This scope stuff is driving me crazy... Need scope advise for a 10T .308

[keeki]

Doesn't really matter how high end the scope is, a ffp reticle is hard to see on low power and a dark colored animal when making quick shots. I guess if coyotes walked around with a big orange bullseye on them it wouldn't be as difficult. Of course my half blind eyes don't help much either

[LoneWolf]

That may be the key to the argument. I still have 20/15 vision. I love my FFP and with the big 56mm objective I don't have any issues. I never run lower than maybe 8-10x in most cases I'm around 15x. I rarely use 27x unless I'm trying to make out a target. Even if I was Varmint hunting I don't think I'd an issue with it. But I also shoot a few thousand rounds a year behind it in numerous situations. My skills at finding targets are very good!

Targets on this stage were all less then .5mils in diameter accept for target 1 that was a full size ipsc.

https://youtu.be/SbodfLWCNbY



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[keeki]

I won't argue the point of an ffp scope being better or worse for target shooting, because I personally think it's better. I just can't find love for it on varmints and critters

[LoneWolf]

I won't argue the point of an ffp scope being better or worse for target shooting, because I personally think it's better. I just can't find love for it on varmints and critters

Worst time I ever had was shooting a match with a SFP NF NXS on my buddy's 300WM that I borrowed for the day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sleeper99]

I will admit, I have a Leupold vx-6 SFP scope on my hunting rifle and a Leupold vx-3i LRP FFP scope on my long range target set up. So even though I claim to be solidly in the FFP camp, I have both for different purposes.

[Blackthorn]

I am a competitive F-Class shooter and the SFP is king. I am sure there are a few competitors that use FFP but I don't know any personally.
There is really no reason to use a FFP at known distances. I will admit though we luck out because target pullers give us instant feedback or even better we shoot electronic targets. I have tried a FFP in a mid range practice and found it covered the 1-1/2" spotting disc which sometimes is my aim point in heavy mirage.

As for field work I mainly shoot antelope at fair distances and always use SFP. I can range with the reticle for this purpose or use a laser range finder.

I can see the need for FFP in PRS and it fits the bill for that purpose. I have shot teamed AR/PR matches with my antelope rifle and done fairly well with a SFP. The AR we were using used a FFP. Having to range and shoot multiple targets in a set time limit I saw the benefit. Especially movers.

I guess it comes down to the game you shoot and what you find comfortable behind.

[yobuck]

Worst time I ever had was shooting a match with a SFP NF NXS on my buddy's 300WM that I borrowed for the day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well since your military and you mentioned what marine snipers are now using, I would ask if that is by choice?,
or its due to whats issued to them?
Id be willing to bet that if they were permitted to make choices on their own, there would be varying opinions of what each of them might choose.
Chris Kyle to my knowledge is still recognized as having the highest number of kills for an American sniper.
I read his book shortly after it became available, and frankly learned nothing from it other than some insite on Chris Kyle.
He makes no bones of the fact that his record is due to his number of opportunities made possible by the populated locations and his number of deployments to the prime areas for high kill numbers.
He had 4 rifles assigned to him, one was what we would refer to as a .223, a .308, a 300 Win mag, and a 338 Lapua.
He used Nightforce scopes, because that's no doubt what was issued to him along with his other equiptment.
But, and this was somewhat surprising to me, is the fact that (he did not dial the scope at all, for most of his shots/kills.)
His favorite rifle by far for that purpose was the 300 Win mag which he had predialed to 400 yds.
From there he just held up or down as the situation required.
Fact is he could have used pretty much any scope and no doubt been just as successful.
His much celebrated longest shot/kill beyond 2000 yds was with the 338 Lapua, for which he needed the reticle to make the distance.
And again, he makes no bones outright admitting it was a BS lucky shot.
Of coarse, he made no admission that there had ever been other such attemps that had failed.
Make up your mind many of those type attemps do in fact fail, regardless of the nationality of the shooter.
He knew his equiptment very well and how to use it, that's what made him successful and not because of any particular brand or type.

By the way folks, that old vintage late 60s era Bausch&Lomb Balvar 6x24 scope I used for decades prior to buying the Nightforce, was in fact a FFP scope.
So nothing really new here with that design.
It just we have a much larger market for them now days.

[LoneWolf]

Yobuck, most of the guys coming over to the Scout Sniper side are kids that could shoot well on the regular Marine Corps side, but have little to no long range experience. A new shooter can be trained much quicker on an FFP scope than a SFP scope especially when Sniper and Spotter are seeing nearly the same picture. Granted it didn't slow us down at all when SFP scopes were in use!

As far as your reference to Chris Kyle as stated the distances he was shooting and the cartridges he was chambered in it really didn't matter what he was using. Inside 500yds with a precision rifle people are big dumb slow targets.... especially when they don't know you're there watching them.

Let's not take away from CK's skill though as he was making shots while staring through the scope hours on top of hours in combat conditions. I don't even like FClass laying in the same position for a 20min string!

This is my final post on this thread:

To the OP: whether you choose FFP or SFP doesn't really matter. I lean to the FFP based on my knowledge and experience both personally as well as working with new shooters on a monthly basis. SFP will still do work! Anyways, the key is to take the gear you have and learn it like the back of your hand! Do that and you'll see what the draw backs in your equipment are for you personally. There is some arguing in this thread, but if you cut through the opinionated posts (myself included) you'll find a lot of info. Like the comments about eyesight, understanding reticle, and whether or not you're likely to use an feature offered in you purchase or not!

Happy Friday y'all and Happy Independence Day weekend! Go burn some powder, ring some steel, or cut tiny holes in some paper!

I have a match tomorrow and an article to get finished by the end of next week! So, I'll check in periodically over the weekend and holiday!

Out here- LW


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Charlie98]

Just an update...

I got a used Burris Veracity 4-20X50 in the mail today... FFP, Burris Ballistic Plex E1, MOA/MOA. It will get my feet wet and my rifle past 200yds. My brane is already leaking out my ears with the mathematics of it, but once I start using it, I think it will make more sense.

Thanks to everyone for your input... I'm not sure why some of my posts (not just here) wind up in a squabble, I guess I just ask the right questions.

[RC20]

I don't get the thing about crappy Warne Rings

Most of my stuff is Warne and its rock solid, reasonable cost

[Robinhood]

I started to reply to this in detail, but then I remembered that trying to have an open and honest discussion with you is like talking to a brick wall due to your closed-mindedness and overly high regard for your own opinion, so I'm just going to leave it lay.


:rofl:


I don't get the thing about crappy Warne Rings

Most of my stuff is Warne and its rock solid, reasonable cost

Yep.

[Charlie98]

I don't get the thing about crappy Warne Rings

Most of my stuff is Warne and its rock solid, reasonable cost

The Warne rings I had my Bushnell mounted with were very, very difficult to setup. Two piece rings you had to clamp to the rail and the scope at the same time. When I tried to torque the top of the rings, the scope kept turning in the rings.

These rings... (https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1592119587/warne-30mm-maxima-permanent-attachable-weaver-style-rings)

[earl39]

That type ring sux no matter who makes it.
As to you original question. For KNOWN distance a SFP scope is fine but for UNKNOWN distance without using a range finder but having KNOWN target size the FFP scopes work great. Each has it's weakness and it's place where it shines. You now have a scope to try so get out and try it. Go to some matches and see how it works and what type scope the other shooters are using. If you plan on only shooting known distance don't worry about what unknown distance shooters are using and vice versa. Enjoy what you have and good luck. Please remember 168's for the most part from a 308 don't do good past about 750 yards depending on velocity.

[yobuck]

That type ring sux no matter who makes it.
As to you original question. For KNOWN distance a SFP scope is fine but for UNKNOWN distance without using a range finder but having KNOWN target size the FFP scopes work great. Each has it's weakness and it's place where it shines. You now have a scope to try so get out and try it. Go to some matches and see how it works and what type scope the other shooters are using. If you plan on only shooting known distance don't worry about what unknown distance shooters are using and vice versa. Enjoy what you have and good luck. Please remember 168's for the most part from a 308 don't do good past about 750 yards depending on velocity.

Earl, trust me when I say I'm not a bragger or a big mouth as I have been accused of here.
I'm simply an 82 year old man who has been doing this stuff for a very long time.
My shooting ability isn't any better than yours, or others who have been following this.
I made the statement in an earlier post that the type scope really makes no difference for most shooters.
And the fact is it dosent, as for hitting targets at long distances from your basic zero point.
I also made mention of the (one shot zero method).
Do you and others here know what that means?
I would suggest using a large target, the larger the better, say a full sheet of plywood propped up with a smaller target in the middle as an aiming point.
We are fortunate in that we use the side of a mountain, with a small rock as an aiming point.
And shooting at a steep mountainside would be like shooting darts at the board on a wall as opposed to it laying on the floor.
Anyway, place that target as far away as possible from your shooting position, but 3 or 400 hundred yards would work, and for that distance, don't add any elevation to the scope from your basic 100 yd zero, just shoot at the target.
Now look to see where the shot landed, and lets just say it landed 12" low and 6" to the right of where you held for the shot.
Now you will again line up the gun with the scope on the original aiming point, AND (WITHOUT MOVING THE GUN), DIAL THE SCOPE TO WHERE THE BULLET HIT.
I repeat, (WITHOUT MOVING THE GUN), dial to the hit.
Now Earl, assuming you followed those instructions, where do you think your second shot will be?
That's how my 15 year old granddaughter killed that buck with a sfp scope and no rangefinder.
You can also use that system to zero your gun initially at what ever distance you choose for a zero.
Trust me it takes no special skill to do that, just knowing how its done is all it takes.
But like driving stick shift cars, its no longer taught.
I'm not advocating not using a rangefinder, and not dialing as accurately as possible before taking a shot.
But knowing how to use a scope to get the results you need is all that really matters for most shooting situations.
You might even have an enjoyable time hitting targets you don't know the distance of by using that method, and become very familiar with the scope at the same time.
Guess the distance, then hit the target with as few shots as possible.
You might even get good enough at it to have fun with a friend who is serious a first round cold bore shooter. Naah, lol

[darkker]

I started to reply to this in detail, but then I remembered that trying to have an open and honest discussion with you is like talking to a brick wall due to your closed-mindedness and overly high regard for your own opinion, so I'm just going to leave it lay.


A good discussion is when you have a different point of view than someone else, both parties believing they have an easier way around a problem. So you discuss out your viewpoints and perhaps change someones mind, perhaps not. Maybe you get an interesting notion from it or another way to see it, maybe you don't.
A bad discussion is when you keep a tally of who doesn't see the world the same way you do, and choose to use personal insults because of it.
One way is helpful to the OP as he can see different viewpoints concerning his question, and form his own opinion on the matter regardless of what he chooses. The other way scares him into a choice so he doesn't end up on someones potential list for insults.

Disagree with someone or agree with them and it's all good. Insult them because you disagree with them, and you'll end up with a nasty forum before you know it.

[earl39]

yobuck why do you want to try to drag me into the rather warm discussion you are having with others? I mentioned no names and said nothing bad about what anyone has said. But just to answer your question. Yes i know where the bullet should hit PROVIDED the gun doesn't move. Sighting in a scope is not something that only a few people know how to do.

[J.Baker]

I think it's safe to say this thread has run it's course.