Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics how was any of this possible without FFP?!?

Yeah riiiiiiiight. About like that cornball long range hunting show that showed you the door........

The real question is do you have a "Whizzy Wheel"?

I really wonder if any game animal died within 1 Mile of a "Whizzer Wheel"?

How about it JG?

Litz and Hodnett approved.

I’ve taken a whizz in a circle pattern while hunting. Does that count ? Asking for a friend....

I'm with gunner500 on this one personally.

I've actually been to Hodnetts training twice and while I don't know how much hunting he does I know he mentioned some long range kills. we even got to go shoot some hogs which was a blast.

I can also vouch for the fact that the range we shot on down there is one windy SOB.

I've also used the Whiz Wheel for training. We ran a course of fire on an unknown distance range using the Whiz Wheel for getting come ups/holdovers (using H58 Horus reticle). It does work and as part of a PACE plan for data it's lightweight and durable.

I've got one floating around here somewhere.

Primary
Alternate
Contingency
Emergency

So the "Whizzy Wheel'" is pretty much worse than useless for hunting?

I thought we had already determined that but thanks.

I was looking at it from a military standpoint. Unfortunately not everyone slotted as a sniper has the time or training or drive that they need. They don't all have their comeups or holdovers memorized. Getting them to use/make a printout was an exercise in futility most of the time.

You have a PACE plan although you don't call it that. I'm not saying that you need a Whiz Wheel I'm saying they are a viable tool.

Think about like this PDA/phone takes a dump so you grab your data cards only to find the rain soaked them to the point of unreadability or whatever so you go to memorized holds. THe Whiz Wheel is just another option.

litz is pretty much the polar opposite of the vibe I pick up from hodnett. I prefer litz's style. I have bought his CD's, app and books. highly recommended. Tactical shooters are kinda like oil and water to me. its tuff for me to see the value of these chassis rifles with all sorts of crap hanging off them. a 1# detachable scope base thats 3" higher than the top of the action, with a 40mm tube scope or some other truck axle tube scope that is over 3 pounds. Its like too many video games have been watched. Oh lets also top the gun off with a panzer faust muzzle brake to tame the recoil of their 6.5 creed even though the gun is 20 pounds.

FFP sucks on the lowest power. The reason its as popular as it is, is because most shooters aren't using their scopes that often on the lowest power, Why because they are using them at the gun range mostly. peering of the edge of a finger canyon at first light, when animals are most likely to be wondering around, you want a bold reticle and you want to be able to make an off hand shot if you have to. and the argument about the SFP scope being set to the wrong power and causing a long range miss because the ticks don't line up. How about the FFP scope being set to, too high of a power and you struggle to get on the animal at first light as the bull of your dreams flashes through the quaking aspens? or how about the reticle sucking and lowest power and you can't tell a quaking aspen branch from shoulder of the deer or elk?

I think your statement is a little too far reaching. Others have already said that a well designed reticle is the key, whether it’s FFP or SFP.
These are the only comparisons I have, but I have 2 Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x compacts with mil-dot reticles and 2 Bushnell LRHS 3-12x.
I’ve shot and hunted a lot with the NXS and have recently started using the LRHS scopes.
With scopes set at 3x, I compare the reticles at very low light and the NXS mil-dot is almost invisible without the illumination. The LRHS at 3x in the same light condition is a duplex reticle that’s easy to see and get on target. I wouldn’t be using the reticle subtensions of either scope in low light, lower power hunting conditions and the LRHS reticle easily wins.
At 10x power, the NXS reticle line thickness is .13MOA and the fine center lines of the LRHS reticle is .2 moa (please correct if my numbers are wrong). When holding on targets out to 1000m, neither reticle appears to cover the target any more than the other.

Comparing these two scopes, I’d say the FFP LRHS reticle has the advantage on low power in low light hunting conditions, and has no realistic disadvantage at high power because the reticle thickness is almost the same.

I’m sure there are comparisons in favor of SFP as well, but just shows that reticle design is probably more important than whether it’s SFP or FFP.

All this FFP, SFP and scope leveling talk makes me want to just hunt with open sights, or continue with my beloved upland bird hunts. My head hurts

exactly, I agree,

there is just so much elitism around here regarding this subject. every optic trades off something. it could be large objective and good at low light, or small and poor at low light. You can't really make a scope do everything well. I show these videos of john making these shots to show what is possible.