Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/14/2021 10:53:10 PM EDT

I am interested in the DFP scope, which has the advantages of both FFP and SFP.
In the past, several companies seemed to sell this type of scope, but currently only S & B's Dual CC or MARCH's Shorty DR can be found.
I would like to hear the impressions of those who actually purchased the DFP scope. Thank you in advance.
Link Posted: 1/15/2021 10:24:46 AM EDT
Had not heard about a DFP scope before seeing this.  After reading about one a little - interesting.  Not sure I'm sold on the advantage though.  Don't own one to answer your question though.
Link Posted: 1/15/2021 12:11:00 PM EDT
I’m not an expert in these, but since no one is chiming in I can give you a 30,000ft view. They do what they’re supposed to do, but a lot of people would say they introduce more cons than they’re worth. They give you the ability to see mils measured accurately throughout the magnification spectrum, while having an “optimal” reticle thickness throughout. On paper, this solves the reticle being too thin on low powers and/or too thick on high powers.

I guess my thought is that that’s not too big of a problem to need to fix. No one uses precision optics for speed up close, especially now with the proliferation of LPVOs and side/piggyback RDS that better fulfill that ability. Additionally, I’ve used some FFPs with a very thick (relatively) crosshair. My old IOR was a whole .1mil, and on 18X was pretty coarse. It didn’t really matter for the kind of shooting it does (did) either.

It’s a mid/long range precision optic, not a benchrest/ELR optic. I don’t need an ultra-fine reticle to make hits to the level of range or precision required from an AR-15/10. If I were shooting benchrest/ELR, I don’t think I’d need the benefits of a FFP mil reticle either, with bench it’s not needed, and if it’s ELR I’d just use a maxed out SFP optic for holding mils, and a more precise method of ranging than mils. Now add in the added complexity and inherent added cost/room for mechanical error.

For me, it ended up being a nifty answer to a question that doesn’t need to be asked. Others will find more benefit in it than me, but apparently not too many because it never really caught on. YMMV.
Link Posted: 1/15/2021 1:38:53 PM EDT
I have the Burris 1.5-8x LPVO with the DFP CQ MIL reticle. It's fine, and does what it says on the box. I probably would have designed the reticles a little differently, but they work, and the SFP reticle is indeed daylight bright. Optical quality could be better, but that was a known coming in, and I don't think it had anything to do with being DFP. It's mounted up on my 6.5 Grendel SBR with an offset Razor RDS.

Would I buy it again? Maybe. 1.5-8 isn't the best magnification range for the type of shooting I typically do, and the scope itself is rather long and heavy (about the same weight as a pre-E Razor GenII). In an odd way, I think these would have been better suited for 1-5x - it would have made an amazing 3gun optic. But, then again, the XTR II 1-5x is generally considered daylight bright, so you're really only getting a usable reticle at 3-4x... is that worth paying for? Dunno.

None of this has any bearing on the S&B or new March 1-10x scopes, though.
Top Top