About FFP scopes

[chetc]

was looking at the primary Arms PA4-14XFFP scope, since i never tried a FFP type scope, if i understand the concept, it would be as i turned up the power the crosshairs would thhicken too, so as i said i never looked thru these type of scopes, would it hamper target shooting at 200 & 300yds at high power

Chet

[LoneWolf]

The lines get larger because the reticle is being magnified so that it's values hold true through the entire magnification range. For most the complaint is that at lower power the reticle is almost unusable as it get smaller, Some reticles have thinner lines than others, so it depends on you. Trying to shoot 1/4"-1" dots at 100, 200, 300yds may be difficult with a low end FFP. Shooting 1 MOA or larger targets should be no problem though. If you are set on an FFP and wish to shoot tiny targets than I recommend trying to find one that offers a reticle with an open center or open center with a dot.

[darkker]

LoneWolf is correct.
I have that very PA scope. They aren't "thick" to me, but I suppose that is a preference deal.

Honestly if you want to shoot to 200-300 yards only, there really isn't much correction needed, so dialing isn't really a big thing. But you can always just adjust the magnification.
I like FFP scopes because the magnification doesn't matter, in terms of adjustment. Any distance, any magnification, dialing a correction ALWAYS matches the reticle. Whether sighting-in, or just adjusting for missed shots. There is a YouTube video from PA, showing the reticle during adjustment.

The PA to me is a nicer Reticle in terms of size, than most of the Vortex line; but again may be a preference deal.

[DrThunder88]

The subtension of the crosshairs themselves is 0.088mil, which is a little over 3 inches at 1000 yards. At 200 or 300 yard, you're looking at something 0.6 and 1 inch wide respectively.

[sharpshooter]

For punching paper at known distances, go with a SFP.

[darkker]

The only problem I have with the argument about the subtension size, or probably more correctly, the subtension on a SFP argument. Admittedly it has been a spell since I even looked at any SFP scope. But they never listed what the subtension size was, and frankly it would change relative to the target anyway. So unless you stay only on one power, you have to use wheels or a calculator for knowing how to correct the shot. Then you need to keep the calculator out to figure against the subtension arguement.

To each his own, but I don't want to pack two different sun dials with me when I go shooting, just so I know what my bullets do relative to my scope. I'd rather watch and correct.

[Iowa Fox]

For punching paper at known distances, go with a SFP.

Yes for sure.

I have and use them both, they both have a special purpose. Sharpshooter offers good advice.

[Zero333]

Pic of my Bush. ET XRS at 30x pointing at 328 yard gongs...
Took the pic with my cellphone that's a few years old. If it ain't broken, why replace it.

Center cross hairs look thin enough to drill 1/4 moa groups.

http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr8/Zero333/IMAG0917_zpsbpdph4rh.jpg

[m12lrs]

Personally I like SFP Scopes.

The only advantage the FFP scopes have is this ranging thing. You can do the same ranging with a SFP scope.but.only at one power. Usually the highest

Personally I had rather range with my laser range finder. Not sure how accurate I could.be guessing how big.something is and bracketing it between the lines to see how far it.is.

Guess it is like mils. and moa personal choice

[yobuck]

Personally I like SFP Scopes.

The only advantage the FFP scopes have is this ranging thing. You can do the same ranging with a SFP scope.but.only at one power. Usually the highest

Personally I had rather range with my laser range finder. Not sure how accurate I could.be guessing how big.something is and bracketing it between the lines to see how far it.is.

Guess it is like mils. and moa personal choice

You probably do know how accurate you could be. But unlike me, your trying not to offend anyone lol.
You appear old enough to remember hunting scopes like Redfield having the separate reticle for (RANGING).
You simply used the power adjustment to fit the animal between the 2 lines.
It worked so well it probably helped them go out of business.
All that was before lazer range finders were available at least for public use. Today, only an armchair hunter or a fool
would prefer to use a reticle for ranging while hunting.

[huntin1]

There is nothing wrong with FFP scopes, but then there is nothing wrong with SFP scopes either. I use SFP, and I don't carry wheels, a calculator and 2 sundials. I do carry a laser rangefinder, a windmeter and a range card that shows comeups and windage adjustments. The rangecard was made using my own dope from thousands of rounds downrange.

I'll go one step further, my scopes have mildot reticle and MOA adjustments, dang, ain't I a rebel. :)

Seriously, either works well, pick one and learn it.

And I agree with yobuck, with the proliferation of affordable laser rangefinders, precise yardage is available in a matter of seconds. I personally see no reason to use a reticle for ranging in a hunting situation. But, to each their own.

[Scott Evans]

There's one big advantage to a fine grid or decent christmas tree FFP, and that is 2nd shot corrections mostly due to misjudging wind first round. FFP come into play when you are able to memorize a drop chart and not have to do math in your head. 2nd shot correction only works well on low recoil rifles where you never lose sight and can keep scope on target to see the hit. Or happen to have a spotter working with the same grid. Optical ranging very small objects like prairie dogs doesn't work very well. Fenceposts, coyote or deer sized critters its OK.

[yobuck]

There's one big advantage to a fine grid or decent christmas tree FFP, and that is 2nd shot corrections mostly due to misjudging wind first round. FFP come into play when you are able to memorize a drop chart and not have to do math in your head. 2nd shot correction only works well on low recoil rifles where you never lose sight and can keep scope on target to see the hit. Or happen to have a spotter working with the same grid. Optical ranging very small objects like prairie dogs doesn't work very well. Fenceposts, coyote or deer sized critters its OK.

I guess I'm confused, but admittedly that's not unusual lol.
But without seeing the hit, the type of scope, type of reticle, or anything else will help with a follow up shot.
And if you have seen the hit, and know what to do about it, those things wont matter either.
As for the spotter, virtually all hunters in PA where I hunt use the spotter system.
That said, ive known some who have tried attaching a matching scope to their tripod mounted glasses and ultimatly abandoned the idea.
Again, lots of things sound good in theory, but nothing beats actual on the job experience at the location involved.

[yorketransport]

I'm partial to FFP MIL scopes these days. A well done FFP scope will have a reticle that's usable through the entire power range. I'm not familiar with the Primary Arms scopes so I'm not sure on those, but I've used FFP scopes from Bushnell, Leupold, NF and Vortex and they've all worked pretty well. The Leupold TMR reticle is one of my favorites with the NF MIL-R being the top of the list.

Using a FFP scope I can spot my own hits and make corrections regardless of magnification setting. This is a big help when the conditions won't allow full magnification because mirage. I can spot my own hits and make corrections using my scope faster than my spotter can keep up most of the time. I was out last weekend shooting at 2600 yards and I was able to spot my miss and make a correction using the reticle in the scope before my spotter was able to give me an adjustment call. Of course the time of flight is more than 4 seconds, so I practically have time to make a sandwich before the bullet hits! LOL

[yobuck]

I'm partial to FFP MIL scopes these days. A well done FFP scope will have a reticle that's usable through the entire power range. I'm not familiar with the Primary Arms scopes so I'm not sure on those, but I've used FFP scopes from Bushnell, Leupold, NF and Vortex and they've all worked pretty well. The Leupold TMR reticle is one of my favorites with the NF MIL-R being the top of the list.

Using a FFP scope I can spot my own hits and make corrections regardless of magnification setting. This is a big help when the conditions won't allow full magnification because mirage. I can spot my own hits and make corrections using my scope faster than my spotter can keep up most of the time. I was out last weekend shooting at 2600 yards and I was able to spot my miss and make a correction using the reticle in the scope before my spotter was able to give me an adjustment call. Of course the time of flight is more than 4 seconds, so I practically have time to make a sandwich before the bullet hits! LOL

All good, but the message seems to be saying that's not as possible with anything but a ffp scope.
Fact is shooters were doing just that long before ffp scopes became popular.
Wether its 500 yds or 3000 yds is meaningless as to the importance of seeing a hit.
And, the fact also is that seeing hits at all wont be possible at extreme distances in some places regardless of equiptment due to conditions.
Ask yourself if you saw the actual hit, or a dust cloud caused by the hit?
So go shoot someplace or on a day where there will be no dust clouds at that distance and report back. lol
Mind you I'm not attempting to minimize your accomplishment, only the theory, and also to call attention to various conditions we might shoot under. See the hit, and the rest is easy, regardless of scope choice.
As for the spotter, he will only be as good as what he is looking thru to call shots even with a high end spotting scope.
Cover one eye and look around for a few hours to get some idea of what I'm talking about.

[soutthpaw]

Thou might consider a different "crosshair" as others mentioned. So the actual center is not obstructed.

[yorketransport]

All good, but the message seems to be saying that's not as possible with anything but a ffp scope.
Fact is shooters were doing just that long before ffp scopes became popular.
Wether its 500 yds or 3000 yds is meaningless as to the importance of seeing a hit.
And, the fact also is that seeing hits at all wont be possible at extreme distances in some places regardless of equiptment due to conditions.
Ask yourself if you saw the actual hit, or a dust cloud caused by the hit?
So go shoot someplace or on a day where there will be no dust clouds at that distance and report back. lol
Mind you I'm not attempting to minimize your accomplishment, only the theory, and also to call attention to various conditions we might shoot under. See the hit, and the rest is easy, regardless of scope choice.
As for the spotter, he will only be as good as what he is looking thru to call shots even with a high end spotting scope.
Cover one eye and look around for a few hours to get some idea of what I'm talking about.

Because of conditions, I don't always get to shoot with the optic on max power. Instead of being at 25x, I may need to back down to something like 18x to get a clear view. In those cases it's a lot easier to measure corrections with the scope if it's FFP instead of having to do a correction to figure out what the value of the measurements in the reticle are when it's at 72% power.

For spotting hits, I'm pretty lucky. I usually get to shoot at rock faces where I can see my actual impact marks on the rock. Like you said though, it gets pretty tricky if you need to spot impacts in wet conditions when you don't get a good "splash". On the rare occasions when I do have somebody along to spot for me he gets the pleasure of looking through the Swaro ATS 85mm. When he's not there and I'm shooting something where I can't spot my own hits because of recoil, I run a GoPro through the Swaro to record my shots so I can go back and review the video to see where I hit. Interestingly enough, I can spot my hits with both the CheyTacs, just not the other Strikers.

[yobuck]

Well the Swaro is at least arguably, as good as it gets as for spotting scopes.
But we could have the same debate over spotters as were having over scopes, and not be far wrong about our choice.
But that's not the answer to the issue of spotting shots.
Do you also happen to own a very good as in expensive, set of large hand held binoculars, say like a 15x56 swaro?