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

FFP v. SFP

Here's a thought, seriously.

Get a a Primary Arms 4-14 (or whatever it is) with FFP for about $250 and a variable SFP from SWFA for about $350. (or something similar) Both of these companies make decent scopes for the money and have good resale value. Maybe a fixed SS 10x from SWFA and a maybe even a Weaver T36.

Shoot them all and decide for yourself which you prefer. Sell what you don't want. If you are like me, you'll end up keeping them because, depending on the circumstances and the gun, you'll find they are all pretty dang good but none of them are ideal for every situation. Soon you'll want a different rifle for each scope. :)

If this is totally not doable, then get a SWFA SS 10X. It works.

I have now used both FFP and SFP scopes.... I find that I prefer the FFP over the SFP for my shooting applications thus far (P-dogs and paper both at distance). I have not found the FFP reticle to be too "big" for fine work, but I have the floating dot in the middle of my crosshairs rather than posts.

As of right now, the only reason I would go back to a SFP is for the "super extreme long range shooting" where you need the subtensions to increase as you lower the magnification, in the event that I don't have enough adjustment on the elevation turret.

I'm not likely to ever shoot past 1000 yards (if that) So I don't forsee ever needing to go back to a SFP.

However, for a regular old hunting rifle and brush beater I'll still use the trusted old SFP... set it about 1.5 inches high @ 100 yards and leave it. (200 yard max).

Here's the point of my argument against the "everyone should just buy a FFP" trend...

Vortex Viper PST 5x24x50mm FFP with EBR-2C(moa) reticle

• Good reticle design - offers hash marks every 2 MOA
• Major hash marks every 4 MOA with windage dot every 1 MOA
• Minor hash marks every 2 MOA between majors, no windage dots
• At 6x magnification the reticle is sometimes hard to pick out from the background due to how thin it is and it covers roughly 1/2 the overall field of view. That said, all of the hash marks are still separated enough to be usable for ranging or hold-off.
• Above what I estimate to be about 14 or 15x magnification, you loose the full range of the reticle (36 MOA below center crosshair)
• At 24x the last viewable hash mark on the lower vertical is 24 MOA

6x Magnification	14x Magnification	24x Magnification
Attachment 3319	Attachment 3320	Attachment 3321

On this scope the reticle is still usable at the lowest power. I wouldn't say it's ideal for use at low power as usually that means close-in moving targets (i.e. a running coyote) and the thinness of the crosshair at 6x makes the reticle very difficult to see on the move. At high magnification the reticle works well as the lines are thin, but you do lose 1/3 of the available holdover range. The reason the reticle is good at high power is also why it's poor at low power - the manufacturer has to make a decision as to what power they want the reticle to work best at with a given magnification range. That's the limitation of FFP reticles, they're not always going to be as useful or beneficial at ALL magnification levels in all scopes - just like SFP reticles.

On a side note, this reminds me I need to contact Vortex to see what the deal is with my reticle being off-center. Note in the 14x mag. image above that the ends of the thicker outer bars are visible on the left and bottom, but not the right. On the 24x view you can see to the left the 24 MOA hash is visible, while on the right the 22 MOA hash is the last visible.


NightForce SHV 4-14x50mm F1 FFP with MOAR (moa) reticle

• Fairly simple reticle design - offers hash marks every 1 MOA starting at 2 MOA from center crosshair
• Major hash marks ever 2 MOA
• Minor hash marks every 1 MOA
• No "Christmas Tree" providing windage holds
• At 4x magnification the reticle is very small and covers roughly 1/4 of the field-of-view. 1 MOA hash mark spacing makes them fairly useless as they are to close together, but the longer 10, 20 and 30 MOA hash marks are still effective.
• At 14x magnificaion the reticle takes up roughly 3/4 the field-of-view and works well.

4x Magnification	14x Magnification
Attachment 3322	Attachment 3323

On the NightForce the reticle is easier to see at minimal power (4x) due to it's being slightly heavier, but it might as well just be a duplex as the hash marks are all squashed together and just look like a solid jagged line. At max magnification (14x) you still have use of the full range of hold over offered by the reticle, though given it only takes up 3/4 of the FOV I would guess they scaled it for the higher power 20X version of the SHV. Again, the scaling plays a roll in where the most useful magnification range of the reticle will be.


Leupold VX-3i LRP 8.5-25x50mm FFP with TMR (MIL) reticle

• Failry simple reticle design - offers hash marks every 1/2 MIL
• Major hash marks every 1 MIL
• Minor hash marks every .5 MIL
• Minor hash marks every 0.2 MIL at outer end of all 4 axis
• No "Christmas Tree" providing windage holds
• At 8.5x magnification the reticle is very fine and covers roughly 1/3 the field-of-view. Major and Minor hash marks are all easily discernable and usable.
• At 25x magnifiation the takes up roughly 3/4 of the field-of-view.

8.5x Magnification	25x Magnification
Attachment 3324	Attachment 3325

The larger measuring unit (MIL) and higher minimum power of the Leupold makes the reticle much more usable than both the Vortex and NightForce MOA units IMO at it's lowest setting. The downside of that of course is you have a more course adjustment that's less precise for precision shooting (1/4 MOA - .25975"; 0.1 MIL = .36") - that's a difference of 1" per click at 1,000 yards. The higher low-end magnification also means it will be much less useful for shorter range work, especially on moving targets. The full reticle is also still completely visible at max magnification (other than the rather pointless 5 MIL hash on the thick outer bars) so you're not giving anything up at 25x like on the PST.


Everyone brings up that you can only range with a SFP reticle at one magnification, but they never want to mention that often times the benefit of a FFP reticle disappears at some magnification range simply due to how the reticle is scaled and/or if that scale is suitable for the magnification range offered by that particular scope. This is especially true with FFP scopes that have a higher magnification factor with a wider magnification range (like the currently trending 5x and 6x multiplier options).

On the other hand, with a SFP scope you will always have full view of the reticle and all of it's hold over points, but the distance between those points will change. Most are calibrated to range at max magnification (let's say 24x in this example). So lets say at 24x the hash marks are 1 MOA apart. You're not limited to only ranging at that magnification though; you can also range at 12x where the hash marks would be 2 MOA apart, or at 6x where the hash marks would be 4 MOA apart. The notion that you can only scale at one magnification is a farce, you just have to be a little smarter than the average rock.

I'm not arguing that SFP is better than FFP, or vise-versa. I own both and think each has it's place and each has it's own pro's and con's given a specific application of use. As stated, a lot of that depends on how well the reticle design works with the magnification range of the FFP scope it's in and the reticle's scaling (hash mark spacing).

The same reticle design in a SFP scope is just as useful and beneficial for ranging and measuring misses as it is in a FFP scope. The same reticle in a SFP scope will let you measure them just the same. If you're shot splashes in the dirt two hash marks low and one to the left, you hold over two hash marks and one to the left on the next shot. Two hash marks at a given magnification on a SFP is always going to be two hash marks at that magnification and whether you're hunting or shooting timed competition you're not going to waste time dialing in clicks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFurious

1) Here's the point of my argument against the "everyone should just buy a FFP" trend...
2) Everyone brings up that you can only range with a SFP reticle at one magnification, but they never want to mention that often times the benefit of a FFP reticle disappears at some magnification range simply due to how the reticle is scaled and/or if that scale is suitable for the magnification range offered by that particular scope. This is especially true with FFP scopes that have a higher magnification factor with a wider magnification range (like the currently trending 5x and 6x multiplier options).
3) On the other hand, with a SFP scope you will always have full view of the reticle and all of it's hold over points, but the distance between those points will change. Most are calibrated to range at max magnification (let's say 24x in this example). So lets say at 24x the hash marks are 1 MOA apart. You're not limited to only ranging at that magnification though; you can also range at 12x where the hash marks would be 2 MOA apart, or at 6x where the hash marks would be 4 MOA apart. The notion that you can only scale at one magnification is a farce, you just have to be a little smarter than the average rock.

---

1) It's only a "trend" if you are a Merrican shooter, they are and have been widely adapted in Europe. Our market is the one late to the dance.
2) This is a double edged sword. If you want to accurately gauge how far off the mark your shot was, then at a magnification other than what the SFP was calibrated for; it is also subject to your complaint of less desirable. Nothing is perfect, but this is a dishonest example since it applies to both.
3) This confuses me, unless you have an unbelieveably cheap scope, you Never lose part of the reticle in the FFP with magnification. IF and you better be sure they tell you this, IF your scope is actually a 5-24X then you could scale it. The trouble is that many scopes are never that precise, like Leupy, they never exactly match, nor is the mag ring exact enough for you to linearly do that. If you like guessing and approximating, then it is close. If you don't want to tinker, guess, and approximate then get a FFP.

Also lets be honest about what the OP wants. Since he is just starting out, a variable with a top end in the stated 24X range; that will be a supremely expensive scope, if you actually want optics with any form of clarity.
A guy who wants to learn and get past 100 yards is great, but I can't in good conscience tell him to go drop $1-3,000 on a scope. When you children first get their driving license, do you go buy them a $70,000 car?

Significant instances where FFP has the advantage in a variable-power scope:
--Quick adjustments for wind or lead. Especially if you are chasing a fast mover like coyotes or prarie dogs. You can hold or dial without looking at power and deciding how to math it out for actual difference. Your scope is always correct.
--Multiple targets at multiple ranges. Whether against the clock at a match, or multiple critters and likely scattering. You can adjust by sound of clicks or hold regardless of your magnification. You also have instant feedback on how far off your shot was, without having to look at the magnification and do your math to decide how far off the mark you were.

Significant instances where SFP has the advantage in a variable-power scope:
--Shooting at very high magnification with very small targets. While a FFP reticle can also work well here, as you pointed out the low mag size is less than desirable. But this is more of a fixed bullseye shooting situation.

FFP is more expensive to build correctly or accurately. As many of you already know, a fixed-power scope makes the whole FFP/SFP a moot point.
Functionally, SFP has no widespread advantages. If as you stated you can't be bothered to waste time dialing a correction, you REALLY can't be bothered to then look at your magnification ring, do the quick mental memory of how close to stated your scopes magnification is, then quickly decide how far off your SFP reticle is from reality and correct. You are bordering on trying to have it both ways in your argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkker

1) It's only a "trend" if you are a Merrican shooter, they are and have been widely adapted in Europe. Our market is the one late to the dance.
2) This is a double edged sword. If you want to accurately gauge how far off the mark your shot was, then at a magnification other than what the SFP was calibrated for; it is also subject to your complaint of less desirable. Nothing is perfect, but this is a dishonest example since it applies to both.
3) This confuses me, unless you have an unbelieveably cheap scope, you Never lose part of the reticle in the FFP with magnification. IF and you better be sure they tell you this, IF your scope is actually a 5-24X then you could scale it. The trouble is that many scopes are never that precise, like Leupy, they never exactly match, nor is the mag ring exact enough for you to linearly do that. If you like guessing and approximating, then it is close. If you don't want to tinker, guess, and approximate then get a FFP.

Also lets be honest about what the OP wants. Since he is just starting out, a variable with a top end in the stated 24X range; that will be a supremely expensive scope, if you actually want optics with any form of clarity.
A guy who wants to learn and get past 100 yards is great, but I can't in good conscience tell him to go drop $1-3,000 on a scope. When you children first get their driving license, do you go buy them a $70,000 car?

Significant instances where FFP has the advantage in a variable-power scope:
--Quick adjustments for wind or lead. Especially if you are chasing a fast mover like coyotes or prarie dogs. You can hold or dial without looking at power and deciding how to math it out for actual difference. Your scope is always correct.
--Multiple targets at multiple ranges. Whether against the clock at a match, or multiple critters and likely scattering. You can adjust by sound of clicks or hold regardless of your magnification. You also have instant feedback on how far off your shot was, without having to look at the magnification and do your math to decide how far off the mark you were.

Significant instances where SFP has the advantage in a variable-power scope:
--Shooting at very high magnification with very small targets. While a FFP reticle can also work well here, as you pointed out the low mag size is less than desirable. But this is more of a fixed bullseye shooting situation.

FFP is more expensive to build correctly or accurately. As many of you already know, a fixed-power scope makes the whole FFP/SFP a moot point.
Functionally, SFP has no widespread advantages. If as you stated you can't be bothered to waste time dialing a correction, you REALLY can't be bothered to then look at your magnification ring, do the quick mental memory of how close to stated your scopes magnification is, then quickly decide how far off your SFP reticle is from reality and correct. You are bordering on trying to have it both ways in your argument.

---

Darker! I commend you! This is the best post you have conjured up since you jumped on this forum and exactly the point I was trying to make! People who regularly shoot at distance whether in recreation or high level competition get this! This is why I haven't seen an SFP scope in the hands of a Marine Scout Sniper over the last 5-6years of my career! FFP just makes the whole experience easier and more enjoyable!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkker

1) It's only a "trend" if you are a Merrican shooter, they are and have been widely adapted in Europe. Our market is the one late to the dance.
2) This is a double edged sword. If you want to accurately gauge how far off the mark your shot was, then at a magnification other than what the SFP was calibrated for; it is also subject to your complaint of less desirable. Nothing is perfect, but this is a dishonest example since it applies to both.
3) This confuses me, unless you have an unbelieveably cheap scope, you Never lose part of the reticle in the FFP with magnification. IF and you better be sure they tell you this, IF your scope is actually a 5-24X then you could scale it. The trouble is that many scopes are never that precise, like Leupy, they never exactly match, nor is the mag ring exact enough for you to linearly do that. If you like guessing and approximating, then it is close. If you don't want to tinker, guess, and approximate then get a FFP.

Also lets be honest about what the OP wants. Since he is just starting out, a variable with a top end in the stated 24X range; that will be a supremely expensive scope, if you actually want optics with any form of clarity.
A guy who wants to learn and get past 100 yards is great, but I can't in good conscience tell him to go drop $1-3,000 on a scope. When you children first get their driving license, do you go buy them a $70,000 car?

Significant instances where FFP has the advantage in a variable-power scope:
--Quick adjustments for wind or lead. Especially if you are chasing a fast mover like coyotes or prarie dogs. You can hold or dial without looking at power and deciding how to math it out for actual difference. Your scope is always correct.
--Multiple targets at multiple ranges. Whether against the clock at a match, or multiple critters and likely scattering. You can adjust by sound of clicks or hold regardless of your magnification. You also have instant feedback on how far off your shot was, without having to look at the magnification and do your math to decide how far off the mark you were.

Significant instances where SFP has the advantage in a variable-power scope:
--Shooting at very high magnification with very small targets. While a FFP reticle can also work well here, as you pointed out the low mag size is less than desirable. But this is more of a fixed bullseye shooting situation.

FFP is more expensive to build correctly or accurately. As many of you already know, a fixed-power scope makes the whole FFP/SFP a moot point.
Functionally, SFP has no widespread advantages. If as you stated you can't be bothered to waste time dialing a correction, you REALLY can't be bothered to then look at your magnification ring, do the quick mental memory of how close to stated your scopes magnification is, then quickly decide how far off your SFP reticle is from reality and correct. You are bordering on trying to have it both ways in your argument.

---

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.

I shoot, and I shoot a lot. I hate FFP scopes. Especially those with busy reticles. The majority of my hunting is long range and if I am shooting for fun it's even longer. I have no problem being able to tell how far off I am even with a simple duplex reticle. I do however have a hard time seeing what I am aiming at when the stupid reticle is 20x bigger than it needs to be.

That's the reason I went back to sfp, just too hard to use on varmints at close range because the reticle is small and busy

Above statements are the difference between a highend FFP and low end FFP. I don't have any of those issues and never did whether it was the fixed SWFA, Gen 1 Razor, or the Gen 2 Razor I have now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is starting to get really good. lol
Thank you Mr mcFurious.

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

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.

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

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.

I don't get the thing about crappy Warne Rings

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFurious

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:

Quote:

---

I don't get the thing about crappy Warne Rings

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

---

Yep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RC20

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFurious

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.

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.

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