Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics the reason FFP Sucks for hunting scopes

How do these crosshairs look against the trees on low power

For some reason, I got the feeling early on that CC is the kind of guy that's convinced you need to be able to see your dots, even when your scope is turned down low.... For short range shots....

Tanner

+1

Jordan, I'd be curious to see the same pics at the same powers, reticle pointed at brush/dark background and not the bright sky. Thanks.

Sorry, I didn't see the request was already made......

I just looked at Nightforce's new International Hunting Reticle. A #4 w/a floating crosshair. Now I could hunt w/that. powdr

I must say that Meopta 4c Ill looks like a great timber reticle, I don't care what friggen plane it's in.
Also have that Bushnell Elite 4200 Firefly that RD posted. My favorite also.

it's .18 MOA crosshairs that's thinner than leica I believe

Unfortunately those pics were taken over a year ago, so I can't run out and do a quick comparison photo shoot right now. But I will get some low-light, reticle-on-dark background pics and post them up as soon as I get a chance.

The Europeans know how to make FFP hunting reticles. OP, don't throw all FFP reticles in one bucket. Some are better suited for hunting than others.

I am using a ffp scope. A swfa 3x15. I have previously shot a Leupold 6x18 fine duplex for the past 10 years. Used it for everything. I have found that the cross hairs on the swfa at 7x are the same as the Leopold on 6x. It has been working fine as a hunting scope for me. I also have the bonus of using the reticle for holding the wind at any magnification. Can't do that with a sfp scope. But most hunters don't need that anyway.

The IHR is terrible in application. If NF would offer a standard duplex reticle and lose the side parralax adjustment on the new 42mm SHV they would be on to something. As it stands with the reticles offered it is useless.

One thing that stands out about that NF image is the black tire effect...the image looks small,surrounded by,that,huge black donut


Is your post in jest? Or do you actually like that IHR?

No jest. Its terrible, you cant see it. The hollow portion of the wide section gets lost. If the solid portion extended the full length of the wide section it would help tremendously. The black donut is a product of the camera position and not the way it looks when you are behind it.

Ok the IHR is a good idea gone bad...they tried to make a hunting reticle a target reticle....IMO

Agree with,your assessment

Also side parallax on the 10x scope is overkill

The new 42 SHV is only offered with the IHR and MOAR reticle. Both are useless on a hunting rig without illumination, and I dont want illumination, just give me a reticle that I can see. How hard is a simple duplex, or at least firm up the IHR. One afternoon in my neck of the woods and NF would realize the inadequacies and get back to the drawing board on the double. I wonder if they have ever taken one in the woods?

While some of this is sort of silly I will go on record as saying FFP sucks with every available reticle.

Not saying some one might not come up with a viable FFP reticle but I sure have not seen one.

Of course that is like just my opinion and such.

I'm no expert either, I've used both SFP and FFP. I've hunted dark timber in foggy/cloudy pacific NW weather enough to know that SFP works better for me. If I'm on the lowest power, I'm in the timber and need a BOLD THICK reticle. If I'm on the highest power, I'm taking a shot that's long enough that i want a thin reticle for precise aiming. A FFP reticle does just the opposite.

I've actually settled on a Swaro Z6i 2-12 with their #4 with the little red dot for my main elk rifle. Its just about perfect.

I do like FFP for tactical shooting. I have a FFP Steiner 4-16 on my LR260 that I compete with and its excellent. Its a heavy SOB though.

Guys that actually use stuff kinda get stuck in their ways,second nature and all that.

I personally have no use for a FFP in an optic of 15x or less.YMMV

That said I dont think i'd have an issue with the LRHS. Guys told me the NPR2 in my NXS was going to be worthless, used it for years without issue, even in low light without illumination.

we are seeing alot of scopes now days that are 10x with parallax adjustment. I wish it wasn't there its just more complicated.

Just started with the Meopta 4C Illuminated FFP reticle. I think it's going to work. The dot may be larger than some would want, a 4K may satisfy. I'll try to get some through the scope pics, eventually... IIRC, the 4C depiction is not exact.


What's best about the Artemis 2100, it's svelte, barely breaking 26 ounces! LOL.