|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,478
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,478 |
The last thing I want to do is go pound some posts in for a new hitching rail in my corrals, so here I sit drinking coffee and scratching my head trying to decipher atse's "dialing" point.
I most certainly did NOT read his post in that he was talking about "dialing" the magnification ring.
I will try to clarify a couple points. My comment on dialing a sfp scope was a sarcastic remark in regards to one of John's earlier posts. It was not meant literally. Second, I used a poor choice when I said dialing magnification. Should have said changing magnification and dialing elevation. I simply meant through all of this that a ffp scope can have its magnification turned to any power and elevation dialed and shots on target will be the same. With a sfp scope, this is not the case. Sorry for the poor word choice. Hope that helps. While I appreciate the clarification, I must say that this is still a head scratcher. Are you saying that with a SFP scope, as you turn magnification up or down, that the elevation erector changes values with each click? So at X magnification each click would be 1/4 MOA, but at Y magnification each click would be 1 MOA and so on? Both FFP and SFP "should" have the same erector correctional values per click of the turret, regardless of what magnification it is set at. By "dialing elevation", you're not talking about the reticle sub tensions changing in relation to the magnification setting, right? Correct.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,080
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,080 |
The last thing I want to do is go pound some posts in for a new hitching rail in my corrals, so here I sit drinking coffee and scratching my head trying to decipher atse's "dialing" point.
I most certainly did NOT read his post in that he was talking about "dialing" the magnification ring.
I will try to clarify a couple points. My comment on dialing a sfp scope was a sarcastic remark in regards to one of John's earlier posts. It was not meant literally. Second, I used a poor choice when I said dialing magnification. Should have said changing magnification and dialing elevation. I simply meant through all of this that a ffp scope can have its magnification turned to any power and elevation dialed and shots on target will be the same. With a sfp scope, this is not the case. Sorry for the poor word choice. Hope that helps. While I appreciate the clarification, I must say that this is still a head scratcher. Are you saying that with a SFP scope, as you turn magnification up or down, that the elevation erector changes values with each click? So at X magnification each click would be 1/4 MOA, but at Y magnification each click would be 1 MOA and so on? Both FFP and SFP "should" have the same erector correctional values per click of the turret, regardless of what magnification it is set at. By "dialing elevation", you're not talking about the reticle sub tensions changing in relation to the magnification setting, right? Correct. For some skill levels the ability to alter reticle subtension at will is a feature, not a bug. Just Sayin. 
John Burns
I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,874
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,874 |
atse,
The center is the center, no matter if you are using a SFP or FFP reticle, in terms of magnification or dialing elevation. Assuming a mechanically solid scope.
Jason
Last edited by 4th_point; 04/19/20.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,911
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,911 |
Don't go bursting his imaginary bubble......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,486
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,486 |
The last thing I want to do is go pound some posts in for a new hitching rail in my corrals, so here I sit drinking coffee and scratching my head trying to decipher atse's "dialing" point.
I most certainly did NOT read his post in that he was talking about "dialing" the magnification ring.
I will try to clarify a couple points. My comment on dialing a sfp scope was a sarcastic remark in regards to one of John's earlier posts. It was not meant literally. Second, I used a poor choice when I said dialing magnification. Should have said changing magnification and dialing elevation. I simply meant through all of this that a ffp scope can have its magnification turned to any power and elevation dialed and shots on target will be the same. With a sfp scope, this is not the case. Sorry for the poor word choice. Hope that helps. While I appreciate the clarification, I must say that this is still a head scratcher. Are you saying that with a SFP scope, as you turn magnification up or down, that the elevation erector changes values with each click? So at X magnification each click would be 1/4 MOA, but at Y magnification each click would be 1 MOA and so on? Both FFP and SFP "should" have the same erector correctional values per click of the turret, regardless of what magnification it is set at. By "dialing elevation", you're not talking about the reticle sub tensions changing in relation to the magnification setting, right? Correct. For some skill levels the ability to alter reticle subtension at will is a feature, not a bug. Just Sayin. Laughing.  Whether talking reticles, rulers, interferometers, or oscilloscopes, a continuously variable reference frame is not a “feature” I’m interested in. Properly designed FFP reticles have plenty of incremental range without changing scale.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,080
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,080 |
For some skill levels the ability to alter reticle subtension at will is a feature, not a bug. Just Sayin. Laughing. Whether talking reticles, rulers, interferometers, or oscilloscopes, a continuously variable reference frame is not a “feature” I’m interested in. Properly designed FFP reticles have plenty of incremental range without changing scale. Do you know how I know you don't know schitt about oscilloscopes?  Being stymied by the change in subtension on a SFP optic is not really something one should brag about in a discussion with good shooters. I can change subtension from 1 MOA to 2 MOA to 6 MOA at a whim and regularly use those settings in the field and range. You might be unwilling the put a little effort into managing the magnifiction range and a more basic, simple FFP might satisfy your lower shooting expectations. Who am I to judge?
John Burns
I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,907
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,907 |
The last thing I want to do is go pound some posts in for a new hitching rail in my corrals, so here I sit drinking coffee and scratching my head trying to decipher atse's "dialing" point.
I most certainly did NOT read his post in that he was talking about "dialing" the magnification ring.
I will try to clarify a couple points. My comment on dialing a sfp scope was a sarcastic remark in regards to one of John's earlier posts. It was not meant literally. Second, I used a poor choice when I said dialing magnification. Should have said changing magnification and dialing elevation. I simply meant through all of this that a ffp scope can have its magnification turned to any power and elevation dialed and shots on target will be the same. With a sfp scope, this is not the case. Sorry for the poor word choice. Hope that helps. While I appreciate the clarification, I must say that this is still a head scratcher. Are you saying that with a SFP scope, as you turn magnification up or down, that the elevation erector changes values with each click? So at X magnification each click would be 1/4 MOA, but at Y magnification each click would be 1 MOA and so on? Both FFP and SFP "should" have the same erector correctional values per click of the turret, regardless of what magnification it is set at. By "dialing elevation", you're not talking about the reticle sub tensions changing in relation to the magnification setting, right? Correct. Wrong, wrong, wrong
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488 |
For some skill levels the ability to alter reticle subtension at will is a feature, not a bug. Just Sayin. Laughing. Whether talking reticles, rulers, interferometers, or oscilloscopes, a continuously variable reference frame is not a “feature” I’m interested in. Properly designed FFP reticles have plenty of incremental range without changing scale. Do you know how I know you don't know schitt about oscilloscopes? Being stymied by the change in subtension on a SFP optic is not really something one should brag about in a discussion with good shooters. I can change subtension from 1 MOA to 2 MOA to 6 MOA at a whim and regularly use those settings in the field and range. You might be unwilling the put a little effort into managing the magnifiction range and a more basic, simple FFP might satisfy your lower shooting expectations. Who am I to judge? I think I have to agree with John Burns here, but I have to agree with other points of view also. SFP or FFP...7 clicks is seven clicks, no matter what the magnification setting is. What you get with with FFP is a reticle scaled to the target no matter the magnification, and for some that may be an advantage. What you get with SFP is a reticle that is consistently visible, no matter what the magnification is. IMO, learn to use either or both. It can't hurt to understand both and it ain't hard. One way to negate the perceived disadvantage of FFP in terms of diminished reticle at lower magnification is an illuminated dot and I could live with that. On the other hand, I could live with a mil reticle in a SFP scope with the understanding that it must be set to max magnification to take advantage of the reticle and I could live with that too because if I needed to compensate for range, I'd likely be able to make full use of full magnification anyway. There is no clear and indisputable superiority between the two designs, in my opinion. With either, you gain one thing and give up another. No need to be emotional about it.
Don't be the darkness.
America will perish while those who should be standing guard are satisfying their lusts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,486
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,486 |
For some skill levels the ability to alter reticle subtension at will is a feature, not a bug. Just Sayin. Laughing. Whether talking reticles, rulers, interferometers, or oscilloscopes, a continuously variable reference frame is not a “feature” I’m interested in. Properly designed FFP reticles have plenty of incremental range without changing scale. Do you know how I know you don't know schitt about oscilloscopes? Hah, which brand and model would you like to discuss? I work with a variety on a regular basis.
Being stymied by the change in subtension on a SFP optic is not really something one should brag about in a discussion with good shooters.
Thanks for the heads up. Next time I have a conversation with one, I'll be sure to keep that in mind.
I can change subtension from 1 MOA to 2 MOA to 6 MOA at a whim and regularly use those settings in the field and range.
Yeah.....well, I have a variety of subtensions in my scope, too. And? Seems I'm not limited at all by the subtensions available to me in my reticles on 0.5+ MOA targets, but I've come to expect snake-oil salesmen to try and invent "features" justifying whatever they're selling. Who am I to judge? Certainly not somebody who's verdict makes any difference to me. I've always treated you with respect, and find your recent passive-aggressive, condescending attitude to be pretty juvenile.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,486
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,486 |
For some skill levels the ability to alter reticle subtension at will is a feature, not a bug. Just Sayin. Laughing. Whether talking reticles, rulers, interferometers, or oscilloscopes, a continuously variable reference frame is not a “feature” I’m interested in. Properly designed FFP reticles have plenty of incremental range without changing scale. Do you know how I know you don't know schitt about oscilloscopes? Being stymied by the change in subtension on a SFP optic is not really something one should brag about in a discussion with good shooters. I can change subtension from 1 MOA to 2 MOA to 6 MOA at a whim and regularly use those settings in the field and range. You might be unwilling the put a little effort into managing the magnifiction range and a more basic, simple FFP might satisfy your lower shooting expectations. Who am I to judge? I think I have to agree with John Burns here, but I have to agree with other points of view also. SFP or FFP...7 clicks is seven clicks, no matter what the magnification setting is. What you get with with FFP is a reticle scaled to the target no matter the magnification, and for some that may be an advantage. What you get with SFP is a reticle that is consistently visible, no matter what the magnification is. IMO, learn to use either or both. It can't hurt to understand both and it ain't hard. One way to negate the perceived disadvantage of FFP in terms of diminished reticle at lower magnification is an illuminated dot and I could live with that. On the other hand, I could live with a mil reticle in a SFP scope with the understanding that it must be set to max magnification to take advantage of the reticle and I could live with that too because if I needed to compensate for range, I'd likely be able to make full use of full magnification anyway. There is no clear and indisputable superiority between the two designs, in my opinion. With either, you gain one thing and give up another. No need to be emotional about it. We're not talking about erector travel at all, here. Just the reticle subtensions. An FFP reticle can be more visible than a SFP reticle with the right design and magnification setting. If a guy is experienced using well-designed FFP reticles (not Leup or most NF), he sees the utility. Those who are married to brands with poorly designed FFP reticles won't see or admit the truth. A properly designed FFP reticle is easily visible on minimum magnification (minus the hashmarks), and the posts disappear and the fine details are easily visible on max magnification, with a good compromise found in the intermediate magnification range. There is a lot to be said for KISS. I've seen critters missed cleanly by nervous hunters holding elevation with SFP scopes, where the hunter forgot to crank to the proper magnification in the heat of the moment. The subtensions in FFP reticles are consistent and remove one more variable that one has to keep in mind when making a shot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,080
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,080 |
Hah, which brand and model would you like to discuss? I work with a variety on a regular basis.
Those that the biggest knobs don't change the X and Y scale values on the display.
There is a lot to be said for KISS. I've seen critters missed cleanly by nervous hunters holding elevation with SFP scopes, where the hunter forgot to crank to the proper magnification in the heat of the moment. The subtensions in FFP reticles are consistent and remove one more variable that one has to keep in mind when making a shot.
Well those who lack training and shooting skills should try to Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS). Those willing to up their game can take advantage of more sophisticated systems and can operate at higher levels. Again I am not judging your lack of knowledge or shooting skill and I totally understand some shooters will never be able to manage magnification under stress. Just Sayin.
John Burns
I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,486
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,486 |
Hah, which brand and model would you like to discuss? I work with a variety on a regular basis.
Those that the biggest knobs don't change the X and Y scale values on the display.
There is a lot to be said for KISS. I've seen critters missed cleanly by nervous hunters holding elevation with SFP scopes, where the hunter forgot to crank to the proper magnification in the heat of the moment. The subtensions in FFP reticles are consistent and remove one more variable that one has to keep in mind when making a shot.
Well those who lack training and shooting skills should try to Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS). Those willing to up their game can take advantage of more sophisticated systems and can operate at higher levels. Again I am not judging your lack of knowledge or shooting skill and I totally understand some shooters will never be able to manage magnification under stress. Just Sayin. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you realize that "X and Y" are time and voltage scales. But I guess you missed the part about continuous variables versus discrete variables. Read my post again and you might catch on. No, it has nothing to do with lacking training. It has to do with optimizing the complexity of the system so that it's as simple as possible while retaining sufficient adaptability and precision for the intended purposes. Anybody with any training in any field knows this. All human minds work more efficiently and effectively with a less-complex system versus one that is unnecessarily complicated. I've trained quite a bit with both SFP and FFP reticles, and know the advantages and disadvantages of each. I'm perfectly comfortable varying the subtensions of my reticle with a SFP scope using magnification, if needed, but I'm also readily willing to admit that FFP is the better mousetrap for such applications. By your logic, it would "up your game" to convince your supplier to come out with a scope with variable erector increments so you could "operate at higher levels". After all, according to you the ability to vary the subtensions in your reticle is advantageous, so why wouldn't the ability to vary the turret increment values also be an advantage? More complexity is not always better. Either way. I'm happy for you if you like the fact that your reticle's subtensions depend on the scope's magnification setting. But don't feed me BS and try to convince me it's chocolate ice cream. Training with and using FFP scopes hasn't prevented me from achieving excellence in competitive environments nor in the hunting fields, so regardless of how you spin it, FFP works at the highest level of precision and shooting skill I require. I'll readily admit that SFP reticles do have some very specific advantages over FFP designs in certain applications (like 1000 yard BR where distance and magnification are constants, or gopher shooting at ELR; in either case crosshair subtension needs to be minimized), but for general-purpose hitting of 0.5+ MOA targets from PBR to 1500+ meters, a well-designed FFP reticle is the easy choice for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,080
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,080 |
Hah, which brand and model would you like to discuss? I work with a variety on a regular basis.
Those that the biggest knobs don't change the X and Y scale values on the display.
There is a lot to be said for KISS. I've seen critters missed cleanly by nervous hunters holding elevation with SFP scopes, where the hunter forgot to crank to the proper magnification in the heat of the moment. The subtensions in FFP reticles are consistent and remove one more variable that one has to keep in mind when making a shot.
Well those who lack training and shooting skills should try to Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS). Those willing to up their game can take advantage of more sophisticated systems and can operate at higher levels. Again I am not judging your lack of knowledge or shooting skill and I totally understand some shooters will never be able to manage magnification under stress. Just Sayin. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you realize that "X and Y" are time and voltage scales. But I guess you missed the part about continuous variables versus discrete variables. Read my post again and you might catch on. No, it has nothing to do with lacking training. It has to do with optimizing the complexity of the system so that it's as simple as possible while retaining sufficient adaptability and precision for the intended purposes. Anybody with any training in any field knows this. All human minds work more efficiently and effectively with a less-complex system versus one that is unnecessarily complicated. I've trained quite a bit with both SFP and FFP reticles, and know the advantages and disadvantages of each. I'm perfectly comfortable varying the subtensions of my reticle with a SFP scope using magnification, if needed, but I'm also readily willing to admit that FFP is the better mousetrap for such applications. By your logic, it would "up your game" to convince your supplier to come out with a scope with variable erector increments so you could "operate at higher levels". After all, according to you the ability to vary the subtensions in your reticle is advantageous, so why wouldn't the ability to vary the turret increment values also be an advantage? More complexity is not always better. Either way. I'm happy for you if you like the fact that your reticle's subtensions depend on the scope's magnification setting. But don't feed me BS and try to convince me it's chocolate ice cream. Training with and using FFP scopes hasn't prevented me from achieving excellence in competitive environments nor in the hunting fields, so regardless of how you spin it, FFP works at the highest level of precision and shooting skill I require. I'll readily admit that SFP reticles do have some very specific advantages over FFP designs in certain applications (like 1000 yard BR where distance and magnification are constants, or gopher shooting at ELR; in either case crosshair subtension needs to be minimized), but for general-purpose hitting of 0.5+ MOA targets from PBR to 1500+ meters, a well-designed FFP reticle is the easy choice for me. That had to sting visa ve the OScope.  But your hallucination is duly noted.
John Burns
I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 449
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 449 |
Hah, which brand and model would you like to discuss? I work with a variety on a regular basis.
Those that the biggest knobs don't change the X and Y scale values on the display.
There is a lot to be said for KISS. I've seen critters missed cleanly by nervous hunters holding elevation with SFP scopes, where the hunter forgot to crank to the proper magnification in the heat of the moment. The subtensions in FFP reticles are consistent and remove one more variable that one has to keep in mind when making a shot.
Well those who lack training and shooting skills should try to Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS). Those willing to up their game can take advantage of more sophisticated systems and can operate at higher levels. Again I am not judging your lack of knowledge or shooting skill and I totally understand some shooters will never be able to manage magnification under stress. Just Sayin. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you realize that "X and Y" are time and voltage scales. But I guess you missed the part about continuous variables versus discrete variables. Read my post again and you might catch on. No, it has nothing to do with lacking training. It has to do with optimizing the complexity of the system so that it's as simple as possible while retaining sufficient adaptability and precision for the intended purposes. Anybody with any training in any field knows this. All human minds work more efficiently and effectively with a less-complex system versus one that is unnecessarily complicated. I've trained quite a bit with both SFP and FFP reticles, and know the advantages and disadvantages of each. I'm perfectly comfortable varying the subtensions of my reticle with a SFP scope using magnification, if needed, but I'm also readily willing to admit that FFP is the better mousetrap for such applications. By your logic, it would "up your game" to convince your supplier to come out with a scope with variable erector increments so you could "operate at higher levels". After all, according to you the ability to vary the subtensions in your reticle is advantageous, so why wouldn't the ability to vary the turret increment values also be an advantage? More complexity is not always better. Either way. I'm happy for you if you like the fact that your reticle's subtensions depend on the scope's magnification setting. But don't feed me BS and try to convince me it's chocolate ice cream. Training with and using FFP scopes hasn't prevented me from achieving excellence in competitive environments nor in the hunting fields, so regardless of how you spin it, FFP works at the highest level of precision and shooting skill I require. I'll readily admit that SFP reticles do have some very specific advantages over FFP designs in certain applications (like 1000 yard BR where distance and magnification are constants, or gopher shooting at ELR; in either case crosshair subtension needs to be minimized), but for general-purpose hitting of 0.5+ MOA targets from PBR to 1500+ meters, a well-designed FFP reticle is the easy choice for me. That had to sting visa ve the OScope. But your hallucination is duly noted. Is John related to Stick ? 😁
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,239
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,239 |
He's related to Elkslayer and qwk.
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,080
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,080 |
That had to sting visa ve the OScope. But your hallucination is duly noted. Is John related to Stick ? 😁 He's related to Elkslayer and qwk. I don't remember anyone at the family reunions with those names and I am sure I shoot to good to be related to Lil Fish. Just Sayin.
John Burns
I have all the sources.
They can't stop the signal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,098
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,098 |
I have and use both.
Thusly, my wiener is bigger than your wieners...”mic drop” as my dumbazz teenager says.
Dave
If you're not burning through batteries in your headlamp,...you're doing it wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 449
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 449 |
That had to sting visa ve the OScope. But your hallucination is duly noted. Is John related to Stick ? 😁 He's related to Elkslayer and qwk. I don't remember anyone at the family reunions with those names and I am sure I shoot to good to be related to Lil Fish. Just Sayin. 🤣🤣🤣
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,037
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,037 |
Nothing looks as classy as a Leopold on a rifle for starters, track just fine. Leopold Custom Shop CDS, M1 Dials have been flawless for us.
Your Every Liberal vote promotes Socialism and is an
attack on the Second Amendment. You will suffer the consequences.
GOA,Idaho2AIAlliance,AmericanFirearmsAssociation,IdahoTrappersAssociation,FoundationForWildlifeManagement ID and MT.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,121
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,121 |
Nothing looks as classy as a Leopold on a rifle for starters, track just fine. Leopold Custom Shop CDS, M1 Dials have been flawless for us. Do you mind sharing your process for confirming tracking and RTZ, please?
I've seen more well-shot game lost with TSXs than any other premium bullet.
|
|
|
|
|
82 members (1OntarioJim, 41rem, 16penny, 35, afisher, Anaconda, 12 invisible),
1,433
guests, and
869
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,493
Posts18,472,104
Members73,936
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
