the market acceptance has grown substantially.
My hunting success has improved since I got my FFP scope and I don't regret buying it one bit. I haven't heard people complaining about the turrets or the illumination either.
I cannot speak for the true "high end" scopes, since I am not well enough heeled to own one and the future does not seem to bode well for prosperity for the majority of us. I will continue to let curious shooters look through my scopes since nothing beats hands on experience to help make your own decisions. Your right to self determination is in your own hand (and mind).