However, this being a public forum, a healthy discussion of different preferences does not hurt.
ILya
agreed, the problem we see here is group and pack mentality. Its like global warming. everyone agrees so it must be correct. I personally feel the industry is too fixated and that most shooters would be generally best served with optics that have less power than the ones currently being pushed. For a hunting scope I see no need for a scope to be greater than 15-16x on the high end. I can shoot half MOA with a 3.5-15x nightforce @1000 yards. If I was always shooting that far might I pick a scope with more power, probably. but 1000 yards is really too far for anyone to be regularly shooting at big game animals, and 15x on the high end still gets the job done. When I shoot at an animal and the shot requires hold over or holding off or anything more than point and shoot. I am not rushing a shot of this nature. If you use a scope of 15x or less there is no reason not to just crank the scope to max. So what changed in the optics business? why were all the older scopes SFP? because they were generally less power and were designed for hunting. FFP has been popularized by tactical shooting and PRS style shooting. which is a totally different shooting dynamic. Maybe a quick shot at 400+ yards at something moving is desired. In which case there is a good reason to not be on max power to make that shot. Since the optic maxs at 25x on the high end, its desired to not be on max power because of mirage OR because more FOV is desired. Again all benefits of FFP.
both scope designs have a trade off. No one seems to care to acknowledge this around here. its like FFP or nothing. You yourself said the markings on FFP aren't useable on the lowest powers. they are only use able at mid to high power. That is still a trade off and most definitely not usable at any power like so many people claim. For a hunting scope, you need ONE thing most importantly, you need to be able to actually see the reticle on the lowest power and in the lowest light because that is when animals are most likely seen. early in the morning or late in the evening. Low light performance is a huge deal. illuminate the reticle some would say. Ok what if the scope got left on and the battery is out? what if the battery isn't working and is dead because you forgot to replace it? The illumination argument is monkeying around too much and its not ideal anyways in low light.
lastly, koshkin, what scopes do you feel offer FFP AND acceptable reticle visibility on the very lowest power without illumination? the 3x9 SWFA scope isn't bad, what others?
Just to be clear, are you accusing me of group think? I was promoting FFP since the day I learned such a thing existed.
On most hunting scopes being SFP in the olden days: only in the US and, weirdly, a lot of it was due to US hunters having legal light limits. In Europe, FFP was a lot more common mostly because they needed better reticle visiblity for night hunting. A ton of old SFP hunting scopes have reticles that are too thin for low light use, but they worked great when sighting in at 100 yards, so that's what people wanted. Why do you think Leupold always had standard duplex and heavy duplex? Heavy duplex was mostly for people who actually use their scopes, while thin duplex was for people who show off their 100 yard groups.
On magnification: we are in full agreement. An average hunter can't tell his ass from an elbow as far as scopes go most of the time, so he assume bigger is better. I field these question every day. People send me e-mail with questions whether their 6-24x scope is enough magnificaiton to shoot a deer inside of 100 yards. This happens often enough that I have several prepared answers I can copy and past.
Both designs do have tradeoffs and we disagree where those tradeoffs are. To me, SFP is at its best in blister pack scopes because they are cheaper to make and in high magnification static target scopes. For just about everything else I am firmly in the FFP camp.
Appropriate reticle illumination is most certainly the way the industry is going, whether you like it or not. Battery issues are nicely resolved with auto shutoff features and more efficient illumination. You may not like it, but that is where things are going. For example, in the excellent Blaser 1-7x28 scope I tested not long ago the reticle is DESIGNED to virtually disappear on 1x, so that the large illuminated dot looks like a reflex sight with no distractions. It is not a tactical scope. They want that 1x performance for driven hunts and stuff like that.
On current FFP scopes that are designed for good low power reticle visbility without illumination: there aren't that many because it is not a design goal for all that many. Off the top of my head, here are the ones I can come up with: SWFA 3-9x42, Bushnell LRHS with G2 reticle, March 3-24x52 and 3-24x42 with several reticles, higher mag Blaser Infinity scopes, Meopta Meostar 3-12x56, Burris Veracity, several S&B scopes.
More on low light use: when things slow down in low light, for a lot of people I know, it is pretty common to bump magnification up a bit to 5-6x or so where there is a good compromise between magnification and exit pupil. It seems like with a scope like SWFA 3-9x42, 3.5x where the sight tunneling goes away is most commonly used in decent light where you might be presented with a quick shot offhand. At least, that's how I tend to use it. For most other situations I tend to bump up magnification a little bit with 6x being very common. The scope goes on 9x for sighting in and, once in a while, when I really have time to shoot.
ILya
