Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Why S&B....why?

That reticle is extremely easy for hunting measured set up......just like any standard duplex.
Darrel

It’s not a tacticle scope it’s a hunting scope. Surprising to some here not everyone wants first focal for everything. First focal has its use so if you demand it. Buy something else.

It was only an issue when someone got one for free.
And then cooked it on a stove for 24 hours

Yes, the weight was one of the reasons it caught my eye. Lack of FFP and measured reticle made me look away.

The "crossover market" of hunters who like to shoot, often and at distance, that you mentioned is an area that a lot of scope companies are missing. Different preferences for different people but the following should be a rough outline for the crossover market scope:

1. Reliable - perfect adjustments, return to zero, and zero retention. The ability to take a beating should be a given.
2. FFP
3. Measured reticle in mil's with adjustments in the same. Should be designed to be visible in low light with bold outer bars limited in width from center - no more than 5 mils from center. Inner sections fine enough for holds at distance. If illuminated, limited illuminated area with extremely low illumination for use in low light. Overall, illumination shouldn't be a requirement for the reticle to be seen, only to pinpoint point of impact in low light.
4. As light as possible while still maintaining reliability.

I think Tangent Theta's Long Range Hunter is a really, really good design, though I'd prefer a 42 mm objective for a little less weight and trimmer scope, perhaps finer inner section and limit the illumination to only the inner mil, but it's a really good design overall.....reliability and toughness being the biggest "if".

Bushnell's LRHS is a really good design as well.

S&B's Klassic 3-12 FFP P3 with a BDC is close but could use more elevation adjustment. A 30mm PMII 3-12x42 would be very nice.

NF's 2.5-10x42 NXS would be great if it was FFP and had better reticle options.

Again, different preferences for different people, just my $.02

ILya,

Twenty-nine years ago Zeiss threw a factory tour for a bunch of American writers, including both hunting and bird-watching. That was back when they had three factories in Germany, and it was a week-long deal. By halfway through the trip it was obvious the hunting writers were there to be enlightened about why Zeiss scopes were the best in the world, yet American hunters were quite stupidly not buying more of them.

One of the other American hunting writers was Jim Carmichel, and he started explaining the faults of Zeiss scopes for American hunting--including the fact that like just about every other major scope manufacturer did NOT seal/purge their scopes against moisture. (One exception was Kahles, which started doing so in the 1960s.) I joined Jim in discussing that, and various other factors. The Zeiss guys were rather startled, but it evidently sunk in that the U.S. is the largest hunting-scope market in the world. It "only" took another six years for Zeiss to introduce the original Conquest line....

Where are doing your mule deer/elk hunt?

John

All good suggestions, although with the reticle I would prefer a VERY abbreviated tree-type design. Sometimes I dial elevation and sometimes I hold. It sorta depends on the situation. When I need to hold a couple of mrad, it is nice to have a couple of wind references. With an FFP design it is pretty easy to make this type of a reticle so that the tree does not get in the way when you do not need it.

I did a couple of designs like that in the past. I do not always know whether the companies I did them for will utilize them, but I've spent a lot of time simulating this stuff. It is very doable.

ILya

All good suggestions, although with the reticle I would prefer a VERY abbreviated tree-type design. Sometimes I dial elevation and sometimes I hold. It sorta depends on the situation. When I need to hold a couple of mrad, it is nice to have a couple of wind references. With an FFP design it is pretty easy to make this type of a reticle so that the tree does not get in the way when you do not need it.

I did a couple of designs like that in the past. I do not always know whether the companies I did them for will utilize them, but I've spent a lot of time simulating this stuff. It is very doable.

ILya

The March FML is pretty good for a hunting FFP reticle.

On low power it just looks like a tapered duplex, and the graduations start being useable at around 6-7 power. I can't imagine a situation where I'd want to hold on the reticle with the scope set at lower power, so it works well for me.

I've thought about the March D24V42FIML several times. I'd like to spend some time with one. No idea how robust they are....the question of if they can take a beating is my main concern. At any rate, the FIML reticle looks really good to me for a FFP hunting reticle:

I've thought about the March D24V42FIML several times. I'd like to spend some time with one. No idea how robust they are....the question of if they can take a beating is my main concern. At any rate, the FIML reticle looks really good to me for a FFP hunting reticle:

If you're going to recommend it how about the following:

FFP with a new P3 Hunter reticle...essentially their P3 reticle with only 3 or 3.5 mils to each quad with .5 mil hashes. Only the inner most mil illuminated (P3L)...or a FD P3...if they were going to use illumination.

Really, their P3, P3L, and FD P3 are good...if the original scope discussed was FFP with any of those I'd be in line.