Ffp

I really wasn't advocating anything...just clearing up some misinformation about sfp scopes in general. But seeing as you asked, the Z-1000 was designed specifically for a 308...the 800 or 600 were designed to work on a broad range of cartridges and loads but you are correct you must use the optimum magnification for your load and cartridge. That's how the system works. I've never killed anything beyond 612 yards with one so I can't speak beyond that distance but for ranges to 600 yards it's very accurate in my experience...well at least closeish enough for something with say a 4" kill zone. Obviously it needs to be range truthed but once you have your magnification, it'll hit where you point it. It's a hunting reticle for sure that is basically brain dead to use and it's very fast. I'm not really sure what the limitations are other than you may be using less than max magnification, depending on your load. The thing I like about it is that other than remembering to set the magnification, there's nothing to do but point and shoot. I just like the simplicity for hunting that an sfp reticle offers in a hunting situation...some like to diddle more and that's fine....I don't. I do own a few FFP scopes as well but they are limited to paper, short range and varmints for me...they work well but do require fiddling.
 
Last edited:
Personally I'm not much of a fan of BDC reticles. They're calibrated for specific loads under specific atmospheric conditions and won't be as accurate when used outside those conditions. I can see how they're useful for caveman simplicity, but when it comes to precision I'd much rather have a hash marked or mil-dot scope. Zero it, set your zero stops, then you can either dial in DOPE or use holdovers.
 
Paladin308 said:
Personally I'm not much of a fan of BDC reticles. They're calibrated for specific loads under specific atmospheric conditions and won't be as accurate when used outside those conditions. I can see how they're useful for caveman simplicity, but when it comes to precision I'd much rather have a hash marked or mil-dot scope. Zero it, set your zero stops, then you can either dial in DOPE or use holdovers.
Click to expand...

Certainly there are a couple manufacturers of load specific reticles but the vast majority of sfp reticles aren't and can be calibrated for a wide variety of loads and cartridges by running the numbers in the computer and adjusting the magnification accordingly. You can adjust for elevation and temperature changes as well with a slight magnification tweak....you are correct, it is pure caveman simplicity at its finest.
 
Last edited:
shredon said:
Can someone please tell me why so many people are jumping on this ffp bus? At 500 yrds my retical covered my 5" gong. Sold that scope and will never look back.

For ranging in the military, I get it. but out in the bush..? what size is that rock,ridge, tree.


pointless for ranging I think, Only gets you a close guess which could be a miss at distance. Laser rangefinder and SFP for me .
Click to expand...

I offer Sightron scopes which now have just about any configuration under the sun. Why? Consumers demand it.

Do all of them make sense? consumers demand it.

I get this question asked to me pretty much every week. NO right or wrong. Just tools with varying application. There are a zillion minor points but I keep it simple as follows:

Yes, the FFP is really based on military need for ranging in the field. BUT for them, close enough is good enough. No different then the MRAD system vs MOA.

Why FFP? For your needs, you vary your magnification through its entire range AND need to be able to maintain constant reticle subtension either to range or account for bullet impact. Time or rules do not allow for rangefinders. The goal is almost always hit the larger target anywhere to score - game is typically hit or miss. Ranges vary from close to mid range (600m). A time element may be part of this game as can movement.

Compromises - you are willing to accept that the reticle at full mag will likely be heavier and obscure the target more BUT you typical shoot at "larger" targets and only concerned with HITTING the target. The reticle at low mag may be too small to see the various markings well but the goal when used is point and shoot. Usually cost more.

Otherwise, SFP scopes will serve you just as well/better.

MRAD vs MOA

if your background or game is based on 36" multiples, the MRAD works. Willing to accept coarse adjustments the further you go. Targets are typically large and fine adjustment on target using the clicks is not important.

If you are paper target shooting, ALL competitions especially LR are based on MOA for scaling. Most everyone in the LR sport will communicate in MOA. The further you go, the finer the click value desired and MOA is the finest click out there at this time.

There is so much more but this covers the basis for my customers to get a good feel on the direction they want to pursue. The big one I really work towards is to ensure the reticle subtension and click value use the same units. MRAD/MRAD or MOA/MOA. There are MRAD/MOA scopes which are a boon doggle and will hopefully all be discontinued.

AND you always, always, always confirm both click value and reticle subtension at the range using known indicators. Scopes can vary in their subtension and click value. Assumption leads to some pretty spectacular screw ups.

YMMV
Jerry
 
Mystic Precision said:
MRAD vs MOA

if your background or game is based on 36" multiples, the MRAD works. Willing to accept coarse adjustments the further you go. Targets are typically large and fine adjustment on target using the clicks is not important.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with this. If you want to make the best possible use of MRAD, then metric is the only way to go. Calculating ranges, the distance represented between two sub-tension marks, or the value represented by one click on a turret, is all super simple when you combine MRAD and metric. To use the old imperial measurements with the MRAD system only bogs down and complicates what is otherwise a very simple, elegant system using metric.

As an example:
The average moose measures 2.4 to 3.2 meters rump to nose. Let's say you spot Mr. Joe Average of the average moose population, so you feel comfortable giving him a length
of 2.8 meters. You line Bullwinkle up in your MRAD scope and he measures out to be eight (8) sub-tension marks long nose to rump. Now 2800mm divided by 8 equals 350mm.
From one simple calculation you know that the moose is approximately 350 meters away (given your estimate of the moose' size was reasonable close), the length between two
sub-tension marks represents approximately 350mm (Approx 14 inches) and each click of your 0.1 MRAD turret equals approximately 35mm (1.4 inches). All that information from just one
simple division calulation that most people can do in their head.

I'm sorry, but combining MRAD with imperial measurements is just wrong and the best way I can think of obscuring a remarkably simple system.
 
everyone has their own way which they are used to shooting. personally I will always buy FFP unless i am strictly doing range shooting (and even then i will usually choose FFP for consistency). my reasons for doing so are:
1) i like being able to rangefind in a pinch. not only may your rangefinder not work due to damage, batteries, etc... but depending on conditions and what you are trying to range as well as the distance the laser rangefinder might not work at all. usually this isnt an issue but i do like to have an alternative when it does
2) using properly tuned ballistic reticles is very handy for drops. as people have stated you can use your computer or even tablet yo calculate this in the comfort of your home. HOWEVER, what about the change im MV due to ammo temperature? having tables crated for bullet drops at different ranges for different ammo temperatues is MUCH easier when you can just use one system of measurement instead of having to count different numbers of hash marks at different magnifications.
3) i can set whatever magnification i want to use at whichever time. if i have a moving target i will want to be zoomed out more than a stationary one. with SFP ballistic reticles you dont have that option at all. you cant control the sight picture.
4) the most important reason i like using mildot FFP scopes first and foremost is because i LIKE doing those calculations. for me doing everything myself is half the fun. whether its manual calculations or making my own tables in spreadsheets i enjoy it.

all things being equal it is easier and cheaper to make a SFP scope than it is a FFP one. depending on your budget or use the savings of a SFP scope can be put to better use in another area.
 
Margucci said:
HOWEVER, what about the change im MV due to ammo temperature? having tables crated for bullet drops at different ranges for different ammo temperatues is MUCH easier when you can just use one system of measurement instead of having to count different numbers of hash marks at different magnifications.
.
Click to expand...

No trouble compensating for temperature with a sfp scope either. Just run the variables through the computer and tweak magnification accordingly. Not that it really makes a hill of beans if difference in a hunting situation at sub 600 yards anyway....unless you set your original parameters at some crazy temperature. It's kind of like elevation...it sounds good on paper but in the real world the difference isn't what one would think. No need to count hashmarks when they are yardage indicated either.
 
Sheephunter is it possible to use the lateral markings for windage holdovers, I'm having a hard time seeing how, they must be completely unknown quantities when the vertical is calibrated for bullet drop.
 
Last edited:
sheephunter said:
No trouble compensating for temperature with a sfp scope either. Just run the variables through the computer and tweak magnification accordingly. Not that it really makes a hill of beans if difference in a hunting situation at sub 600 yards anyway....unless you set your original parameters at some crazy temperature. It's kind of like elevation...it sounds good on paper but in the real world the difference isn't what one would think. No need to count hashmarks when they are yardage indicated either.
Click to expand...
i am actually curious about this. obviously with tablets and laptops now this can be done anywhere however without lugging around extra stuff with you how would you account for this. if you are out shooting in the autumn the temperature in the morning vs the late afternoon can have a change of 20*C. that will radically change your MV. do you have different tables for different temperature ranges? do you just bring some form of computer with you? if you are doing 600m f-class shooting (let alone 1000m) you need to factor this in. i know that for many people it wont matter. i like FFP scopes because of the versatility. its everyones personal choice whether that is worth it to them. there are always downsides.

and also how would windage work?

once again, i do not mean to be confrontational at all. just a curious person here.
 
Margucci said:
i am actually curious about this. obviously with tablets and laptops now this can be done anywhere however without lugging around extra stuff with you how would you account for this. if you are out shooting in the autumn the temperature in the morning vs the late afternoon can have a change of 20*C. that will radically change your MV. do you have different tables for different temperature ranges? do you just bring some form of computer with you? if you are doing 600m f-class shooting (let alone 1000m) you need to factor this in. i know that for many people it wont matter. i like FFP scopes because of the versatility. its everyones personal choice whether that is worth it to them. there are always downsides.

and also how would windage work?

once again, i do not mean to be confrontational at all. just a curious person here.
Click to expand...

Actually that temperature change wouldn't matter at all at 600 yards in a hunting situation but if it really worried you, you could print a table just like you do for a ffp scope...with magnification being the variable. Personally I set temperature for an average of where I'm hunting and don't give it another thought. No idea about F-class.....likely not the best choice from my understanding. The hashmarks are calibrated for 5 and 10 mph winds...after that I'm not likely to shoot at a live animal at long ranges.
 
nemesisincanada said:
Sheephunter is it possible to use the lateral markings for windage holdovers, I'm having a hard time seeing how, they must be completely unknown quantities when the vertical is calibrated for bullet drop.
Click to expand...

Yes there are indicated for 5 and 10mph winds on my scopes. Nothing greater than that.
 
First of all I do not hunt, in any way shape or form, period.
However, I do understand most, if not all that has been discussed regarding reticles, FFP, SPF, etc.
I punch holes in paper at a local range for fun and relaxation on a regular basis.
I use a Sightron SPF with fine cross hair, .08 MOA at min. and .017 MOA at max. (from Mystic Precision)
mounted on a .308 Win.
The point I cant seem to get through my thick skull is the size of the vitals on a deer up to, say 300 yards.
My rifle is sighted in at 300 yards and seldom changes, and obviously, I shoot known distances and targets dont move.

My point is this: I can hit targets, from 50 yards to 300 yards (and anything in between) with simple holdover AND
guaranteed I will hit within a couple of inches (usually much closer than that). WITHOUT regard
for wind or temperature at that short distance. Even if I forget to holdover, I will never miss by more than approx. 3.25".

The above may be the result of spending too much time at the range, knowing your rifle/load/scope,
maybe I'm just anal about accuracy, not sure. Maybe you folks like to hunt at greater distances, again, not sure.
But, one thing is certain, If I HAD to shoot a vital area 4" diameter, I would not hesitate.

Question from an idiot that does NOT hunt: Why is the range finding so important ?
 
cet said:
Question from an idiot that does NOT hunt: Why is the range finding so important ?
Click to expand...

It's when you get past your MPBR that it becomes critical. As long as you are within your MPBR, you are correct, it don't matter at all. Yes, some of us do take shots longer than 300 yards.....quite a bit longer.
 
Cet ... I agree with you ... since the introduction of smokeless powder ... there has been a race to find higher velocity (and better BC) flatter shooting rounds that permitted longer "point blank ranges" while still within the target zone area of the game being hunted. The intent of course was to allow a more rapid response to a game target when it appeared - at varying distances - without resorting to a rangefinder or adjusting your sights for elevation (windage?). Scopes came along to help weak eyes, aid in lower light conditions and improve speed of target sight picture (eg only two things to line up rather than 3) ... of course for those that can employ the advantage (and calculate all the variables) a scope can extend the range of a rifle beyond MPBR .... although the 600 plus yard shots EVERYONE seems to make while hunting is very "interesting" ... although I guess there is a fine distinction between "hunting" and "shooting" ..... I guess I see hunting as tracking and pushing game until a proper shot presents itself while shooting is more along the lines of taking up a "fire position" on a power line cutting or overlooking a meadow and waiting for a target to appear. I find I do both occasionally but "hunting" successfully (per my definition) is the more challenging and rewarding engagement... my 2 cents
 
358 BLR said:
I can't agree with this. If you want to make the best possible use of MRAD, then metric is the only way to go. Calculating ranges, the distance represented between two sub-tension marks, or the value represented by one click on a turret, is all super simple when you combine MRAD and metric. To use the old imperial measurements with the MRAD system only bogs down and complicates what is otherwise a very simple, elegant system using metric.
As an example:
The average moose measures 2.4 to 3.2 meters rump to nose. Let's say you spot Mr. Joe Average of the average moose population, so you feel comfortable giving him a length
of 2.8 meters. You line Bullwinkle up in your MRAD scope and he measures out to be eight (8) sub-tension marks long nose to rump. Now 2800mm divided by 8 equals 350mm.
From one simple calculation you know that the moose is approximately 350 meters away (given your estimate of the moose' size was reasonable close), the length between two
sub-tension marks represents approximately 350mm (Approx 14 inches) and each click of your 0.1 MRAD turret equals approximately 35mm (1.4 inches). All that information from just one
simple division calulation that most people can do in their head.

I'm sorry, but combining MRAD with imperial measurements is just wrong and the best way I can think of obscuring a remarkably simple system.
Click to expand...

MRAD (or MOA) simply angular measurements. The actual math works out to 1 MRAD 3.6" at 100yds AND 1cm at 100m. So as long as you keep your units proper, it makes no difference whether you use metric or imperial.

The Mildot reticle made famous by our friends to the south have had no issues using the 36" mulitples.

Our Euro friends have decided meters is more to their liking and they do the cm thing.

There is no one MRAD unit of measure - well maybe degrees of circle arc. The same applies to MOA but we have a universal unit of measure here so far easier to communicate.

The attached link is very well worded and explain it all.

Jerry

http://www.mil-dot.com/media/1027/the_derivation_of_the_range_estimation_equations.pdf
 
Thanks AP and sheephunter.
I think I'm starting to unravel the mystery. Because of that, I'm now sure that I would make a very poor
hunter, and even poorer shot while hunting.
I think I'll leave the hunting to the experts, punching paper seems much easier now that things are somewhat in perspective.

Getting away from the ethical and back to the technical.............(thanks sheephunter)

I do understand MOA and MRAD, both are simple ways of describing angles.
They are both easy and predictable, the only differance beeing MOA is "easier to use" at long
ranges because it has more resolution. You simply avoid the fractions, nothing else.
Both can describe an angle extension to 2000 yards equally well.

In my opinion, and as Mystic mentioned, MRAD with metric and MOA with Imperial should
both serve you very well, and be equally easy to use.

One thing that may be off subject but very interesting for people that often change elevation and/or windage,
using MOA or MRAD on most scopes (not all):

If you turn the elevation turret the same way you tighten a screw, the screw will go "down " and so will your POA.
The opposite is also true.
If you turn your windage turret clockwise, the same as a screw, the screw will tighten " in " and move POA from right to left
The opposite is also true.

So, just think of your turrets as tightening/loosening screws/bolts, you will never look at the infamous arrows
on the scope again.

Ok, now back to the subject at hand, sorry for the tangent (pun intended!!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom