Low To Mid Power FFP Scopes. Why?

C

coleman1495

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
50   0   0
Location
Whitecourt
It seems pretty common now to have low/mid magnification scopes with FFP. Actually it seems like a selling point. A lot of 1-6 or 1-8 scopes are made FFP.

How come folks seem to prefer this? I haven’t figured out why this is popular. At low power, the reticle is small and harder to see. You almost need illuminated reticle for fast acquisition. If I needed holdover, chances are the target is at distance. I would already be at max magnification anyways.

So I must be missing something. Why make low power optics in FFP?
 
coleman1495 said:
It seems pretty common now to have low/mid magnification scopes with FFP. Actually it seems like a selling point. A lot of 1-6 or 1-8 scopes are made FFP.

How come folks seem to prefer this? I haven’t figured out why this is popular. At low power, the reticle is small and harder to see. You almost need illuminated reticle for fast acquisition. If I needed holdover, chances are the target is at distance. I would already be at max magnification anyways.

So I must be missing something. Why make low power optics in FFP?
Click to expand...

So your bullet drop holdover and windage on your reticles are GTG no matter which magnification your scope is on when you suddenly need to hit a dinner plate.

Bad things happen when you least expect them............
 
This was something I read about awhile back, where the person discussing it made a compelling argument supporting SFP in LPVO’s because like you said, you’re either running it on 1x or you’re running it on max power. I’ve never met someone who runs a 1-8 LPVO that has ever said “yeah I’ll only use 4x at 100m” myself included.

That being said, I don’t think there’s anything against FFP. My NX8 only comes in FFP so I’m not going to complain, but if there’s an option to go SFP and save a few bucks on the price I don’t see a requirement for the average person to pay the added price for the FFP.

Perhaps the action shooters out there may disagree. Perhaps running 3 gun they may use their optic in the mid range, but then again as you also said, they’re probably not holding over.

Ultimately, I have no idea. Glad I could help...
 
geologist said:
So your bullet drop holdover and windage on your reticles are GTG no matter which magnification your scope is on when you suddenly need to hit a dinner plate.

Bad things happen when you least expect them............
Click to expand...

Yeah but if you need holdover, your target is past 100 yards. Chances are past 200. I would likely take the extra second to max of magnification before I aimed at something 200 yards away.
 
I like intermediate magnification for masked targets and steel between 50 and 100 yards. FFP would be handy. Also remember that holdover matters at ranges shorter than that where you're zeroed. Height-over bore matters on some courses of fire e.g. when the target is sitting behind a no-shoot.
 
Tokay444 said:
I can't ever see wanting a reticle that is the correct scale at only 1 magnification. That just seems counter productive.
Click to expand...

3-18 power that makes sense, 1-4 not such a big deal as most people can shoot offhand at 4X easy enough and if your prone or benched or otherwise supported and not moving then a quick flip to max magnification makes sense.
 
At lower magnification, there is also usually illumination, and they function like a red dot. With good reticles one can also accurately range estimate for accurate shooting to 500 meters. 0-500 with one optics for it's style of shooting, is a huge win.
Tokay444 said:
I can't ever see wanting a reticle that is the correct scale at only 1 magnification. That just seems counter productive.
Click to expand...
 
As a guy with a 1-8x SFP, I wish it was FFP. I often shoot around 6x with a lot of optics (including my favorite, a 2.5-15 FFP). Maintains more situational awareness than just going to max power all the time. I miss sometimes because I adjust the magnification to where it looks good to me, but forget that the pesky reticle isn't right on some rifles at 6x. Having to use them as a 1 OR 8 instead of a 1-8 makes SFP not as versatile.
 
Pr589 said:
I like intermediate magnification for masked targets and steel between 50 and 100 yards. FFP would be handy. Also remember that holdover matters at ranges shorter than that where you're zeroed. Height-over bore matters on some courses of fire e.g. when the target is sitting behind a no-shoot.
Click to expand...


Sight height over bore makes sense. I don’t know why else you would use holdover at less than 200yd.
 
Tokay444 said:
I can't ever see wanting a reticle that is the correct scale at only 1 magnification. That just seems counter productive.
Click to expand...

Because the reticle is only useful for holdover-which you would use at max magnification.

Besides on a FFP scope the reticle is a blob at 1X. Seems more counterproductive to have a reticle you can barely see at low magnification.
 
coleman1495 said:
Because the reticle is only useful for holdover-which you would use at max magnification.

Besides on a FFP scope the reticle is a blob at 1X. Seems more counterproductive to have a reticle you can barely see at low magnification.
Click to expand...


FFP also allows leads on moving targets at any magnification.

A well designed or illuminated reticle will work down to 1x
 
For the people with FFP optics, at what magnification level does the different range marks become big enough to actually use easily?
 
A lot of scopes are most functional at less than full magnification. Especially as LVPO's commonly exceed 6x I think FFP makes a lot of sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom