Rifle Scopes FFP scope cost

[h4everything]

What is it that make FFP scopes more expensive to build?

I don't want to argue the the merits of the FFP vs SFP just what in the process costs more?

Isn't is as simple as changing which lenses has the reticle etched into it?

 

[TexasWicked1]

Reticle position.

They are more labor intensive to build.

 

[hk dave]

SFP... the reticle is at the rear, it only has to be one size and is easier to produce. It is focused separately from the zoom mechanism, easy pease.

FFP... imagine a reticle that has to stay in focus and also maintain the perfect size in relation to magnification as you zoom. It's a different level of engineering. Least this is my guess from what I know of other types of optics.

 

[NGCSUGrad09]

With the reticle location at the front of the erector assembly, it is much more labor intensive to build for reliable operation while keeping clean. The position is also more prone to potential debris inside the tube as you have to repeatedly remove the turrets for adjustments to the reticle.. whereas a SFP reticle is at the rear of the erector assembly making it much easier to keep the rest of the scope clean.

 

[s002wjh]

found this. look like its harder to manufacture and still keep everything precise.

http://www.armament.com/sites/default/files/training/HowToFFP-SFP.pdf

 

[scudzuki]

At a minimum there are 2 more lenses required than a similar SFP scope.

Joe

 

[dcjs]

At a minimum there are 2 more lenses required than a similar SFP scope.

Urban scope legend.

 

[scudzuki]

Urban scope legend.

It was not a legend, rather, a design element, in the article I read that included schematics. Of course I cannot locate said article, but do you have proof to the contrary, or are you just voicing a belief?

Joe

 

[dcjs]

... but do you have proof to the contrary, or are you just voicing a belief?

Can you prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist, or is that just a belief of yours?

All I can tell you is that there is no difference in the optical layout of FFP vs. FFP as a matter of principle that has to do with the number of elements. The numbers vary depending on the individual optical design, and there are FFP as well as SFP scopes that have quite a few more optical elements than the required minimum, but this has to do with overall image quality requirements, zoom ratio, FoV or compact build rather than the reticle location.

 

[scudzuki]

Can you prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist, or is that just a belief of yours?

All I can tell you is that there is no difference in the optical layout of FFP vs. FFP as a matter of principle that has to do with the number of elements. The numbers vary depending on the individual optical design, and there are FFP as well as SFP scopes that have quite a few more optical elements than the required minimum, but this has to do with overall image quality requirements, zoom ratio, FoV or compact build rather than the reticle location.

What I do know is that in a FFP scope the reticle in the first focal plane must retain its focus relative to the eye despite being on the opposite end of the erector assembly, which I understand to require more lenses.
Again, your explanation, without proof, is just that, your understanding, regardless of whether or not you successfully insult me by suggesting I believe in pink unicorns, you douchenozzle.

 

[klongo]

"Douchenozzle" My morning is now complete lol

 

[dcjs]

What I do know is that in a FFP scope the reticle in the first focal plane must retain its focus relative to the eye despite being on the opposite end of the erector assembly, which I understand to require more lenses.

All that means is that the reticle with field lens has to be positioned exactly in the right axial location in order to remain in focus throughout the magnification range, but the same is true for a SFP scope, which also has a first focal plane that has to remain in focus throughout the magnification range, just without a reticle that is placed there. The only difference is that in an incorrectly adjusted SFP scope only the image will go blurry when changing magnification while the reticle stays sharp, while in a FFP scope both the image and reticle will go blurry. Additional lenses won't change that.

There are plenty of FFP scopes that have an erector system consisting of reticle, field lens and two achromats as erecting lenses, which is pretty much the the minimum for a normal variable scope. Please tell me how you want to reduce that number by two and still end up with a useable scope.

Again, your explanation, without proof, is just that, your understanding, regardless of whether or not you successfully insult me by suggesting I believe in pink unicorns, you douchenozzle.

What I was getting at with the unicorn example is that you cannot prove that something does not exist. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim that something exists. If you think that there are more lenses in a SFP scope as a matter of principle, you'll have to come forth with a technical explanation as to why that is. List the optical elements in a scope and explain their function, and explain what additional elements with what function are needed in a FFP scope according to your understanding. No need to be insulted by an appeal to sticking to the rules of a logical discussion.

 

[hk dave]

I am officially going to use douchenozzle instead of douchebag from now on.