AR Sponsor
Posted: 10/21/2015 11:35:06 PM EDT
| I am looking for a 1x-4 or 1x-6 FFP tactical optic under $600. Just wanted to see what others are using. Thanx in advance |
|
Quoted:
Look for a used SWFA 1-4 or 1-6x on samplelist.com Thats all I've got. Concur with this. From what I've looked up, seems like SWFA did their homework on making the 1-4 and 1-6 FFP reticles work as well as possible. Here's a 1-6 SWFA SS HD FFP with "very slight wear from use" but it's $800+shipping, etc. They don't seem to have any of the 1-4x HD models on their discounted site. I'd keep an eye on the EE. Here's a 1-4 for sale (not mine, and I don't know the seller either) for $650 OBO, looks like some extras included. Says he's open to reasonable offers; might be worth your time to offer 600 and see what he says? Good luck, OP! I'm one of those folks who just doesn't like a reticle that isn't "honest" at all power settings (even after trying a friend's 1-4x SFP optic a while back), so I'll be saving pennies for a FFP optic one of these days. |
|
Atibal Velocity
It's right in your ballpark price range. I am awaiting my preview sample. Made by LOW and its FFP without BDC so the large posts will be very visible at 1x and the precise crosshairs will help with Precision shots at 4X. 1/2x1/2 minute adjustments under the capa and I am waiting patiently to see how this stacks up to my Razor in build quality and definitely in price. 
|
|
Quoted:
People have gone retarded with the FFP bullshit. Especially with the 1-4- 2.5-10X range optics. SFP is much more user friendly and if something is far enough to range, you're gonna need more than 4X, 10 is a minimum. This, but with a good mildot or similar SFP ranging reticle you can do holdovers well at a low power scope's zoom top end. Look at that SWFA SS reticle at 1x good luck if you do need to shoot at anything beyond close up. And at top end, the crosshairs are too wide for precision shooting. Low power scopes are not used at intermediate zoom. Either they are all the way down or all the way up on max. Only at 14x and above does FFP make sense. If you need to adjust say at 24x to tune out mirage by moving down to 16x or 14x, you still need your subtensions to be accurate. That is when FFP is needed. Low power FFP scope reticles are at best, a poor compromise that hinder precision shooting or close in shooting, or both. At their worst, they are a very bad marketing gimmick for the gullible. |
|
FFP can make a lot of sense in a low power variable, just not for ranging/holdovers except at high power. On the PA models, the large ring shrinks down and is the usable close quarter reticle, crank the power up and it grows out of the way and the center mil ranging whatever reticle is usable. Makes sense to me, these scopes really aren't used in between 1 and the max power much (if at all), just at 1x or cranked all the way up to 4 or 6.
I got a SFP 3-9x because I'm only gonna need ranging and hold overs at 9x and couldn't see the mil marks very well below 6x on a FFP anyway. |
|
Quoted: Atibal Velocity It's right in your ballpark price range. I am awaiting my preview sample. Made by LOW and its FFP without BDC so the large posts will be very visible at 1x and the precise crosshairs will help with Precision shots at 4X. 1/2x1/2 minute adjustments under the capa and I am waiting patiently to see how this stacks up to my Razor in build quality and definitely in price. http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0208/4882/products/dr_photo_velocity.JPG?v=1445020591 This is the scope I'm waiting on. Really looking forward to reviews on it. Also, what are the differences between FFP scopes and SFP scopes. I'm still learning about these 1-4x scopes. I became interested when I read that they were good for people with astigmatism. |
|
Everything everyone has said about the uselessness of low power ffp scopes is true.
I mean, at 1x, what the heck good does it do?? And if you have a 1-6x or even a 2.5-10x, who uses them at 3x, or say 5x, so why do they need to hold true?? With a .223/5.56 if you're on the lowest power settings anything you put the dot or crosshairs on should be hit out to 200 yards without any or much holdover. It's why ACOG's or the ACSS Reticles say zero at either 50/200 or 100 yards. If you're trying to put tiny holes into paper at 100 or more yards, that's fine, but people who get paid or compete to put tiny holes into paper don't do so with a 1-4x scope (3 gun is a different story). This ffp market is just silly to me, and Lord I wish I had known better before spending good money on 2.5-10x ffp with a reticle I couldn't see at 2.5x Go to higher power optics, and sure they serve a purpose, but why would anyone need the reticle to remain true at 2x, 3x, 4x, or 5x... Especially with the inherent design flaw of the reticle HAVING to remain thin enough to adjust to the higher magnification without being too thick. |
|
I will admit, I can see the points people make about FFP reticles.
I just bought a FFP 2.5-10 and the reticle is more challenging to use at the lower end. That being said I think FFP reticles still have their place in the lower powered scopes. I can see the holdovers and marks in my reticle even at 2.5x. I think some are probably atrocious. Bottom line is they must have a great reticle design. Manufacturers have the tall order of making reticles usable at all ranges. And some of these manufacturers are succeeding or on the right track. Some..........not so much. I wouldn't completely write off FFP in lower powered scopes. Although I can see others points, and do have reservations myself. It's best if you can look through them for yourself and decide whether or not they will work for you. |
| I like FFP on my 2-10. The mil-dot reticle is easy to see and range with above 5- 6x or so. Below that with the illumination on it really draws your eye in fast, but it's still very precise. On a 1-6x a BDC would be functional for roughly half the range, and below that it would be more like a dot sight. It's a great system to me. YMMV |
AR Sponsor