Classic Yobuck, starts mis-spelling my name when he's mad.
With as loudly as you bash the FP argument or at least bash FFP, it would appear that you do care what someone chooses. I disagree with you on this or that, but that's what this is about anyhow.
The thing I do find a bit odd with your view on this topic as it pops up a few times, you still don't seem to grasp the actual operation, and fundamental differences between the two when telling people your view.
Unless you don't want to, I'm not sure why the understanding seems to escape. So I don't have to re-type, and perhaps to offer another way of explanation to anyone interested; I'm stealing this from a post by MZ5.
MZ5 said:
My experience has been that most shooters prefer what they're used to. That applies both to mils vs minutes, and to SFP vs FFP. I frequently see people expound the virtues of their preference, but very rarely see a decent comparison of where or when each offers functional advantage. The below assumes that the FFP scope has a regularly-marked reticle (mil-dots, 2-MOA hashes, etc.). It is also crucial that the scope's adjustment increments match the markings. Combining a mil-dot reticle with moa adjustment clicks is unforgivably stupid.
Significant instances where FFP has the advantage in a variable-power scope:
-- Quick adjustments for windage or lead, in the field, especially on fast movers like coyotes. Doesn't matter whether you dial or hold, whether you're at low, medium, or high magnification, FFP ALWAYS gives you an accurate mil/moa scale with which to adjust.
-- Multiple targets at multiple ranges, under time pressure (eg. multiple critters, possibly scattering, or you're at a match firing against the clock). FFP allows you to adjust hold-over or hold-off very rapidly regardless of magnification.
Significant instances where SFP has the advantage in a variable-power scope:
-- Shooting at high magnification on very small targets. A FFP reticle can be made to work well here, too, but then it will likely be un-useful at low magnification unless your erector has a very low zoom ratio.
There are other situations, either fairly minor or unusual, where FFP has at least theoretical or potential advantages, but I see these as the majors. I can't honestly think of even any other minor instances where SFP has a functional advantage.
FFP is a bit more expensive to build correctly/accurately, and as many already know, a fixed-power scope makes SFP vs FFP moot.
Basically, then, FFP is functionally superior when flexibility or speed are of high importance. SPF is _generally_ functionally superior at very high mag on very small targets.
Bookmarks