FFP … SFP … mildots … ranging

Forums Optics, Scopes, Rings, & Mounts FFP … SFP … mildots … ranging

  • Views : 756
  • Link

    Mendopellet
    Participant
    Member

    I am in the market for a couple of new scopes, and have been doing a lot of researching. I have read the advantages and disadvantages of the different systems people use their different reticles, hold over systems, etc. And I have came to the conclusion I would rather not limit myself with FFP choices, nor trying to find that "perfect compromise" reticle for a FFP scope on airgun size targets. I carry a lightweight range finder around my neck, and range my shots. But I use a system similar to Alan Zs. My elevation turret is marked with yardage to impact marks. I use a simple Duplex reticle and after turning the turret to the exact yardage, the pellet strikes where the crosshairs are located. No chance for error, as long as you do your part. And no need for worring about zoom changes affecting anything. But to each his own of course. Thinking this way allows me to use scopes with superior optical performance, such as the Sightron S Tac scope. No fancy reticle, but much better low light performance.

    Link

    bubblerboy64
    Participant
    Member

    I hear what you are saying and I think if you have a range finder and your adjustments are repeatable your method is right on.  I see advantage to both ways.   You can get lost adjusting elevation and windage .  And really busy reticles? Well I find them confusing.  Actually I like some of both.  Good repeatable adjustments and a reticle with at least some "markings"   

    Link

    stoti
    Participant
    Member

    I hear what you're saying too. I prefer ffp  scopes, here's the main reason why… If you label your turrets as you plan, you're limiting yourself to either a fixed power scope or keeping your variable scope set on one magnification so that your clicks stay constant. If you don't mind that, your absolutely fine with a sfp scope. With a ffp, that is a non issue though and I love having the full magnification range at my disposal. Some prefer simple, I get it.  I don't think picking a reasonably priced ffl scope with great optics  and reticle is a limiting  factor anymore either. There are a ton of great ffp optics available these days. Just my 2 cents. Good luck with your decision. Stoti

    Link

    functor
    Participant
    Member

    "If you label your turrets as you plan, you're limiting yourself to either a fixed power scope or keeping your variable scope set on one magnification so that your clicks stay constant. "

    Stoti, I am not sure you meant that, but the statement I quoted from your post is, as it stands, incorrect. One click– say 1/4 moa– is the same at ANY magnification level. What changes between FFP and SFP scopes, are the graduations in the reticle. In a second focal plane scope a dot that is, say one milliradian below the crosshair for one fixed magnification( say 10X) will be two mils down at half the magnification (5X in our case). But the turret clicks physically tilt the scope tube up or down by a certain angle independent of what magnification you're using.

    In summary– if you adjust for holdover by clicking a first focal plane scope offers no advantage at all just the original poster had mentioned. His system will work independent of magnification. However if one uses the reticle for holdover/ range estimation( which the O.P sensibly doesnt!) then one may need a FFP scope. 

    I am in complete agreement with the O.P. With current technology, and the ranges where airguns are shot, a simple laser range finder is much more efficient than a scope based ranging system, whether it be unwieldy sidewheeels, or hashmarks on the reticle. 

    Link

    Mendopellet
    Participant
    Member

    Interesting. I wondered how my thoughts would be received. I have 10 to 140 yards in 1.3 turns of my top turret. I much prefer it for hunting. As it takes most all of the chances of a miscalculation by me completely away.  

    Link

    stoti
    Participant
    Member

    Duh, My bad, your absolutely right. I got writing about what I was thinking, not what was written. 

    Link

    jwrabbit123
    Participant
    Member

    I only use a First focal plane scope  and I only use matched turrets to the Reticle . The reason I would only use a FFP scope is for Holding and or ranging . and also should you have to dail and hold in combination , it cant be done accurately on a SFP  or a mismatched reticle , When a shot presents it self , Time matters , Here is a few  senaro s why  and why it cant work , also labeling turrets by yardage doesn't work either .

     

    OK First senaro , you gun is say a .22 cal and zeroed at say 50 yards , 30 ft pound gun and a scope MIL/MIL  Scope ,FFP and you have yardages for 10 to 130 yards  ok a squirrel runs out in front of you at 70 yards  so you twist your turret so it says 70 , you raise gun to shoot him and he hears you and runs a few yards and runs up a tree 12 yards away and now is at a   + 24 degree angle . so now what ???? your taped turret is on 70 and he ran 12 yards but he is now at an angle if you set scope to 82 yards you will still miss due to angle , ,  Labeling turrets  for yardage doesn't work accurately

    Here is another reason , OK well you labeled turret by yards , but  next week you hunt and temp is 30 degree difference now what ????  so your marks are off now ,. To complicate it more is If you label turrets on a SFP then you may never get back to exact  power say it is ,correct at 10x well maybe you have it at 9.89x or 10.21x so it is not accurate , and worse yet is

    Mismatched turrets say a Mil reticle and MOA turrets , well we still using 22 cal  30 fpe gun this time a mismatched turret , so a rabbit runs out at 100 yards and you see another at 130 yards so you  , but if you get hold value for Moa to dial or do you want mils to hold ? we know the hold is 4.2mil at 100 yards so  if we dial then our turret is in MOA see it doesn't work . we have seconds to pull off the shot , we cant start calculating and doing  conversions or break out a pad and paper and tart solving equations it doesn't work

    Now we have a mil/mil scope in FFP ,, we see a squirrel and  go to range him and he is 100 yards , now we can hold or dial 4.2 and done deal , here is yet last senaro

    Ok we hunting on the edge  of a field and we see a woodchuck , we have our 22 caliber 30 fpe again and our FFP MIL/MIL scope and our range finder , SO we grab our range finder to range him and the battery is dead UGGG . So I grab my gun place it on my shooting sticks and I  look at the woodchuck he is 3.4Mils  from head to feet , I know a Mil is 3.5 and I know a woodchuck is about 12 inches tall say , So I know he is 100 yards away , I hold 4,2 mils and fire , Head shot YAY , So with a FFP scope I can range , I can hold , Dial , or any combination ,

    Having a scope in MOA or MIL is personal  preference one is not better then the other  , Get best glass you can afford , and don't buy a very hi power cheap scope , the glass will be blurry and not very use-able on higher powers. Also a straight power scope has better image quality then same quality scope in variable power , this is due to something called an ocular tube which houses lens that make it variable power ,  and because it has more lens , more places for visual abnormalities ,

    Link

    functor
    Participant
    Member

    Some thoughts regarding your scenarios:

    1. If there is an angle and you need to make a correction to range, why can't you do that in the turret. Either turret or hashmark, you still have to estimate the range as cos of the angle which is at best a guesswork. How does an FFP scope with BDC type reticle help you to be any faster here than one quick motion of the turret to the appropriate yardage? If the quarry is at 80 yards perhaps one doesn't need to take such a hasty shot? 

    2. Again– if you click it doesn't matter whether your magnification is 10x or 15.75X. You calibrate the clicks once and then it moves the scope physically.

    3. If the trajectory is different in a different temperature, then your holdovers will be different as well right? Then you have to recalibrate your holdovers just the same way. How can a FFP mil/mil scope help you with that?

    I think what I don't understand is if you do not know the distance and the trajectory how does a reticle help? 

    3. If the battery runs out– very unlikely situation– just grumble a bit and come back home! Most of us carry a spare battery in our backpack/ rangebag if we use a LRF. We aren't going to war!

    Field target competitors, who shoot the smallest targets in unknown distances almost all click turrets. Only they range by a sidewheel focus system. 

    Not saying that what you are describing isn't possible, or that for a very few very serious hunters might even be necessary, but for the most of the average airgunners, an LRF and a turret clicking scope will be good enough. Actually it's probably way harder to get a repeatable clicking scope. 

     

    Link

    stoti
    Participant
    Member

    Sorry Mendopellet. I didn't see you are using a rangefinder for everything. I wasn't paying attention. I don't use a rangefinder very often so I prefer a FFP and feel completely handicapped without a ranging reticle and hold hash marks for wind.  If you do use a rangefinder for everything then a sfp will be fine. Sorry I replied before reading your post thoroughly. Stoti

    Link

    FukoChan
    Participant
    Member

    Sometimes when you are hunting you feel that you wont get a chance to take your time setting up a shot. This is where FFP scopes come in handy, same with mildots. At all magnifications your holdover values are the same. Save time. If you dont need to save time feel free to get sfp scopes. However, i do see the cons of ffp- thick reticles, increase in price.

    Link

    flynviking
    Participant
    Member

    I have two FFP scopes, one on a Wildcat and another on my Royale 400.  I use a rangefinder and dial for elevation if it's beyond my second zero distance, however I hold for wind.  I agree that if your dialing your elevation and using a rangefinder SFP is fine, but with a duplex reticle your forced to dial for wind as well which I personally would find time consuming and cumbersome for hunting.

    I agree that finding a reticle that isn't too fine or two thick with FFP scopes can be a challenge but it sure is nice not worrying about my magnification setting knowing that my reticle is always true to scale.  Unless my rifle was a dedicated target gun I'd go with FFP.  Just my 2 cents, everyone has their preferences.   

     

    Link

    functor
    Participant
    Member

    Flynviking: That's actually a very good reason for a graduated reticle and in that case an FFP scope will help. However unless it's pretty long distance shooting, one would sort of guesstimate the windhold( hold the left edge/ right edge etc.)– or at least that's what I normally do. I have tried holding a mil over and so forth, but unless I have a very stable shooting platform (bipod/ bench) I simply can't hold it that well off hand. And if I do have a bipod/ bench, perhaps dialling the wind isn't such so impossible.

    But I agree a graduated reticle is more convenient in these situations. I think you provided me with the first good reason to seriously try a FFP scope. I tried once, but the thickness of the reticle at high magnification, and the disappearance of the same at the very lowest magnification put me off. 

    Link

    flynviking
    Participant
    Member

    Functor:  FFP and SFP both have their compromises.  I tried my first FFP scope because I wanted to experiment with something different and I found that for the primary way I use my airguns (pesting birds) that I enjoyed it.  I do like target shooting and my FFP scopes have been fine for that as well but if that was all I did I would save the additional coin and stick with SFP.

    The reticle thickness certainly can be a make or break item for an FFP scope.  My two scopes are different (EVX 4-16×44 F1, Athlon Midas Tac 4-16×44) and the reticles are of differing designs and thicknesses.  I like them both and in practical terms they are equally effective.  

    Link

    Scotchmo
    Participant
    Member

    jwrabbit123

    I only use a First focal plane scope  and I only use matched turrets to the Reticle . …

    For MIL or MOA, it would be hard to find a FFP scope that had mismatched turrets and reticle.

    Maybe BDC is an exception as there are no BDC turrets.

    Link

    Scotchmo
    Participant
    Member

    functor

    ….

    Field target competitors, who shoot the smallest targets in unknown distances almost all click turrets. …

    The smallest field targets are 3/8" as used in the USA AAFTA matches. Most are shooting in classes that don't allow clicking. Even when I shoot in classes that allow it (Open and WFTF), I don't usually click. Though I may start as I'm now using a FFP scope with MOA/MOA reticle/turret.

    Link

    functor
    Participant
    Member

    Scotchmo: Isn't it more common for the WFTF competitors to click? I could be wrong because I am not a FT competitor and you have more firsthand experience. 

    Link

    functor
    Participant
    Member

    Scotchmo: Isn't it more common for the WFTF competitors to click? I could be wrong because I am not a FT competitor and you have more firsthand experience. 

    Link

    Scotchmo
    Participant
    Member

    functor

    Scotchmo: Isn't it more common for the WFTF competitors to click? I could be wrong because I am not a FT competitor and you have more firsthand experience. 

     

    Most WFTF competitors do click. But in the USA, most shooters are not shooting WFTF. In a true WFTF match, the smallest kill zones are 15mm (0.59"), while at USA AAFTA matches, the smallest kill zones are 3/8" (0.375").

    If you look at participation in the USA, especially at bigger matches, most are currently using holdover, rather than clicking (by a slim margin).

    So "Field target competitors, who shoot the smallest targets in unknown distances almost all click turrets" mostly use holdover.

    Link

    functor
    Participant
    Member

    Scotchmo

    functor

    Scotchmo: Isn't it more common for the WFTF competitors to click? I could be wrong because I am not a FT competitor and you have more firsthand experience. 

     

    Most WFTF competitors do click. But in the USA, most shooters are not shooting WFTF. In a true WFTF match, the smallest kill zones are 15mm (0.59"), while at USA AAFTA matches, the smallest kill zones are 3/8" (0.375").

    If you look at participation in the USA, especially at bigger matches, most are currently using holdover, rather than clicking (by a slim margin).

    So "Field target competitors, who shoot the smallest targets in unknown distances almost all click turrets" mostly use holdover.

    That's interesting. I didn't know that. I haven't followed FT for a very long time. To be honest in my original comment, I had WFTF style shooting in mind. 

    At the risk of hijacking the thread: Would you say it's feasible to use holdover for 12 fpe power level out to 50m? If so what kind of reticle would you choose? And what magnification do you use (in WFTF/ Open) for shooting vs ranging? Do you change magnification for standers and is that why you are shifting to/ use FFP scopes? 

    Thanks for the explanation. 

    Link

    Scotchmo
    Participant
    Member

    functor

     …

    At the risk of hijacking the thread: Would you say it's feasible to use holdover for 12 fpe power level out to 50m? If so what kind of reticle would you choose? And what magnification do you use (in WFTF/ Open) for shooting vs ranging? Do you change magnification for standers and is that why you are shifting to/ use FFP scopes? 

    Thanks for the explanation. 

    My current preference is to use a 1moa reticle and run at 24x magnification for shooting. Though I often turn it down for locating targets, and occasionally turn it down for shooting. I've always used holdover, even when shooting at 12fpe.

    I'm currently using 6-24×50 FFP moa/moa scopes. The selection of suitable scopes with those features is growing quickly. Even though I prefer to shoot at 24x max, I would likely get a higher mag scope, but most of the higher mag FFP scopes are lacking in some area (close focus/reticle/affordability/etc.)

    The only reason I would want greater than 24x would be if it improved focus range finding for FT.

    I've always used holdover, even when shooting at 12fpe, so it is possible. Whether it is preferable depends on the user/scope/situation.

     

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 22 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.