You're stuck on some word-picking attempt to be "right".
i said right in my first post, that it was probably how your wording was that made it seem like your saying the retic covers more of the target at higher mag in FFP...
Since we're into this, let's look at exactly what I said to trigger your obtuse argument:
"Second, a SFP reticle will give the shooter the same sight picture, with the same reticle sub-tension sizes (not values though), at any magnification. Some prefer this, as the reticle does not get larger as the magnification increases (such as with a FFP reticle), which can result in the target being obscured, thus affecting the shooters ability to make fine adjustments to the point of impact."
To which you replied:
"the recital doesnt get bigger in a FFP per-say, it is a constant to the target, so if it covers 1" of target at min zoom, it still only covers 1" of target at max zoom, as the whole image magnifies."
First, you are incorrect: an FFP reticle does, in fact, get bigger/fatter/thicker as the magnification increases. Just because the image gets bigger, does not mean the reticle hasn't actually become larger - it does. Are you saying it doesn't? Are you arguing that at high mag, an FFP does not obscure more of the target than an SFP?
it gets bigger in the scope yes, the retical to image relation on a FFP scope stays constant threw out the magnification range never did i say that a FFP wasnt thicker then a SPF. i never even mentioned SFP
You are correct that the area of coverage stays relative (again...that's the point of FFP), however you're errant in accusing me of stating that as an FFP reticle grows, it obscures more of the target at high mag, than it does at low mag.
I don't say that anywhere.
you said " as the reticle does not get larger as the magnification increases (such as with a FFP reticle), which can result in the target being obscured" to which i said, due to the wording it sounds like your saying the retical covers more of the target at max mag then at min in a FFP... so i was simply trying to clarify for people that it doesnt, FFP is constant , yes thats the whole point
That's your error or construct. Whether it's a lack of reading comprehension, or a willful attempt to fabricate an argument that you can win, you've strayed into left field.
not trying to argue, trying to get as much correct information out thats easy to understand for ever one. look at peacefrogs post.. (sorry PF but this is a prime example) that the FFP covers MORE on max then it does on min.. which you and i know it doesnt
I even made this more apparent for you with the insertion of comparative pictures above and the following: "Pretty easy to see, that at 16x, the FFP reticle is thicker and covers more of the target, than the SFP reticle...which is one of the reasons why F-Class shooters aren't fond of FFP reticles."
thats great, but as i said , i never brought SFP into my posts, i reiterate, that i was trying to clear up the wording of " as the retical does not get larger as the magnification increases (such as with a FFP reticle), which can result in the target being obscured"
So to reiterate and be crystal clear for you: for some shooters (such as F-Class), an SFP reticle is preferred because it obscures less of the target than an FFP will, at higher magnification. Hopefully that is clear enough.
it was never blurry, i think we are agreeing but on very different wave lengths
And people wonder why there are fewer and fewer constructive/informative posts in these forums.
.
