Hi all,
I recently was the high bid for an auction at an RMEF banquet for a Quigley-Ford scope.
They are asking if I want to upgrade from 2nd to 1st focal for $200.
Basically go from a 4-16x 50 1” to a 5-20x 50 30mm.
It is going on my 700 BDL 7SAUM with a 24” barrel.
I doubt I will ever take a 500 yard shot while hunting.
Is it worth the upgrade for me? I have never had a scope like this so thought I should get some opinions.
My usual scopes are VX-3’s and such. Never had an opportunity to purchase a $2000 scope for a reasonable price before.

Thanks for any help you can be.
Have a great day!!

50mm is 50mm, so there is no advantage to light transmission of the 30mm tube. I personally don't like the magnification of the crosshair when you turn the power up on the FFP scope.

Some people can better use the FFP scope and it's ability to stay constant in relation to the target, but for me, I like the constant size of the crosshair...

Quigley-Ford... probably the most controversial optic I've ever read about...

Thanks for the input.
I was able to get hold of a couple of friends that actually shoot distances that I don’t even consider with equipment costs waaay higher than mine and neither of them have a FFP scope either.
The one who competes at Perry said he just doesn’t care for how the reticle changes much like you said.

Have a great day and thank you for your time!!

With experience a guy can use the reticle and subtensions to judge critter size and distance, as well as hold off. FFP keeps the math constant. If you plan to use the scope for that kind of thing I see no downside to a FFP.

If you can keep all that math straight in your head when on different powers and when things happen fast, then I guess rock on with SFP. It isn’t for me though.

It’s not an upgrade just because it’s FFP vs SFP. That’s just a matter of personal preference and what you want the scope to do. Imo, there is, however, an advantage to 30mm vs 1”. To me, everything a 1” tube does, a 30mm does better. I know mathematically a 1” tube doesn’t pull in more light, but the sight picture sure is better to me with a 30mm.

No counting a 30mm is stronger than a 1 inch tube. Allows for a little more adjustment. Hasbeen

I have mostly FFP reticles and they can be used exactly as T Inman said. The reticle size at base magnification will determine if it can be used for long range without cluttering up the view.

I agree. Also when the magnification is down low on a FFP, the reticle is hard to see on most scopes. When I shoot "long range" the X's are going to be turned all the way up anyway, so a second focal plane scope works just fine.

In a FFP scope the reticle spacing is the same on all powers, thus the spacing of the reticle and math is the same

You don't say what kind of a terrain you hunt. For me 5X on the low end would be too much in the thick timber i hunt.

Another thing to consider is: Are you a Hunter or someone that is Tacticool......
Most hunters prefer a 2nd focal plane scope, there are some that don't but the numbers are small.
If you are Tacticool it is a must to have a FFP scope or the "COOL" is lost. it is also more Tacticool if you abandon 1" and 30mm tubes for 34-35mm tubes.

Though I prefer SFP for hunting, there is one additional thing to consider with FFP, that being the chance of a wandering POI. Reticle in front of the erector eliminates that.

I normally hunt brush with a 1-4 or 2-7 type scope, though.

For a hunting rifle it's not worth it. A FFP scope matters most when you use the reticle for your holds. If you dial for your distance, FFP has very little advantage. A FFP optic with a MOAR type reticle will give true MOA (or mil) readings regardless of the power setting. A MOAR SFP optic only gives true MOA/MIL readings at one power setting, usually full power. If you shoot competitively, or military where fast shots are long ranges are common it makes sense. If you have time to range the animal, which is necessary for almost any shot past 300 yards, you have time to turn the turret to your proper hold.

A 30mm tube gives more vertical adjustment, that's great for long range sniping, but like you said, most people hunting don't shoot past 500 yards, if that. Having the ability to dial to 1600 yards is pointless for a hunting rifle. Just extra weight.

The QF notion is HILARIOUS,even if they were free and came with $200 cash back! Hint. LAUGHING!

You gals read too much,shoot too little and love to PROVE same,by doing your best. Read that again. Now one more time. Hint.

FFP has no equal,no matter whether Drooltards savvy or not. Drop,drift and leads for movers,are like/like at all zoom ratios. BRF's display range instantly and beings you must look through the scope to deliver the projectile,it is hardly a "concession" to be driving a FFP reticle of merit. Hint.

Bless your hearts for trying though.

Hint.

fhuqking LAUGHING!.............

A good FFP reticle for me, in almost all cases. I hunt with fixed-power or FFP scopes exclusively. I compete with FFP scopes exclusively.

In addition to drop/wind/movers, I use the reticle to measure corrections, apply corrections, measure target size, and as a backup to calculate an approximate range if the LRF fails for some reason (this is rare with LRFs being what they are these days).

The upside to a well-designed FFP reticle is that there is no downside.

another opportunity to tell everyone what idiots and bums they are... and how smart you are.. like the only one with any experience or intelligence on the entire planet... We're all sure NASA consults with you on a regular basis... But when you sober up and step back into reality.. well life changes, don't she?

your fantasies and delusions, is what makes ya the best entertainment value on the WWW. bar none Stumpy...but ya still have a body and face, resembling a runover Bullfrog.... Don't know why Stumpy, but when I see something on the Boob Tube, searching thru the channels, and stumble across Sesame Street, I finally come across where they got the concept of Oscar the Grouch... Lives in a garbage can, delusions of Greatness, better than everyone else, talks on a level that only preschoolers understand ( but they at least the ones who can "look up to" him size wise), does the most with the 2 working brain cells than anyone else on the planet... minus Joe Biden.

Yup, it ain't easy being Schtick ( nor a kids puppet in Oscar the Grouch), but for some reason, most of us seem to love him...
Seeing him or you, allows us to laugh at ourselves, while being thankful that in all of our faults.. at least we ain't Schtick..

you do an immense service to your country Stumpy. and give our regards to your half brother, Kim Jung Il...Brothers from a different mother..otherwise, Identical twins...

Merry Christmas Stumpy! and Happy New Year ya little crosseyed green midget... Many of us will take a moment to toast to you, for all ya give us thru out the year, while you'll be passed out drunk on the floor at your place...

All the Best,
your campfire fan club.

In fairness,Shefire is both a First and Second Plane CLUELESS Drooler,who just "happens" to be a Lying Piece Of Fhuqking Schit to boot...the "lucky" kchunt. Hint. Congratulations?!?





I keep a 6x MQ with DOPE in it's ocular and a Sig LRF at work,just for Dissenters. Hint.(grin)

It's rather easy to see a Critter and ask "How are you going to kill him?" and they of course flounder. It's all been SFP,in glass that doesn't track,repeat or hold zero for them and "turret" is a DIRTY fhuqking word. "Reticle" is something and Atheist would order,only from the Devil himself. With 15 seconds of "coaching",while looking at a full page print of said reticle and it's subtension values,I hand over the LRF and say "kill it",while counting in seconds. They range,set glass on Critter and say "got it",once subtended in but a coupla seconds. Then look at me and say "that's IT?!?","yep". Such things,tend to bolster Sales. Doubly so,when thy can source their Factory Loaded Schit on Ballistics AE. Hint.

Then it's never ending subtension applications,to make range determinations,Critter determinations,target size determinations and the like,as you cite. Such things are rather good for The Economy,as Sales go and encompassing more than a "few" wares. Hint.................

Buddly, is that you?

With that in mind it isn't worth the added cost to me. I zero my scopes at the highest magnification and know the SFP scopes will be calibrated at that magnification. But I hunt with them on the lowest magnification virtually all of the time. My scopes will all be 2X, 3X, or 4X on the low end and I can make hits out to 200-300 yards on those settings without worrying about multiple aiming points.

If I ever need to take a longer shot at game, or shooting longer at the range, I pass right over all of the mid-range settings and go to max magnification. For what I do, and at the ranges I shoot everything in between isn't needed.

If I were using something like an 8-32X scope, even the 5-20X you're considering, then I can see some situations where something in between might be useful. But for big game hunting out to 500 yards a scope that tops out at 14X is more than enough.

I tried both. I much prefer the 2FFP.

This is the bottom line. There are so many FFP in the lower price ranges with poorly designed reticles that are barely functional at low power in low light. Jordan nailed it. Getting a FFP scope with a properly designed reticle is never a mistake. A FFP scope with a poor reticle design, and there are many out there, is always a mistake.

Agreed.

From purely a technical/engineering standpoint would a FFP be more inherently robust compared to a SFP?

In the sense that FFP is not subject to the same magnification-dependent POA shift that can sometimes be a problem with SFP, yes.

Thanks Jordan.

Could SFP (or FFP for that matter) also cause parallax issues if the lenses are of poor quality or not properly aligned?

Will schit scopes,whether SFP or FFP,effect POA/POI intersections? Yep. Hint................

POA shifting with parallax adjustment can occur with either SFP or FFP scopes. BTDT with both.

A couple of friends got sucked in to the Q-F FFP upgrade. Neither one of them can hit a bull in the butt with a banjo. If you like cluttered reticles and a barely visible reticle at low power, go for it. I’m not saying the Q-F is a bad scope; I just don’t favor the cluttered reticle. Happy Trails

I have both and prefer the SFP in the higher magnification target, varmint and rimfire variables. My 30mm Euro scopes on my deer and out west rifles are FFP and I like the 1.5-6x42 scope more than the 2.5-10x42 scope because the reticle size does not appear to change as much in relation to the target with the lower powered variable. I know that in the FFP the reticle size is always the same size in relation to the target, but it just looks pretty darn thick at 10x in that 2.5-10x42 that I have. With the FFP there is no losing the crosshair against a brushy or dark background with those heavy outside crosshair sections leading to the finer center section. That hasn't been the case with the SFP crosshair in a Leupold 2.5-8x36 with the standard Duplex at first and last light. I don't shoot at long range or adjust a scope in the field, so the 30mm's increased adjustment or ability to bracket the animal to determine distance is completely lost on me.

You Amazingly STUPID Fhuqks are a hoot! Hint.

'Bout 6'. Hint.




Fhuqking LAUGHING!............

I love these discussions arguing between SFP and FFP. As a long-range competitor, I of course, favor SFP reticles because of the need to be as precise as possible at high magnification, 40X to 80X. I also appreciate a nice FFP for things like PRS and even most other pursuits. I also appreciate the use of SFP for hunting for many people.

Last year, an LPVO was released with a dual reticle. The March 1-10X24 has an SFP with a simple crosshair and an illuminated dot that's daylight visible. At low zoom, you really don't see the FFP reticle, but the SFP crosshair is great. As you crank up the magnification, the crosshair appears to grow a tree or a scale reticle, depending on which FFP you have.

You can see this in action here:
https://img.gg/TJqv9Gw

They have just announced a new riflescope with a dual reticle, the March-FX 1.5-15X42 DR. It will be available in FFP or DR. Yeah, it's a 34mm tube.

I agree with this. I only speak from hunting and fun at the range, no competition of any kind. My centerfire rifles have FFP LRHS 3-12x scopes and I just can’t find a disadvantage over the SFP I’ve used in past. Of 4 big game animals I killed this last 2 months, one was 340 yds in open country, one was 60-70 yds in big Fir timber, one was 30yds in Poplar and brush, and the other was 12-15 yds in thick mixed forest. No problems seeing the reticle in any of those close shots. I have the benefit of using reticle subtensions at any power any time I want, even if it’s only at the range, and I have an easy to see, bold, heavy Duplex reticle at low power.
I used to have NF NXS 2.5-10x compacts on these same rifles and found the reticle was very hard to see in Timber/forest or low light without illumination.

My rimfires have SFP scopes and sometimes I screw up when dialing after measuring with the reticle, forgetting that they’re SFP ha ha. But that’s my problem and not a scope problem.

Maybe, but the scope doesn't make it any easier to deal with the problem.

FTR said it pretty Cleanly ….

IF seeing things is important - GO Second Plane, because First plane add’s aberrations and other optical challenges that second planes don’t have to contend with…

I.E. - if you are spinning anyway, and you are old (bad eyes) or just shooting something FAR FAR away…
- pick a good second plane reticle you can see at the Mag you want and rock and roll…

the rest is personal preferences of how much noise you want around the impact zone to call your own shots…

The 8x56 Schmidt & Bender.


dave

839.00 from Optics Trade.
A4 reticle.
.
I prefer a fixed or a FFP for hunting.
And have for many years.

dave

The 10-60x52 March
SFP . Say at 40x in the pic
Coyote target is at a grand.


I prefer SFP for target work.

dave

I’ve never understood the advantages to either one. I’m not even sure what I’m used to, other than I like a thin crosshair. I grew up with an old Pentax Lightseeker. No idea what it is.

Can you explain this in more detail?

I have both FFP & SFP scopes I prefer FFP scopes

You answered your own question — I doubt I’ll ever take a 500 yard shot hunting. The only time FFP reticles aren’t terrible is when shooting over 500 yards. Don’t do it.

I'm with Jordan Smith on this one; I'm also looking for more detail about the bolded statement.

And I'm with JS and FTR as I'm always open to learning new things. By optical challenges I assume, though don't agree, that he means a large reticle at high power that may obstruct a small target and a small reticle at low power that may be difficult to see. I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, I'm just assuming that's what he means. However, I'm lost on the "aberrations" portion as, to me, that is scope specific irrespective of type of reticle based on components.

If anyone wants to try a quigley-ford i have a new in box 5-20-50 . Reticle is cut for 7mag nosler accubond 168 grain factory ammo. 1000.00 buys it

How does that do at 10 feet?

I agree.
The nice thing about SFP is you can adjust the magnification to adjust the reticle subtension to match your target. For example, a scope with a circle-dot reticle. Sometimes conditions are such that the dot is visible and you want to use that. Other times, like crappy light conditions, you want to use the circle like an aperture. Depending on your preferences, you may have to adjust the magnification to get your preferred line of white around the bull.
Same thing applies to dots & crosshairs - you can adjust the magnification to give you a better sight picture instead of, for example, having the reticle totally subtend the target.

Yes but with FSP and a non variable scope with adjustments that match the reticle there is no need. And in the past I have adjusted the magnification to give me a reticle I could use as a rangefinder.

Here is why -

When the cross hair is in the back the light path is directly centered of the lens where the cross hairs are and the least amount of lens distortion is…

With FFP you are moving the cross hair through the path of the light to bend it…. Rut-Roo..
So the path correction is using not exactly center portion of the lense to bend it back to focus the light back to the center or the second rear plane.

Just like any other lens if it’s NOT passing directly through the center you get some aberrations

I had a national BR champ tell me that, and looked for it glass in my FFP PRS BR rig vs. a SFP model of the same type..
…. and dang it .. he was right.

It’s a TINY difference - but under pressure at 1k yards with mirage or clouds and low light - every little bit comes in to play

Thanks for the reply and information Spotshooter. I'm going to have to cogitate on that a while. Interesting.

That doesn’t make sense to me. I’m not an optical engineer, and I don’t work for a scope manufacturing company, but it seems to me that the magnification mechanism is moving a lens assembly that is separate from the first and second focal plane lens assemblies. Therefore, the lens with the reticle in it shouldn’t move, regardless of which plane it is in. I’m still not convinced that optical aberrations (which type are you referring to, exactly?) are inherently greater in FFP designs compared to SFP designs.

a LOT depends on the scope maker…

What I’m really talking about is “sharpness to the edges” … of how a picture is sharp all the way across.

But I’m not a teacher, and I validated things to my satisfaction..

I use FFP on my PRS rifles. - but my Bench rifles and ELR rights are SFP

The fact that both the FFP and the SFP are focal planes (both planes are located at the focal length of the preceding lenses in the system) contradicts your notion that the reticle lens moves away from the focal point in a FFP reticle system. Methinks you noted an anecdotal instance of a design difference between a SFP scope and a FFP scope, and are now claiming that that the difference you noted is caused by a universal property of FFP versus SFP designs.

Optical aberrations of various types have specific causes, and are not just generic labels for "edge-to-edge sharpness."

I don’t care about winning an argument… I only shared an observation that I validated and tried to explain why the best I could. I did semi-pro photography, and I’m got a half decent eye so I can tell you that at least with a couple scope makers at a 1k yard bench rest matches where I compared the FFP & SFP scopes of like types last year … I could see more crisply with the SFP.

Sorry if that sounds cold but I could give a hoot if you don’t believe me… Go check for yourself. Of course I’m talking about scopes that are WELL over a grand… so for cheaper models I really have no Idea. Not everyone rocks a scope that costs a couple grand, not to mention multiple ones…
You darn near have to quit hunting to afford stepping into serious LR shooting.

Smartest thing a man can do in life is walk away from guys that “like to argue”.., who are all about “winning.”
I’d remarry a boss chic if I liked that kind of BS. … NAH

Cheers ! (Yes that was Sarcasm for those on their first cup of coffee)

You can point your barrel at something 10' away and get the job done. At 20 yards they're plenty usable if you keep your eyes on the target while mounting the gun.

SS:

Your initial post in this thread definitively stated that the phenomenon you're describing obscures targets at the yardages specified by the OP to the extent that it should be the overriding factor in reticle plane decisions. I don't think Jordan and others, including me, who haven't noticed obfuscating aberrations inherent to FFP reticles to the extent that you described are "arguing for the sake of arguing" by trying to gather more information.

I was comparing nightforce competitions to NXS …. Are high magnification in hard conditions multiple times.

Like I said… a lot is in the maker’s build

I could resolves things much better in the competition…. But maybe one shouldn’t bring a tactical FFP scope to a Benchrest match…

Just saying ..


- for your point Starbuck
GLASS and COATINGS ARE EVERYTHING.. when it comes to clarity… … So what you guys are really discussing is does putting the cross hairs up front or in the back of a moving tube make building a optical system harder or easier (all relative terms).

I said harder because it puts more critical components into a smaller moving space so it tightens the requirements for the build.

BUT - engineering (I am one) is what it is… some groups are run by Engineers some are run by accountants…. And if you actually have experience in the corporate world you know the Marketing groups run both of you ….

So results will vary.. Go sit behind the scopes in real world conditions and all the BS goes away…


MY POINT - Even if it’s more challenging to build a FFP clarity wise - that doesn’t mean people don’t or won’t…

Go test what’s on the market with your own eyes … Experience is king.. Engineering - Seriously I am one and the right thing doesn’t always happen.

All the NXS (except the 3.5-15x50 F1 model) are SFP and so is the competition. They have different grade glass and magnification. Apples and oranges.

I would say that whatever someone else uses to shoot game or competition doesn’t mean anything to me. The difference in the appearance of the crosshair is what matters, and I don’t like the European or number 4 reticle.

I will continue to use a second focal plane scope for all it’s virtues regardless of it’s inadequate scale at various power on a variable scope. Personal preference really doesn’t have any bearing on the effects of a ffp vs a sfp scope…

Yup. I have no desire to argue for argument’s sake, but my training and experience is as a quantum physicist and optical engineer (I was sandbagging a bit before, but the part I said about not working for a scope manufacturer is true), and I can see no reason for universal optical superiority to the SFP design. That doesn’t mean that a reason does not exist, but I am simply trying to sort fact from anecdote.


And yup.

When you dig a little deeper, it is plain to see that any perceived differences could be due to a number of variables that are not controlled if comparing scopes of completely different model lines.

I have owned and spent a lot of time looking through both SFP and FFP scopes, and plenty of each, that cost over - some well over - $1000, at LR, and have not noticed any general trend in image quality that can be attributed to SFP versus FFP design. I’m not claiming that there is no difference, just that I can’t see a reason for one to exist, nor have I observed one in competitive, recreational, and hunting contexts.

I have been critically testing and sitting behind optics with my own eyes for my own uses in real world conditions for 20+ years. I've owned a lot of scopes from throughout the cost and reticle spectrum, and I've looked through many more. I have yet to look through a FFP scope from any price range and found image or reticle aberration so significant that it would've impacted the ultimate utility of the scope. Likewise, I have yet to notice a correlation between reticle position and optical quality in general.

Currently, I only have 1 set of scopes of the same model wherein 1 is SFP and the other is FFP. They are SWFA 3-15's. I just had them out, and to my eyes, the optical quality of the FFP is better at all X and across all portions of the image. The FFP is newer by 5 years or more. Recently I was comparing a set of NX8's - one was SFP, the other was FFP. I didn't notice any optical difference between the two, but I wasn't looking specifically for it, either. I'll add that I don't really look at many SFP scopes these days as I prefer FFP for most uses, and I already own enough SFP scopes to cover my uses.

As stated by Jordan, that's not to say that what you're describing doesn't exist to some extent, just that in substantive context, I haven't noticed it. By extension, I am skeptical that it commonly exists to the extent that reticle position selection should be summarily based upon it; there's many other factors to consider.

I don't want to be nasty, but this "explanation" was nothing but a word salad. It's complete nonsense.

'Nuff said, as the saying goes.

Considering an ffp Scope has fewer lenses, it’s only obvious that the reverse of his statement would be true. Some guys will argue that water is dry though.

Where did you get the idea that an FFP has fewer lenses than the equivalent SFP?

WOW.....I thought that is exactly what you do ?????

It’s not some huge secret. For claiming to shoot FTR, you don’t really know much. BTW any reputable scope company will let you take a tour, if you want to see for yourself.

Nope. I'm not a lawyer. It just so happens that I like facts and the pursuit of truth, and sometimes that leads to discussion and debate.

Ironically, your comment serves no purpose, except to argue.

Well, technically and grammatically, you are describing hypocrisy which many mistakenly call irony.

Another Kanuck made a whole song about it and while a catchy tune it confused many of the Gen Xrs.

Isn't that ironic, don't ya think?

All that I much prefer hunting scopes be 2ndFP.

Specific examples please

Hypocrisy can be ironic at times.

There's no accounting for taste. We've been down this road before, and I am more than happy to clear the SFP lane and leave it to you if it means more FFP scopes for me.

Discussing the merits of the FFP design can be made into a rather long conversation. A list of scope models is an even longer conversation. Of what specifically are you asking for examples?

Possibly up close fast shooting on moving targets?

Don't try this at home with FFP.

Why’s that?





What’s the difference in this instance?

I would love to see picture examples of "good" FFP reticles at the lowest power of a scope that would be useful hunting at close range in cover, without relying on illumination.

I think I could design one, but most scope makers seem incapable of doing so, that is the reason I prefer SFP for hunting.

Looks fun!

Possibly, although I'm pretty sure this reticle would do just fine at that game. Similar to a red-dot sight on low magnification, with angular hashmarks visible on high magnification.

https://destinationtactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/1308535.jpg

Yes, it seems to have been a bit of a process getting the manufacturers to design FFP reticles that are useful on low magnification and also on high. When done properly, however, the benefits are many.

Edit: Forgot to include a few examples of FFP reticles that are useful in cover at close range when on low magnification:

https://www.bushnell.com/dw/image/v...Reticle.jpg?sw=800&sh=800&sm=fit

I like the reticle to appear the same to my eye in all situations.

2ndFP reticles can be sized for optimal visual acuity in all zoom ranges. Just have to suffer the changes in subtension on the target image.

When one is using top end magnification of 15X or maybe 18X then most precision field shots will be dialed to max magnification.

If I can just dial the zoom to the max stop and shoot under hunting conditions then 2ndFP rules.

If the scope has more Xs than I can always use in in normal LR hunting shots then FirstFP is a better choice but I don't hunt with scopes over 18X.

You have done very well with more top end magnification and that is where FirstFP shines.

If any one could break flat straight aways clays with a FFP it would be you.

All it takes is a clay bird thrower and a video camera.

Let's see the video.

Nothing to do with reticles, subtensions, or aberration, but now I'm envisioning JB loading Jagged Little Pill into his CD changer and having a nice sing along session.

A list of ffp scopes with well designed reticle

What is your definition of "Well designed"

Me or Jordan Smith ?

You

I do not know. Was asking Jordan as he said there was no downside to a well designed ffp. I am asking for specific examples. All the ffp scopes I have seen are full of dots and dashes making them distracting and seem overly complicated to me.

😂😂😂

and on lower magnification reticle look awful small !

I see. Just remember when you hold for anything to make sure you’re on the highest power!

I’ve screwed that up a time or two with my second focal plane scopes

A mil reticle or MOA will have the same marks in both FFP or SFP

FFP plane reticle are the same size in relation to the target at all powers. SEP reticle are not

Exactly.

I’ve made lots of running shots on game that were more difficult than shooting a floating clay at 25 yards. One of the reasons I’ve essentially stopped posting photos and videos on this site is that they are used and demanded by the loudmouths to somehow prove legitimacy or validity of one’s comments, although we saw with roundoak that even pics aren’t enough to prove much.

I don’t own an automatic clay thrower at the moment, but even if I did, and while it does look like a good time, I certainly wouldn’t post video of it here just to satisfy your insecurity.

I listed a few examples above. Three of them offer the capability of using markings as an angular ruler, and for those that don’t need or want that functionality, the fourth is a simple S&B A7.

Short list of a few I use:

SWFA Milquad - 3-9x42 - won't count the 6x and 10x since they're fixed
S&B P3L - 3-12x42 Klassic - won't count the P3 since it's a fixed 6x42
S&B A8 - 1.5-6x42 Klassic
Nightforce FC-Mil and FC-MOA - NX8 1-8x24
Tangent Theta LRH MRAD - LRH 3-15x50
Bushnell LRHS - LRHS 3-12x44

All of these are well designed FFP reticles that I use on rifles that get used for hunting. I may wish to tweak things about any of them for my preference but they are well designed FFP reticles.

The following gives a little pictorial on one. Nothing as good as looking through but a reference:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt.../tangent-theta-owners-step-inside-please

Well-designed reticle?

Some are simple and some are complex. What qualifies as “well-designed” will be different for everyone depending on their needs and level of skill.

What’s funny is that some here will point to a reticle and say it’s “well-designed” and have absolutely zero clue as to the accuracy of the subtensions They just take the manufacturer’s word that a MIL is a MIL or an MOA is an MOA whether it be first or second plane and they have no way to confirm it.

For a second focal plane reticle, are the subtensions accurate on max power or something close? At what power are the subtensions double their value?

There are scopes with reticles that the subtensions are completely meaningless. It’s like producing a tape measure where all of the marks are meaningless; the 1/8” lines aren’t 1/8”s, the 1” lines aren’t actually 1” and so on.

If you don’t realize how important that is when holding over for drop or off for wind while trying to put an impact on a small target at range, think about it.

Agree 💯%

Very true, as I mentioned above. To me, “well-designed” means that functionality for a given intended application isn’t sacrificed because of design oversights. That looks different for scopes with different intended applications.


Good point. Though it’s not difficult to confirm reticle subtensions with a few common items and a working knowledge of trigonometry.

That sums up Reupold succinctly. Hint..................

I would not spend the money on the upgrade for what you are going to use it for. I prefer SFP, but I am a normal range hunter. If I stretch it out, a rangefinder and a good dialing scope suffices.

Just can't get used to the small, fine reticle on low power, and the clutter, thickness on high power of FFP. Just me, and my personal preference.

How would you know the difficulty of the clay show when you admit you it is a shot you have never done?

Your failing to post pictures is telling as 'Pictures or it never happened" is a pretty common theme here on 24hrCF.

The reason so many laugh at LiL Fish is his failling to produce field pictures.

If you want to be taken more seriously in these discussion by those that know it might behove you to post some actual field pictures and/or video and less appeals to authority with "Ma PHD".

Until then you are just another poster talking about things you have never done.

I didn't say that, now did I?


Okay, roundoak.

A quick google search would reveal that I've posted plenty of field photos and video in the past. I no longer feel the need to do so, and one reason is exactly the BS you're spewing in this post. Pretty telling that you keep declaring what other people can do or have done, from a position of complete ignorance. Or perhaps pompous arrogance is the right adjective.

and staying liquored up most of the time.

LOL.

The PHD is struggling with the real world where experience Trumps hallucinations.

Your weasle wording is pretty easy to see through.

Quit weasle wording and tell the class exactly;

Have you shot airborne clays with a rifle/FFP scope or are you skating the issue because you know I am right in my assesment?

Actually Leupold usually nails the reticle subtensions perfectly. Click values have had slight issues, although I have had some that are perfect.

Usually you don't see problems with the click values until a bunch of dope is dialed into the scope for it to start making a difference. Most manufacturers have the same issue. Fortunately, it's an issue that can be easily corrected by using the "click value" input on your ballistic program, like Ballistic AE. If you see that dialing 5 mils actually moves the reticle 5.1 mils, a simple calculation can be done to determine the actual click value of the specific scope and that number input in the program.

I've shot flushed quail and grouse with an iron-sighted .22 LR. Does that count?

LOL

What focal plane were the irons in?

That sums up Reupold succinctly,if they were that "good". Hint.................

Good question. You’re not supposed to see them when you move, mount and shoot so I’m not sure 😉

Is 20/20 a focal plane?

I'm calling bullsh*t on that. FFPs do not have fewer lenses than the equivalent SFPs.

You are a fuggin idiot. Just looking through a top tier ffp shows how much better they are at cutting through mirage. It ain’t magic.

Now you are making no sense at all. What does mirage have to do with number of lenses?

Let me just say that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to mirage and riflescopes.

WOW!

A chit image due to more lens doesn’t make sense? Are you a fuggin Biden relative? You don’t know chit. Otherwise if you were right, you would have proven me wrong.

I find a single lense optic, in both binos and scopes, to provide optimal image quality.

Any more lenses just get between my eye and the target and cause mirage.

Isn’t that sweet fleshlight on the bankrupt-me-arms ar for the mirage? At night of course. 😂😂

Maybe you and Burns can partner up, you can ditch the deon scope, throw back a few nuqyil mixed drinks, and install a gold ring pos on your ftr rig? Or did you already do that?

I was amazed as well. Not planned at all. As a kid hunting rabbits with a Marlin 60, I flushed some quail. One flushed straight away, low and I instinctively mounted the gun and fired. Dropped him dead.

As a kid we would find grouse in meadows as we were exploring. Stop and try to pick off a few on the ground with our .22’s. We exhausted the visible birds and walked up the meadow trying to find them. One flushed quartering rising high to the right, and the same thing happened; mounted the gun and it went off at the right time. Damn bird folded like it was shot with a 12 gauge

Will you post your meatballs and marinara recipe in the cooking forum? Thanks

The meatballs are mostly a cockroach purée with some binders and spices. To conform with the NWO and LGBTQ demands.

Marinara recipe is super secret and if I actually posted it, I doubt low IQ TN residents would even be able to duplicate it.

Even Burns could almost not burn your marinara recipe.

He could burn it. TN residents would not know the difference

LOL

Let me set a few things straight for you.
1- Equivalent specs FFPs and SFPs have the same number of lenses.
2- Mirage is not caused by the number of lenses
3- Your written English is horrible.
4- DEON makes the best mirage-retarding high magnification riflescopes on the planet. Currently, their March-X 10-60X56 HM rules the roost. For example, I run it at 50X year-round, in South Texas, Atterburry, Ben Avery and Raton. The next step up is the March-X 8-80X56 HM WA that was used to win the Nationals at BA last month, running at 75-80X for the entire competition (4 days).

Go ahead with more insults and further displays of your ignorance.

More lenses help with seeing through mirage? Do you know how stupid that sounds?
Only a fuggin idiot would argue something so fuggin stupid.


Deon scopes are ok, but not in the winners circle often. For a reason. Connect the dots...

Another phenomenal display of ignorance on your part.

I offer this:

https://marchscopes.com/news/14179/

Where did I say they never won? 15-55 NF is the most common scope used, and in the winners circle. For a reason... and you know it.

The bolded statement is exactly my thought? Where did I say you said they never won?

Yes, the NF 15-55X52 Comp is very popular. It's been around since 2013 and it's a fine riflescope and much cheaper than the March-X 10-60X56 HM and the upcoming March-X 8-80X56 HM WA. Nightforce sells a lot of scopes and they sponsor a lot of shooters. But the NF 15-55X52 doesn't hold a candle to the March 10-60X56HM and especially not to the 8080X56 HM WA.

And how did we jump from FFP having less lenses than SFP, then mirage being a function of number of lenses to comparing the NF Comp to the March HM? Seems like you're quite slippery in your beliefs.

And BTW, I would not be surprised if the NF Comp, an SFP design, has essentially the same number of lenses as the March HM.

I'm hoping that you will have an epiphany and face reality behind scope designs.

Good example. I'm a big fan of the S&B A9 reticle, I like it better than the above.

What the fugg else does writing I’m ignorant, and posting a link to a march winning a match mean? You didn’t write those exact words, but you insinuated exactly that.

As a competitor, if you don’t know the basics of how a scope works, you are a complete dumb fugg. End of story.

Well, you keep displaying your ignorance.

I do agree with your last statement and I think it applies very well, to you.

Now, if you wanted to discuss mirage and its effects on optics, and stopped your insults, we could have a more productive discussion.

You are like a Fuggin Democrat. You and burns ever have a sword fight in your matching Ukrainian flag underwear? Both fuggin useless liars.

I see. We're back to gratuitous insults and deflection. You don't have much to work with.

I tried, but there's just no way to talk cordially with some people.

What exactly did you mean by this then. How am I Ignorant? It’s obviously a response to what I wrote below.

Nice. You left out the important part of your quote, which I bolded above. That was the ignorant part. Then you tried to deflect.

So you are saying that looking through more lenses cuts through the mirage better?

Nope. Number of lenses has nothing to do with this. Let me explain.
Mirage is an atmospheric phenomenon that is misnamed. Mirage is a French word that describes a phenomenon where you see something that isn't there. A good example of that is seeing water on the road far ahead of you and there isn't any.

The phenomenon that plagues high magnification scopes is more of an atmospheric shimmer. Everybody calls that mirage, and I'm fine with that as it's not a windmill worth tilting at.
Mirage is generated by the Sun warming up the ground (which can have rocks, water, vegetation, etc) and the heat waves and water vapor rising from the ground will mess up the image in a magnified optic. The mirage is useful to the precision shooter because it can be detected in the optic, and it is subject to the lightest of wind. If there is no wind, we get a boil, the mirage is going straight up. When the wind starts the mirage will be deflected by the wind and will appear as a river flowing in the optic. I have been recording mirage in spotting scopes for a few years now, to train people in recognizing the phenomenon and how to interpret and react to it. It's a work in progress.

As an F-class shooter, mirage is something that is simultaneously a curse and a gift. It's a gift because we can detect condition changes and it's a curse because it degrades the IQ (image quality) in your optics. It can even move the POA. This IQ degradation is what we are interested in.

There is no such thing as "cutting through the mirage." No optics does that; it's not a thing. Just like there is no bullet that can cut through wind.

What is a thing is that not all optics experience IQ degradation at the same rate. Just like not all bullets will be deflected by the same amount in the wind. So, what's the magic here? What enables some optics to degrade more slowly than others.

In a word, glass.

The way a riflescope works is that the objective lens will form the image of the objective at the first focal plane. This image will have been affected by the mirage because that’s an atmospheric phenomenon and it affects all optics, just not to the same degree. Let me introduce the concept of dispersion into the mix. When light is refracted through a lens the various wavelengths that make up visible light will not be focused at the same point. Also, the greater the refraction, the greater the dispersion. This dispersion manifests itself as something we call CA or chromatic aberration, and color fringing. Various types of glass bend various wavelength differently and some glass disperse it less than others. The scale used to measure the amount of dispersion is the Abbe number. The greater the Abbe number, the less dispersion there is with a type of glass.

So, what does dispersion have to do with mirage? Good question. The hypothesis is that if your lens has high color dispersion to begin with, the mirage effect will scramble it even more. We can see this in inexpensive high magnification scopes like the Weaver T-36. I used one for a few years in F-class at 1000-yards in South Texas and when the mirage was out, the target was completely messed up and pulsating in the T-36. Unshootable.

When I moved up to a Nightforce NXS 12-42X56, the IQ was much better in mirage, but when the mirage got very bad, I had to dial down from the 42X I wanted to use.

A riflescope after the FFP is really a magnifying glass that inspects the image in the FFP. If the FFP is bad, the magnification of that image will simply amplify the bad image, making it worse to your eye. A variable scope can amplify the FFP image to varying degrees. This is why the shooters with variable scopes will decrease the magnification of that FFP and thus reduce the mess they see. All variable riflescopes will have approximately the same number or lenses; it’s how they are shaped and located that makes the difference in magnification.

People are reporting that high quality optics “cut through the mirage” better than low quality optics. Yep, that’s because these high-quality optics control the CA better than the low-quality optics. The high-quality optics are not “cutting” through mirage, they simply are not as affected by mirage to the same extent as the low-quality optics and that’s because they control the dispersion better. But even with that, high-quality optics will run into an IQ wall as magnification increases.

I like to say that all riflescopes have great IQ when the conditions are good (low or no mirage.) That changes drastically when the mirage gets going. How can a riflescope be used at 50X, 75X or 80X in heavy mirage.

It’s that same word again: glass.

(More to come.)

You typed a whole lot of words, that really say nothing...

A 12-42 nxs has one more lens than the same BR version. The image/mirage is worse in the nxs. I have 20/20 vision, BTW. Those scopes are 20 year old tech. They suck in mirage. The target dances around, and scope needs to be turned down or it’s useless.

I was talking about an ATACR at 35 compared to a 15-55 comp at same x’s. In very heavy mirage the atacr is much easier to shoot consistently. Of course the lens placement is different in these scopes. That’s the difference in design of f1 vs. f2. The ATACR does have 1 less lense. Same glass. Connect the dots....

What is the number of lenses in the ATACR and in the Comp?

How are they grouped?

Which is the lens that is missing in the ATACR?

Can you explain the reason why that missing lens would have an effect in the mirage?

You should already know this stuff. Very easy to do research. Like I said, competing without knowing the basics is never not funny😂😂.

Here is a start.



F1 scopes dont have the reticle lens housing(black housing near ocular). AO scopes don’t have the side focus lens group(also black in front of erector assembly)

The rest is proprietary info.

FTR_SHOOTER,

Thanks for taking the time for your lengthy post.

qwk,


Thanks for the video.

I'm still waiting for the reason why that missing lens would have an effect in the mirage.

I never see mirage when using a single lens optic.

It's like magic.

I also find a single lens burns ants better so it's a win/win.

😝

Is it like looking through a nyquil bottle?

Serious question. How many shots have you had(needles not glass)?

If there's one thing I learned about you, it's that you are not serious.

Nice try at avoiding the question, but it still remains. Since you can't answer it, I'm done with you.

I already knew the answer(it’s obvious), but you just confirmed it. Nothing but a covitard dumbfhuq.

My days of not taking you seriously are coming to a early middlin.

Your knowledge of optic is "quite something".

Just Sayin.

Purpleface, considering the garbage wares you use and sell, I’ll take that as a compliment.

The very existence of the SFP is as baffling as the Grassy Knoll Shooter.