Ffp

[Margucci]

by the tone and content of your last post i do not hesitate at all to post this

by your logic mil reticles are too complicated for you to use. those who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones. SFP scopes have their use and nobody is stating otherwise. what you need to get through your thick skull is that in almost every way FFP scopes are better. all of the statements which you have made have been refuted. the easiest way to spot the person who is losing a debate is to look for personal attacks which you have made in spades. the best way to discuss something and learn from it is to go into it with an open mind and be prepared to be wrong. you have not in any way. I have asked questions. i have agreed with many of your statements. you have done nothing but make incorrect statements and then when they are pointed out you resort to generalized insults. if throughout history society had used the closed minded logic you have demonstrated in this thread we would still be in the dark ages with the earth at the center of the universe and created in 6 days approximately 5000 years ago. wait a minute, there are still a bunch of people who do believe that the earth is 5000 years old, created in 6 days, and dinosaur fossils were placed on the earth by the devil to test their faith. than again you said you are done with this topic so by MY logic (ie. logic) you will never see this.
/bye

 

[ultimate_monkey]

i tried to read this... but i lost track of what the Fuk any of you are arguing about any more...


soo ill just sit back and enjoy

 

[Margucci]

ok so TLDR for the topic:

-person asking why their reticle was so big when zoomed in on their FFP scope. exaggerated reticle to be approx 1MOA as calculated. wonders why anyone would ever want FFP scopes. says they are useless unless you are in the military
-general consensus is that a better scope with a finer reticle would solve that issue. also mentions that subtensions become meaningless with SFP scopes unless you are at the predetermined magnification.
-use magnification to tell you holdovers (wtf?)
-computers can do everything RAWR!
-quick blurb about about FFP ranging
-sheep makes case that rough ranging isnt acceptable while hunting. this is in stark contrast to his 'close enough' attitude for the rest of the post
-common sense statements about FFP
-but SFP scopes are like jesus. oh a computers tell you what to set magnification to on ballistic reticles to do all the work for you just as accurately as FFP reticles
-more detailed explanation of rangefinding. someone makes a case that sometimes its necessary because.... you know... sh*t happens
-but you can do it just as well with SFP!
-sheep says he was talking about ballistic reticles all along. doesnt understand that sometimes you want to be able to set the magnification to whatever you want at any time. instead says its better to set the scope to a specific magnification you have to guesstimate and then use range indicators on the ballistic reticle for ranges other than labelled and thats easier and better.
-start of insults and off handed comments as well as stating his prowess of allowing his computer and scope to do all the work. also sets an arbitrary maximum range of 600yards/m. again reiterates his 'close enough' ideology despite stating the reticle rangefinding isnt useful because it isnt exact earlier.
-more reasonable compare and contrast with SFP vs FFP stating pros and cons. sheep retorts with 'but computers can do it all for me!'
-i come into the topic. ask some specific questions and reiterate that there are pros and cons to everything
-sheep claims that pretty much any and all environmental factors dont matter in his fictitious world where nothing is longer than 600m and reiterates that computers can do everything
-holes begin to form in sheep's ideas. agrees his way isnt as accurate. dismisses this by saying that its a hunting reticle. i guess that makes everything better. after all if you are disproven, generalize.
-sheep claims again that having a table for magnifications which you set on an inaccurate magnification ring or turret and are calculated by a computer are somehow much easier to use and offer the same result as tables which you use to index holdovers (on FFP) or adjust turrets which are designed for that purpose and are inherently more accurate.... and can also be determined by computer. and oh yea, on the later through all of it you can still have whatever magnification you want set.
-after the point is made that tuning a shot via the terrible magnification adjustment isnt a very great idea sheep comes back with 'but computers and inaccurate magnifications can do everything!'. again seems to think that environmental variables dont matter.
-people are again listing pros and cons but for some reason sheep gets all defensive and starts freaking about something which nobody ever said. there are obvious comprehension issues here as what has been written is obviously different than what sheep has responded to. continues to contradict what he says earlier.
-i respond to sheep again reiterating what i said and correcting what i can only assume he thought i said. also gave a brief rundown of the build and price differences of SFP vs FFP scopes.
-i suggest that a FFP ballistic reticle would be the best of both worlds between what sheep has been saying and almost everyone else has been saying.
-sheep replies to something out of left field which was never said. makes more insulting comments. pretty much calls people who use a more complicated and accurate system instead of his self-proclaimed easier system stupid for not agreeing that his way is the best. indirectly insults his own intelligence by making said statement.
-more personal attacks
-i call sheep out on his bullsh*t. i also secretly hope that sheep does indeed believe that the earth is 5000 years old, created in 6 days, and dinosaur fossils were placed on the earth by the devil to test his faith (just so i could get another jab in).

fin

 

[1ShotKing]

If it's far enough away that you require secondary hashmarks, you usually have time to adjust your magnification....lol I suspect you might lose sight picture turning the turret as well. This has been entertaining if nothing else. I had no idea there were so many hunters out there that could not handle a task as simple as turning a magnification ring....truly interesting and frightening all at the same time.

Do you drive a carbureted vehicle? After all, it just requires one additional step. What I'm getting at is FFP is a technology that makes using a reticle simpler. It's not that anyone is incapable of turning a magnification ring, it is that we would rather not have to. Any additional step introduces a source of error and while it might never be an issue that chance is still there. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying SFP isn't any good it has it's pros and cons and so does FFP. In my opinion FFP has more pros than SFP. YMMV.