Front focal or not??? New Vortex...

[joseph]

What do you do when you make a large change in altitude or temperature? Or do you limit your shooting to 600 yards?

Jeff

I have only shot in Wyoming near Gillett which is about 4500 ft. My custom turret only goes to 900 yds. then I have to dial up, but it is accurate to 900.

I am an older codger of 66+ years and am not going to do anymore climbing since I just I got busted up pretty good in an accident.

I know now that if I hunt above 8,000 ft it would make a difference, but with a 6mm Norma BR. it doesn't have much poop past 500 yds. for killing antelope or deer.

Here in north Georgia I have a range that goes to 400 then jumps to 1,000 yds. so I haven't been able to test it here in between those ranges. Now I can see that your point is valid.

If you hunt at big elevation changes I can see how dialing might be a better way to go for much longer ranges.

joseph

PS: Even though I am in my 67 th. year I am still able to learn new tricks.

 

[Jon A]

I have two IOR 2.5x10, one is FFP, one is SFP.

The FFP is useless on 2.5X, as the reticule almost disappears.
So it is like a fixed 10X scope.

The SFP scope get used.

But as I've said before, we need to be careful about generalizing. The reticle in your IOR is old and obsolete (the newer ones are much better) and really a poor design for FFP. Vortex did a really good job sizing the 4-16 and 6-24 FFP reticles, they're both very visible and usable on all powers.

I'm fixin to buy a new Vortex PST and wanted to know if I need a front focal or not. I'm going to use this for hunting white tails and shooting steel. What y'all think is it worth it or is the rear focal better for hunting???

If you do a search for "focal" in the optics section here you'll find several long threads discussing every conceivable point of view on the subject. It's well worth your time before making a purchase.

The short version is it depends mainly upon whether or not you want to use anything but the center portion of the reticle for anything. If you do, FFP makes a lot of sense. If not, it's really of no benefit.

Personally I like to use the reticle for all sorts of things on occasion, but the big thing I like to use it for all the time is holding wind instead of trying to chase the conditions with the turret. With FFP you can do that in any conditions without worrying about what power the scope is on. That alone would be enough to justify it for me, all the other little things I do with them are just icing on the cake.

Which PST were you looking at? I have pics of both the 4-16 and 6-24 FFP Mil reticles if you wanted to see what they look like.

 

[Broz]

I have only shot in Wyoming near Gillett which is about 4500 ft. My custom turret only goes to 900 yds. then I have to dial up, but it is accurate to 900.

I am an older codger of 66+ years and am not going to do anymore climbing since I just I got busted up pretty good in an accident.

I know now that if I hunt above 8,000 ft it would make a difference, but with a 6mm Norma BR. it doesn't have much poop past 500 yds. for killing antelope or deer.

Here in north Georgia I have a range that goes to 400 then jumps to 1,000 yds. so I haven't been able to test it here in between those ranges. Now I can see that your point is valid.

If you hunt at big elevation changes I can see how dialing might be a better way to go for much longer ranges.

joseph

PS: Even though I am in my 67 th. year I am still able to learn new tricks.

I see, I have set up a few rifles with ballistic turrets but limit them to 500 yards or 700 if we stay close to the same altitude. But many guys leave home which is 1800 ft for a hunting trip to find when they get where they are hunting is at 6500 ft the turret is off. I would not trust my 60 degree 1800 ft turret at 30 degrees and 6500 ft. At least not at very long distances. This is another reason I choose a program and enter field condition for each shot.

So you have tested this turret to 400 and it is on. It will be interesting to see how it does at 500, through 900 when you find a place to test it.

Thanks
Jeff

 

[Dust270WSM]

Im actualy lookin at both powers!!! I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THEM BOTH!!!

 

[joseph]

So you have tested this turret to 400 and it is on. It will be interesting to see how it does at 500, through 900 when you find a place to test it.

Thanks
Jeff

When Wyoming at the range we shot from 200 yds. to 900 yds. with the custom turret at gongs. The turret was on at every 100 yd. increment. At 1,000 & 1,200 yds. we watched the dust from the low hits until we hit the gongs.

After that we settled in to shooting at the 700 yd. gong because it was 7" in diameter. Everyone was able to hit it with the custom turret set on 7 for 700 yds.

The turret was calibrated for 4,500 feet which is what it was supposed to be where we were shooting.

Field test: Vortex Viper 6-24x50mm PST MOA FFP scope. - Georgia Outdoor News Forum

joseph

PS: I suspect that you are correct that it will NOT be on at those longer ranges here in Georgia. I assumed that it would be the same here, but that is what I get for assuming.

 

[FAL Shot]

The short answer is that if you want to use a ballistic reticle at any magnification, then FFP is probably best.

If you want to hunt at night and do not have an illuminated reticle, the SFP is probably best.

I like to scale my ballistic reticle to where the marks come out very close to standard 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 distances when the bullet passes through those marks. I can do that with SFP scope by varying my magnification to different loads. I will use a lower power with a slower bullet and a higher power with a faster bullet. Reticle subtends less angle on the target at higher power and subtends more angle on the target at low power. Power is written on the ammo box for reference.

If you shoot a single load, then a FFP scope is probably best.

 

[Jon A]

Im actualy lookin at both powers!!! I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THEM BOTH!!!

OK, here's the 4-16:

1000 yds, the circle on the gong is 12" diameter:

I haven't taken as many with the 6-24, but here are a few:

As you can see, the reticle on the 6-24 is thin enough to easily quarter a bullet hole at 100 yds.

 

[Pdvdh]

Nice photos. Very helpful!

 

[Clark]

"
Originally Posted by Clark
I have two IOR 2.5x10, one is FFP, one is SFP.

The FFP is useless on 2.5X, as the reticule almost disappears.
So it is like a fixed 10X scope.

The SFP scope get used."

But as I've said before, we need to be careful about generalizing. The reticle in your IOR is old and obsolete (the newer ones are much better) and really a poor design for FFP. Vortex did a really good job sizing the 4-16 and 6-24 FFP reticles, they're both very visible and usable on all powers.


.. I have pics of both the 4-16 and 6-24 FFP Mil reticles if you wanted to see what they look like.

Here is the usable view, on 10X

Here is the unusable view on 2.5X, but it does not look as bad as yours on 4X.

Here is a guy with a custom scope he sells built by Leupold.
He explains in GENERALITIES what I said specifically about my scope

 

[Jon A]

I'm sorry, my mistake. I thought I remembered you posting pics of it before and it was a different reticle. That must have been somebody else. That's not the reticle I was thinking of, while it is old I actually think that one is pretty good.

On 2.5X it looks much like most SFP scopes with a 4a or similar reticle which are much liked on low power in low light conditions:

If you're using it on 2.5X, it's for close range such as thick woods or something. At close range you don't need to see the lines in the middle, you just center the vitals between the three posts and pull the trigger.

I had the same scope in SFP and found it to be rather poor in low light because the center lines were even thinner so they still disappeared in low light:

But the space between the posts is so big they aren't useful for actually aiming with even at close range.

Anyway, different strokes for different folks I guess. As you can see the illumination Vortex gives them really makes it a non-issue. I believe all the newer IOR 2.5-10's are illuminated as well and are so much better than the one I had.

As for generalizing, I'll stand by saying you just can't because they're all different. Some FFP reticles are thick, some are thin. Some SFP reticles are thick, some are thin. Here's and example of a FFP scope and a SFP scope at really low power--1X:

One of those reticles is hard to see, but it's not the FFP.

 

[joseph]

Can someone post pictures of these low power reticles with the illumination turned on so we can see that it really is a mute point about not seeing them.

joseph

PS: I have a Vortex 6-24x50mm PST FFP MOA scope and have no problem seeing the reticle in thick cover at 6x without the illumination turned on, but it only took me a short time to get used to it. It became second nature to me. In low light I turn the elimination on especially for long shots at 6x.

 

[DirtySouth85]

Subscribed

 

[Sami]

Here is the unusable view on 2.5X, but it does not look as bad as yours on 4X.

That is far from unusable view. I would prefer the upper bar to be on the bottom instead making it similar to #4 but overall that looks like a decent close range reticle.

Unless one hunts varmints/birds at long range, FFP is preferable whether it is for tactical or hunting applications.