AR Sponsor
Posted: 5/14/2010 8:11:53 PM EDT
I have been reading the scope threads sooo much that my head is all fugly inside  I have more questions now than when I started. 
On a FFP scope, other than the reticle size increasing with magnification and being useful for millling at any setting, as opposed to being accurate at only one setting on a SFP (usually Max?), what else do you gain over a SFP scope? Does any of that matter in a CQB low power (say 1-4 or 1-6) scope? How does POI change with either type as magnification increases? How does hold over change with either type as distance from zero increases and as magnification changes? |
|
Quoted:
I have been reading the scope threads sooo much that my head is all fugly inside Run for Congress then, they all have the same condition! I have more questions now than when I started.
On a FFP scope, other than the reticle size increasing with magnification and being useful for millling at any setting, as opposed to being accurate at only one setting on a SFP (usually Max-lots of higher powered scopes are accurate at 10x), what else do you gain over a SFP scope? You loose slightly more of your target picture with FFP due to the larger reticle at higher Xs. Not a big deal unless you like fine crosshairs. Does any of that matter in a CQB low power (say 1-4 or 1-6) scope?It doesn't matter as much, most CQB optics aren't used out that far, or have a simple "good enough" holdover reticle that is used at max Xs. How does POI change with either type as magnification increases? With good quality optics including lots of affordable ones, it won't. You should always test for zero shift with any scope before you start shooting long range and assume its consistent. How does hold over change with either type as distance from zero increases and as magnification changes? A FFP the holdover will always be consistent vs SFP the reticle size changes requiring you to use different numbers when doing your math for holdover. Mils on my SFP are an accurate 3.6" @10x vs 2.5" @16x. If you figure your shots 1.1moa off, you will not be even close at any sort of extended distance. As far as past zero, that's all in the calculations. Hope this helps a little. |
|
Quoted:
Does any of that matter in a CQB low power (say 1-4 or 1-6) scope? One of the downsides of a FFP reticle for CQB is that the reticle gets smaller as the magnification is decreased. Assuming you have the correct size reticle at maximum power, you wind up with a reticle that's harder to pick up quickly at 1x. An illuminated reticle helps somewhat, but it's still not optimum. My personal opinion is that a FFP reticle is useful on higher power scope - it allows you to range at any magnification - but that a SFP reticle is preferable for a scope that is around 1-4x and will be used for CQB. |
|
One of the downsides of a FFP reticle for CQB is that the reticle gets smaller as the magnification is decreased. Assuming you have the correct size reticle at maximum power, you wind up with a reticle that's harder to pick up quickly at 1x. An illuminated reticle helps somewhat, but it's still not optimum.
A FFP reticle needs to be designed for that application. A FFP reticle must have a center section that is useful at high magnifications and an outer section that is useful at lower magnifications. For example a heavy plex reticle with thin wires in the center is a great CQB reticle (proven against dangerous game in Africa in the pre-tacticool days) - this allows you to instinctively use the heavy posts for quick snap shooting at 1x, but the heavy post zoom out of the picture at 4x so they don't obscure anything and you are left with the fine crosshairs (that were invisible at 1x) for more accurate shooting at distance. Or a reticle with a donut of death at 1x that zooms out of the picture at 6x simultaneously magnifying the crosshair in the center that wasn't visible at 1x. The S&B Short Dot reticle is a good example of a FFP reticle, at 1x the crosshairs are nearly invisible so the illuminated dot dominates turning into a red dot sight, but at around 2x the reticle is zoomed in enough to be very useful. The Premier 1.1-8x takes this even further, it automatically switches the dot on as you go up past 3x, and back on again as you come back down. |
|
Quoted:
One of the downsides of a FFP reticle for CQB is that the reticle gets smaller as the magnification is decreased. Assuming you have the correct size reticle at maximum power, you wind up with a reticle that's harder to pick up quickly at 1x. An illuminated reticle helps somewhat, but it's still not optimum.
A FFP reticle needs to be designed for that application. A FFP reticle must have a center section that is useful at high magnifications and an outer section that is useful at lower magnifications. For example a heavy plex reticle with thin wires in the center is a great CQB reticle (proven against dangerous game in Africa in the pre-tacticool days) - this allows you to instinctively use the heavy posts for quick snap shooting at 1x, but the heavy post zoom out of the picture at 4x so they don't obscure anything and you are left with the fine crosshairs (that were invisible at 1x) for more accurate shooting at distance. Or a reticle with a donut of death at 1x that zooms out of the picture at 6x simultaneously magnifying the crosshair in the center that wasn't visible at 1x. The S&B Short Dot reticle is a good example of a FFP reticle, at 1x the crosshairs are nearly invisible so the illuminated dot dominates turning into a red dot sight, but at around 2x the reticle is zoomed in enough to be very useful. The Premier 1.1-8x takes this even further, it automatically switches the dot on as you go up past 3x, and back on again as you come back down. I have the S&B 1.5-6x42, which is FFP. In my opinion the illuminated dot becomes too small as it gets to 1.5x, and is less useful for quick shots. My S&B 1.1-4x24 Zenith Short Dot is SFP, and the dot works consistently well at all magnifications. The cleverest design I've seen is with my Zeiss 1.5-6x42 Victory Diavari scope - the crosshairs are FFP, but the illuminated dot is SFP, so the dot remains constant size, but the reticle allows ranging and gets out of the way at low magnifications. |
|
Thnaks for the info. I have two different applications to scope up for now that I am tossing the cheapie starter scope. CQB on my M4 (0-200) and long range (over 200) for my bull barrel flattop.
I know the world loves ACOG's but my wallet ain't that big so I have to look for the hard to find, high(er) quality, mid priced scopes. |
|
Quoted:
Thnaks for the info. I have two different applications to scope up for now that I am tossing the cheapie starter scope. CQB on my M4 (0-200) and long range (over 200) for my bull barrel flattop. I know the world loves ACOG's but my wallet ain't that big so I have to look for the hard to find, high(er) quality, mid priced scopes. I can't give you a good recommendation for a CQB scope at the very low end, but some moderately priced possibilities: - the Meopta Meostar R1 with the KDot reticle: daylight visible dot - $799 - the Trijicon compact 1.5x24 Acog: built like a tank, excellent eye relief: $910 - the Trijicon Tripower: also built like a tank, illuminated chevron, battery backup for the reticle: $650 - any of the Aimpoints: the CompML2 is $450 Probably not the price range you wanted, but not anything you'd regret buying. If you want to skip an illuminated reticle, then there are many more possibilities, and cheaper ones. The Tripower and the Aimpoints are excellent, but, of course, have no magnification. I'd suggest that for 0-200 yards you don't need it. |
|
I am looking pretty hard at the Millet DMS 1-4 as a CQB. Dot in a doughnut should be easy to use out to 50 at 1x and then crank it up from 50 to 200.
Both the Konus M30 and the Weaver mil/mill seem to fit my needs for longer range. More power in the Konus but milling on both axis' with the weaver sounds very useful. Anyone have experience with either of those? |
|
Quoted: I have been reading the scope threads sooo much that my head is all fugly inside I have more questions now than when I started. On a FFP scope, other than the reticle size increasing with magnification and being useful for millling at any setting, as opposed to being accurate at only one setting on a SFP (usually Max?), what else do you gain over a SFP scope? Does any of that matter in a CQB low power (say 1-4 or 1-6) scope? How does POI change with either type as magnification increases? How does hold over change with either type as distance from zero increases and as magnification changes? Good questions. All of today's scopes owe their existence to the first internally adjustable scope made by Zeiss in 1892. The reason they went to what we call a front focal plane is that placing the reticle in the path of light eliminates parallax error issues compared to trying to put a reticle at an actual focal point which is what happens in what we call the second focal plane. When second focal plane scopes came out (to eliminate the ever changing size of the reticle,) they had floating reticles which were problematic as the mechanical side of the scope started to weaken over time. Back in the 50s, Redfield and Weaver changed the world in a number of ways. One way was that they pioneered a fixed reticle design, so as long as the reticle is placed properly in the scope, parallax error is at a minimum. Again originally, Zeiss used a FFP to eliminate parallax error caused by reticle placement. Second question is entirely dependent on the reticle pattern itself. Does the pattern help with target acquisition or hinder it, for example? Third question is all about the actual scope's design, how good the parts are and how well it's put together. Nothing to do with the reticle pattern itself. Last question, I'm assuming that you're referencing a BDC or a range finding reticle pattern? If so, there are advantages to both as well as disadvantages to both FFP and SFP. (That's why some manufacturers have elements of the aiming point [read that as part of a reticle pattern] in both planes.) Eliminating the reticle patterns themselves, the most difficult thing about any reticle that you can do some math with, is actually the manufacture process of making the reticle. It's difficult in both planes. In the First plane, you have to make the reticle pattern small, and it has to be held in the center of the glass. That's difficult as the further from center, the more everything is off. In the second focal plane, the reticle pattern has to be sized either for the minimum focal length or the maximum focal length (and where the focal lengths are set is also in a tolerance!) I realize that this answer isn't very satisfactory, but it brings up the point that practice practice practice is a more important aspect of shooting than one type of mil-dot reticle over another type of mil-dot reticle. Hope this helps. |
|
It almost sounds like a duplex reticle with a fine cross hair through the center of a heavier doughnut in a FFP wuld be the best compromise for an all around CQB/longer range scope (assuming a 50/200 yd zero). Easy shot placement at low power but as the doughnut increases in size the fine reticle get larger to hold the precision at the 200 yd range.
OH, wait, I guess you need fine holdover hash marks to go along with the fine cross hair for 300 and beyond. Might as well throw in a couple on top for 25 and 15 yd work. Sounds like a custom job to me, unless somebody else offer this? Oh yeah, a 2 MOA center dot as well, and a laser rangefinder, and a red fire truck and a new baseball and glove.... 
|
|
I got a couple of suggestions. How about a Leatherwood CMR for CQB, and a Millett TRS-1 for the long end of things. They are both SFP but the TRS is very nice for $300 and I've been very happy with mine. I haven't ordered a CMR yet, but soon. Initial reviews seem quite promising. They are both in the low-mid price range, which will save more money for good mounts.
P.S. Buy the best mounts you can even if you have to go a little cheaper on the scope. |
AR Sponsor