So what makes FFP so much more expensive than SFP?

[joeycoates]

I have been looking for a new scope for my 7RM, and have pretty well decided on a scope which operates in the first focal plane. What I have noticed however is that a scope which uses the FFP is always much more expensive than the same scope in the SFP. Why is this? From what I understand a FFP scope has the reticle etched into the objective lens (could be wrong, if so please correct me) but is it this etching that makes it so much more expensive? Or is it because a FFP scope is the "in" thing right now so the manufacturers can just charge more?

I tried to search but did not come up with anything...

 

[bruce_ventura]

No, the FFP reticle is not etched on the objective lens. It is located just in front of the erector.

I believe that FFP scopes cost more because the reticle has smaller features and costs more to manufacture. SFP reticles are located between the erector and the eyepiece. The erector magnifies the image at the first focal plane, inverts it, and produces a larger image at the second focal plane. The SFP reticle is therefore larger than the FFP reticle and can be made inexpensively. The smaller features on the FFP reticle must be made using a more expensive photolithography process.

 

[HARPERC]

No, the FFP reticle is not etched on the objective lens. It is located just in front of the erector.

I believe that FFP scopes cost more because the reticle has smaller features and costs more to manufacture. SFP reticles are located between the erector and the eyepiece. The erector magnifies the image at the first focal plane, inverts it, and produces a larger image at the second focal plane. The SFP reticle is therefore larger than the FFP reticle and can be made inexpensively. The smaller features on the FFP reticle must be made using a more expensive photolithography process.

Thanks,

 

[joeycoates]

That is a good explanation. So do they still use photo-lithography these days or have they moved on to laser etching? Of course I do not know, and I am sure that every option has already been examined, but it would make sense to use a laser due to the inherent accuracy, but like I said, I am sure that they have looked at this. If they did go to a laser etching though then there would be no reason for the price disparity other than what the market will pay for it.

 

[Mikecr]

so what makes ffp so much more expensive than sfp?

Hollywood glitter

 

[ZSteinle]

The new sightron s3 ffp isn't anymore money than the SPF. If it is it's just barely more

 

[cummins cowboy]

its because they are a niche product that isn't as high volume production and they know they can charge more for it. Personally I don't get the need for FFP. in a perfect world a reticle that subtends the same across all powers sounds great. but the detail that you think you really need washes out at low power, for me if I need any of the features for the reticle I am shooting a longer distance and simply move to max power. if I want less power its a shorter shot where the features of the reticle are not needed.