Posted: 8/16/2015 3:55:22 PM EDT
|
I'm gettnig have a Savage 12LRP in 6.5 creedmoor I already have a 20moa EGW scope base for it , this rifles primary use is for punching paper at distances already known out to 1000 yards, The ammo will be hand loaded 120 and 140 grain amax bullets in Hornaday neck sized brass as soon as some more H4350 is available.
ETA: Considering a Leupold VX-6 7-42x56 anybody got anything better? FFP would be nice, but king of a waste since I know the distances |
|
A Leupold VX-6 7-42x56 is a $2K piece of hardware.
For about $1450 you could get a Nightforce 12-42x56 bench rest scope. In either case, Nightforce or Leupold, there are a couple downsides with that choice. 56mm is pretty small for 42X and you get a 1.4mm exit pupil, which isn't quite adequate even in bright light. And the range of adjustment in those scopes is limited to about 40 MOA. $1300 will get you a Nightforce benchrest scope in 8-32x56mm format with 50 MOA of adjustment in windage and elevation, and it has an exit pupil that is 1.7mm at 32x which is a little better - but still only about half the diameter of a normal pupil in bright light. You're basically trading maximum magnification potential for more range of adjustment. A 5-20x56 mm scope makes more sense as at maximum power the exit pupil is a more useful 2.5mm in diameter. A side benefit with the Nightforce scopes are that you can get an SHV 5-20x56 for around$1,250 and get 80 MOA of adjustment in elevation and 50 MOA in windage. The thing a lot of shooters don't seem to realize is that magnification is not a substitute for resolution, and with good glass providing sharp image resolution, uber magnification is not needed. Unless the target is really small, 20x is adequate for 1000 yards, even in benchrest competition. That is after all the equivalent of looking at the target at 50 yards at 1x. More magnification won't improve the atmopshperic conditions, and with a practical objective lens size of 56mm, more magnification just results in darker, grainier images, and it often isn't possible when the mirage is running hard. A lot of shooters use 40-50x, but they are also shooting at a high contrast target, so the image quality and brightness isn't as important as it would be for a shooter in real world shooting situation. ---- Personally, I've been quite happy with a Nightforce SHV 4-14x56mm with the MOAR reticle, but I'm more of a 600-800 yard shooter. It offers 100 MOA of elevation adjustment and 70 MOA of windage adjustment. Mounted on a 20 MOA rail, I have 65 MOA of adjustment available to go up from a 200 yard zero. That's enough for 1,250 yards in my .308, and with the 30 MOA reticle, I could theoretically shoot to 1500 yards. ---- First focal plane reticles are all the rage now, as they allow the shooter to use the reticle to range the target and use the reticle for hold points at any magnification. But if you mostly use the scope at maximum magnification, then it's a waste. Worse, it's a waste with a distinct downside. Since the reticle grows and shrinks with the magnification, the crosshair can get comparatively large at long range and obscure the target. The end result is usually a very fine reticle that can easily be lost in a dark background, particularly, in low light where the scope is already struggling to create adequate image brightness and contrast. In that regard, a first focal plane reticle only makes sense if you're doing the kinds of shooting where it makes sense. If most of your shooting is at maximum magnification, then it just doesn't make sense. If you're shooting at lower magnifications now and then but are still putting the dope on the scope, then it still doesn't make sense. In contrast, a second focal plane reticle, while only accurate for MOA ranging and hold purposes at a single magnification (usually the maximum magnification) doesn't get bigger at higher magnification so it won't obscure the target, and it won't get smaller at lower magnifications that offer better image brightness in low light. |
|
Quoted:
Worse, it's a waste with a distinct downside. Since the reticle grows and shrinks with the magnification, the crosshair can get comparatively large at long range and obscure the target. The end result is usually a very fine reticle that can easily be lost in a dark background, particularly, in low light where the scope is already struggling to create adequate image brightness and contrast. This is a myth that won't die. It is not always true. Only if the SFP retice is designed to be thinner at it's highest power, or specific power where it subtends, to be thinner than a scope with a FFP reticle thickness. If it subtends at a mid range power than as it gets higher than that it will actually cover more of the target. SFP reticles are not automatically thinner than a FFP reticle. A SFP reticle can be thicker than a FFP reticle. My FFP Razor II only covers .03 mils or .108" at 100 yards or 1.08" at 1000 yards. The SFP NF ATACR 5-25x Mil-R reticle covers .04 mils or .144" at 100 yards or 1.44" at 1000 yards. That is at 25x. At 12.5x my Razor II FFP scope still covers the same amount of the target as it does at any power being FFP but the NF ATACR SFP scope covers twice as much as it did at 25x or .288" at 100 or 2.88" at 1000 because the target size got smaller with the power but the reticle did not stay in proportion and actually now covers more of the target. My whole point is that a reticle will not stay thinner in a SFP scope coming off of max power nor will it be automatically thinner than a FFP scope. It comes down to the specific reticle and it's design. Both have their place and uses but blanket statements are confusing. |
|
I agree, a SFP reticle can indeed be thicker than a FFP reticle. Most of us with an interest in precision shooting will avoid those thick reticles in a SFP scope.
Which is the point - if the FFP reticle is designed to be suitably thin at long range and high magnification, that often leaves the reticle too thin to be seen effectively in low light at low magnification. All I'm saying is that they are a mixed bag, and if you get a FFP reticle it needs to be because your specific type(s) of shooting will benefit from it, not because it's considered cool to have a FFP reticle. In other words, I'm suggesting that people actually research and think about the pros and cons and make an informed choice, rather than going with the ultimate blanket statement or assumption that a FFP reticle is better or more desirable than a SFP reticle - as that is very often not the case. I also recommend that if someone is contemplating a scope with a FFP reticle than they actually try one out first, under different magnification and lightning conditions to see and fully understand the trade offs involved in that particular scope. Way too many people just read a review and then buy on line without making a real world comparison. |
|
But it comes back to buying the right tool for the job. If you are buying a 5-25 scope to use a majority of the time at the low power or if low power is important then you bought the wrong tool. There is always give and take. With an illuminated reticle though even with the FFP reticle staying in relation to the target and appearing smaller to the eye at lower power you can still see the reticle. But again most buying the higher powered scopes will be using the scope at the 8-10x range and higher for a majority of the use. Back to right tool for the job.
Comes down to use as you mentioned. If you are just looking for a scope to use as a center aiming point then a SFP scope will work fine but if you plan on actually using the reticle for shooting then a FFP is a better option. There is a reason KD shooters like bench rest and F Class use SFP scopes and other shooting sports in UKD or more action related like sniper matches use FFP. Looking through a scope is always a good option prior to buying but sometimes isn't possible. The shooter has to figure out what they need out of the scope, it's use and then look into the features and power range. Reticle and FFP vs SFP are in those questions. |
|
Quoted:/....Comes down to use as you mentioned. If you are just looking for a scope to use as a center aiming point then a SFP scope will work fine but if you plan on actually using the reticle for shooting then a FFP is a better option. There is a reason KD shooters like bench rest and F Class use SFP scopes and other shooting sports in UKD or more action related like sniper matches use FFP. Quoted:/....Comes down to use as you mentioned. If you are just looking for a scope to use as a center aiming point then a SFP scope will work fine but if you plan on actually using the reticle for shooting then a FFP is a better option. There is a reason KD shooters like bench rest and F Class use SFP scopes and other shooting sports in UKD or more action related like sniper matches use FFP. Which asks us back my original point. The OP said this (emphasis added): I'm gettnig a Savage 12LRP in 6.5 creedmoor I already have a 20moa EGW scope base for it , this rifles primary use is for punching paper at distances already known out to 1000 yards, The ammo will be hand loaded 120 and 140 grain amax bullets in Hornaday neck sized brass as soon as some more H4350 is available.
ETA: Considering a Leupold VX-6 7-42x56 anybody got anything better? FFP would be nice, but kind of a waste since I know the distances Given that he is punching paper over known distances, a FFP reticle isn't his best option. My point in mentioning the pros and cons of FFP reticles was to point out that they have a potential downside, and it's more than just a waste, it's potentially counter productive - particularly for his intended use. Why spend serious money on something that has a distinct downside for your intended use? I just wanted him to be able to make a more informed decision. |
|
Quoted:
Which asks us back my original point. The OP said this (emphasis added): Given that he is punching paper over known distances, a FFP reticle isn't his best option. My point in mentioning the pros and cons of FFP reticles was to point out that they have a potential downside, and it's more than just a waste, it's potentially counter productive - particularly for his intended use. Why spend serious money on something that has a distinct downside for your intended use? I just wanted him to be able to make a more informed decision. Quoted:
Quoted:/....Comes down to use as you mentioned. If you are just looking for a scope to use as a center aiming point then a SFP scope will work fine but if you plan on actually using the reticle for shooting then a FFP is a better option. There is a reason KD shooters like bench rest and F Class use SFP scopes and other shooting sports in UKD or more action related like sniper matches use FFP. Which asks us back my original point. The OP said this (emphasis added): I'm gettnig a Savage 12LRP in 6.5 creedmoor I already have a 20moa EGW scope base for it , this rifles primary use is for punching paper at distances already known out to 1000 yards, The ammo will be hand loaded 120 and 140 grain amax bullets in Hornaday neck sized brass as soon as some more H4350 is available.
ETA: Considering a Leupold VX-6 7-42x56 anybody got anything better? FFP would be nice, but kind of a waste since I know the distances Given that he is punching paper over known distances, a FFP reticle isn't his best option. My point in mentioning the pros and cons of FFP reticles was to point out that they have a potential downside, and it's more than just a waste, it's potentially counter productive - particularly for his intended use. Why spend serious money on something that has a distinct downside for your intended use? I just wanted him to be able to make a more informed decision. But it also seems like he thinks ffp reticles are only used for ranging with his comment about knowing the range and that is one of the least useful things to do with them. Maybe he needs to do a little more research on to the uses of ffp and sfp to figure what he needs. If he is just laying on a firing line and shooting something like f class then he can get away with the sfp if he is dialing everything. If he thinks he will ever use the reticle then he will be better off with a good ffp scope and a properly designed reticle. He needs to figure his main use power range and then pick a scope with that useful range. Knowing his location he might not want a super high powered scope as he might always be off highest power due to mirage. Something to think about for him. |
| I don't really care if the scope is a FFP or SFP, since FFP scopes are going up in price like mad,and I won't be putting it to use as a makeshift rangefinder but I would care if the reticle covers my point of impact (or aim). What I really need is clear glass, magnification and repeatable (ability to hold zero) durability. |
|
Quoted:
I don't really care if the scope is a FFP or SFP, since FFP scopes are going up in price like mad,and I won't be putting it to use as a makeshift rangefinder but I would care if the reticle covers my point of impact (or aim). What I really need is clear glass, magnification and repeatable (ability to hold zero) RANGING IS NOT THE ONLY USE OF A FFP RETICLE! In case you missed it.  And as mentioned a properly designed FFP reticle will cover no more of the target than a SFP and possibly less as power is lowered.
|
|
Quoted:
RANGING IS NOT THE ONLY USE OF A FFP RETICLE! In case you missed it. And as mentioned a properly designed FFP reticle will cover no more of the target than a SFP and possibly less as power is lowered.Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't really care if the scope is a FFP or SFP, since FFP scopes are going up in price like mad,and I won't be putting it to use as a makeshift rangefinder but I would care if the reticle covers my point of impact (or aim). What I really need is clear glass, magnification and repeatable (ability to hold zero) RANGING IS NOT THE ONLY USE OF A FFP RETICLE! In case you missed it. And as mentioned a properly designed FFP reticle will cover no more of the target than a SFP and possibly less as power is lowered.Yes, I'm aware of the FFP vs SFP debate, anybody have any info on the vx-6 scope? Are they junk? Top notch? Middle of the road big name things? |
|
Quoted:
I currently use a VX3 8-25 for 600 yard matches and while its enough I really want more. If I could afford it I would use a Night force 8-32 or 12-42 ETA not a FFP fan. I looked at the Night Force 15-55x52 but it has apparently been discontinued according to the Night Force web sight. |
|
MV,
Take a look at the Sightron Siii line of scopes. Great glass, decent choice of reticles and magnification going up to 50x. I have 3 that I use to compete in F-class matches out to 1000 yds and they are perfect in that role. They come in both FFP and SFP, my experience has been with the SFP models. All of mine are fine cross hair reticles. SY |
|
Quoted:
I looked at the Night Force 15-55x52 but it has apparently been discontinued according to the Night Force web sight. Quoted:
Quoted:
I currently use a VX3 8-25 for 600 yard matches and while its enough I really want more. If I could afford it I would use a Night force 8-32 or 12-42 ETA not a FFP fan. I looked at the Night Force 15-55x52 but it has apparently been discontinued according to the Night Force web sight. I advise some caution though as while using Extremely low Dispersion (ED) glass will boost image sharpness by reducing the magnitude of chromatic aberration, 55x is still a great deal of magnification to ask from a 52mm objective lens - way too much in fact. The exit pupil goes from an adequate 3.54 mm at 15x to a laughably small .93 mm at 55x. Elevation and windage adjustment range is also small at 55 MOA and 50 MOA respectively. Their 12-42x56 and 8-32x56 bench rest models are better choices. With the 12-42x56, the exit pupil at 42x is still small, but at 1.4 mm it's about 50% larger than the exit pupil of the 15-55x52 at 55x, although the adjustment range is even smaller at 40 MOA for windage and elevation. The 8-32x56 increases the exit pupil to 1.7mm - which is not too far below optimum in bright sunlight, and it has 50 MOA of adjustment. |
|
Quoted:
That's not correct. They discontinued the 15-55x52 2013 edition, but replaced it with the 2014 edition, which is still listed on the website as "Competition 15-55x52" right under their SHV models. Got it thanks! I advise some caution though as while using Extremely low Dispersion (ED) glass will boost image sharpness by reducing the magnitude of chromatic aberration, 55x is still a great deal of magnification to ask from a 52mm objective lens - way too much in fact. The exit pupil goes from an adequate 3.54 mm at 15x to a laughably small .93 mm at 55x. Elevation and windage adjustment range is also small at 55 MOA and 50 MOA respectively. Their 12-42x56 and 8-32x56 bench rest models are better choices. With the 12-42x56, the exit pupil at 42x is still small, but at 1.4 mm it's about 50% larger than the exit pupil of the 15-55x52 at 55x, although the adjustment range is even smaller at 40 MOA for windage and elevation. The 8-32x56 increases the exit pupil to 1.7mm - which is not too far below optimum in bright sunlight, and it has 50 MOA of adjustment. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I currently use a VX3 8-25 for 600 yard matches and while its enough I really want more. If I could afford it I would use a Night force 8-32 or 12-42 ETA not a FFP fan. I looked at the Night Force 15-55x52 but it has apparently been discontinued according to the Night Force web sight. I advise some caution though as while using Extremely low Dispersion (ED) glass will boost image sharpness by reducing the magnitude of chromatic aberration, 55x is still a great deal of magnification to ask from a 52mm objective lens - way too much in fact. The exit pupil goes from an adequate 3.54 mm at 15x to a laughably small .93 mm at 55x. Elevation and windage adjustment range is also small at 55 MOA and 50 MOA respectively. Their 12-42x56 and 8-32x56 bench rest models are better choices. With the 12-42x56, the exit pupil at 42x is still small, but at 1.4 mm it's about 50% larger than the exit pupil of the 15-55x52 at 55x, although the adjustment range is even smaller at 40 MOA for windage and elevation. The 8-32x56 increases the exit pupil to 1.7mm - which is not too far below optimum in bright sunlight, and it has 50 MOA of adjustment. |
|
Quoted:
MV, Take a look at the Sightron Siii line of scopes. Great glass, decent choice of reticles and magnification going up to 50x. I have 3 that I use to compete in F-class matches out to 1000 yds and they are perfect in that role. They come in both FFP and SFP, my experience has been with the SFP models. All of mine are fine cross hair reticles. SY Can't say enough good things about the SIII's! Their resolution is outstanding for the price. While not as bright, my SIII out resolved a VX6 3-18x50 when set at the same power. Based on recent tracking issues associated with Leupold, MK6 in particular, I'd strongly consider a SIII, NF 12-42 BR or 15-55 competition before paying the premium for the Leupold. Is there a local BR or F class match that you can attend? Odds are, there's going to be a few SIII's and NF's on the line. Probably some Leupolds as well, but maybe in fewer numbers. |
|
Quoted:
Can't say enough good things about the SIII's! Their resolution is outstanding for the price. While not as bright, my SIII out resolved a VX6 3-18x50 when set at the same power. Based on recent tracking issues associated with Leupold, MK6 in particular, I'd strongly consider a SIII, NF 12-42 BR or 15-55 competition before paying the premium for the Leupold. Is there a local BR or F class match that you can attend? Odds are, there's going to be a few SIII's and NF's on the line. Probably some Leupolds as well, but maybe in fewer numbers. Quoted:
Quoted:
MV, Take a look at the Sightron Siii line of scopes. Great glass, decent choice of reticles and magnification going up to 50x. I have 3 that I use to compete in F-class matches out to 1000 yds and they are perfect in that role. They come in both FFP and SFP, my experience has been with the SFP models. All of mine are fine cross hair reticles. SY Can't say enough good things about the SIII's! Their resolution is outstanding for the price. While not as bright, my SIII out resolved a VX6 3-18x50 when set at the same power. Based on recent tracking issues associated with Leupold, MK6 in particular, I'd strongly consider a SIII, NF 12-42 BR or 15-55 competition before paying the premium for the Leupold. Is there a local BR or F class match that you can attend? Odds are, there's going to be a few SIII's and NF's on the line. Probably some Leupolds as well, but maybe in fewer numbers. Thanks, there's a 1000 yard range about 30 miles from me that I shoot at, I'll ask around for some opinions there. |
|
I may be at Manatee this Saturday. If so, I'll bring out the Sightron and Razor Gen 1/II's. There's usually some high end glass there, as I've seen several SIII's (low end), Hensoldts, Premiers, S&B and NF (Beast, Atacr, BR and Comps). Definitely lots of options and friendly folks.
Edit: they had a few SIII's in the case the last time I was there; albeit over priced from online dealers by at least 100$. |
|
Quoted:
I may be at Manatee this Saturday. If so, I'll bring out the Sightron and Razor Gen 1/II's. There's usually some high end glass there, as I've seen several SIII's (low end), Hensoldts, Premiers, S&B and NF (Beast, Atacr, BR and Comps). Definitely lots of options and friendly folks. Edit: they had a few SIII's in the case the last time I was there; albeit over priced from online dealers by at least 100$. Manatee is fantastic!! I've been shooting out there since high school (1982) when they were located off Lena rd. I'll be back out there as soon as I get over a bit of elbow repair I had done. (I'm the guy that drives the ((sometimes)) intensely debated white Tesla.) Hope to see you out there. |
|
Quoted:
Thanks to everyone who responded! I've decided for the most part, (unless some comes up with something really awful about it). to go with the Leupold VX-6 7-42X56 I have many Leupold scopes, but I think the Kahles K624i is amazing. And if extremely high magnification is needed in a pure target scope, the Kahles K1050, 10-50x56mm at about $2,500 might be a great choice. Both are optically superior to the VX-6. Kahles glass is simply breathtaking. |
|
Quoted:
I have many Leupold scopes, but I think the Kahles K624i is amazing. And if extremely high magnification is needed in a pure target scope, the Kahles K1050, 10-50x56mm at about $2,500 might be a great choice. Both are optically superior to the VX-6. Kahles glass is simply breathtaking. Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks to everyone who responded! I've decided for the most part, (unless some comes up with something really awful about it). to go with the Leupold VX-6 7-42X56 I have many Leupold scopes, but I think the Kahles K624i is amazing. And if extremely high magnification is needed in a pure target scope, the Kahles K1050, 10-50x56mm at about $2,500 might be a great choice. Both are optically superior to the VX-6. Kahles glass is simply breathtaking. Thanks! Those do look really good! |