The Nightforce is, without a doubt, the better built scope. But not everyone needs a tanklike scope or wants to pay for one. If you're willing to wait a month or two, the Burris XTR II series looks very promising, with a 2-10x42 FFP model that should be very competitive with the scopes you're looking at, for $799 or so. Link below. I don't think anyone has these in stock yet but as you can see in the 6-page thread about them they should be in stock very soon.
XTR Scopes - rifle scopes, handgun scopes, hunting scopes by Burris Optics
Yes, it does look promising. Definitely has piqued my interest. The Vortex, although a new variant, seems to be more proven in the field. With the Burris I'd wait for more end-user feedback.
The way I look at it, if I'm shooting far enough that I need to use a reticle, I'm on 10x anyway.
I'm not a fan of ffp on low magnification scopes, more times than not, it renders the reticle useless or almost useless on low magnification, and if your shooting at distance, you'll be at 4 or 6x.
+1. Ffp in a max 10x scope is the optics equivalent of tits on a bull.
Thanks for your feedback. These are examples of the type of commentary I often found during my research. Although I value these opinions from experienced users, I was more interested in the reason
why FFP was not preferred in low power scopes. From the discussion here it seems to be the availability of an optimal reticle (or lack thereof), and the practicality of having to range targets at such low magnification.
There's only one thing that bothers me about my NF 2.5-10 and that is it does not have any marks below the turret so there is no indication of which rev I'm on. Not much of a problem for you because you'll be shooting inside 300Y but still I thought I should mention it.
Other than that it's a pretty awesome scope! It is nice having SFP for close in shooting. For me the scope is either on 10x or 2.5x. Mine has the LV600 reticle in it. I dial 6 clicks up from my 100Y zero and use the reticle on 10x for holdovers so it's a pretty versatile scope. The windage hashes are very close for 69's as well.
I actually plan to shoot within the 500 meter range, maybe even stretching it out to 600, depending on the availability of land/space. How do you like the LV600? I was considering that choice, but was concerned it might be too limiting considering it's calibrated to shoot specific loads. Seems like it would be great for close-in engagements though.
I'm really used to using FFP. If I can see the reticle, I'll probably end up trying to use it at the wrong power when I'm in a hurry. I've done it with my 1-4x PST. I can only imagine it would be happening far more often with a 2.5-10x power scope. I would much rather have FFP with a good reticle like the one they're putting in the Bushnell Long Range Hunter.
I once owned a PST 1-4x and really liked the reticle for CQB on my AR15s. However, the more I began looking at the ranging ability of optics, the more I realized how little I actually know about shooting accurately at distance. I thought I had a decent understanding having used ACOGs throughout my military career, but ranging using MOA/MRAD type reticles was a skill I knew I had to figure out and master if I plan to ever become a serious shooter. Thanks for your input.
In my opinion, there is no downside to FFP when a well-designed reticle is used. I really like the ones that SWFA and USO use in their low magnification scopes. They work like an Eotech reticle at low magnification and a standard mil-radian reticle at higher magnification. That combined with the ability to hold for elevation/windage at any magnification makes SFP virtually obsolete in my opinion. The only place I would ever consider using SFP anything would be benchrest/F-class style shooting or the dual focal plane concept that USO uses in their awesome SR-8c or whatever it is called.
Different strokes for different folks though...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks. That seems like a valid argument against SFP, but it seems to make more sense at higher magnification. When I had the PST 1-4x I couldn't understand why I'd ever use the ranging capability of the reticle at anything other than max power. I appreciate your feedback.
That's really the key. Not being able to see the reticle at low power is not due to the scope being FFP, it's due to poor reticle design. A well designed reticle will enhance the scope's use at low magnification.
So far I have seen that: too fine a reticle and it's practically useless at lower power. But too robust a reticle and it becomes obstructive. I really do like the Leupold CMR-W 7.62 reticle as it seems to meet all the requirements, but the Mark 8 1.1-8x and Mark 6 3-18x are both out of my spending range currently. I know I can get it in the Mark 6 1-6x with the .mil discount, but I think I'd want just a little more reach on the high end of the magnification range. Thanks.
Yes, in principle. It's just that to me there aren't many companies doing good reticle design on lower power FFP scopes. The only FFP reticle I'm completely happy with in a lower power scope is Leupold's CMR-W in the 1-6x Mark 6. I would give a B to SWFA's reticle in the 1-6x SS and a B+ to their discontinued T-reticle (German #4 style, kinda) in the 1-4x SS (they are only now selling the circle-cross reticle in that scope). I've owned the FFP Vortex PST in 2.5-10x32 and 4-16x50 flavor and both were very thin bordering on too faint to see at minimum power. About the same for the G2DMR in the Bushnell 3-12x44, although for some reason I find it slightly easier to use at minimum power.
Wanting to use illumination generally makes things more difficult still, though again the CMR-W does very well, and the SWFA SS do fairly well.
In comparison, it's really hard to mess up a SFP reticle in the lower power range. Notice that Vortex only offers SFP in their lower power scopes (Razor 1-6x and PST 1-4x) after discontinuing the FFP 1-4x Razors, and that Burris chose SFP for their new 1-5x XTRII, while using dual focal plane in the 1.5-8x and FFP in all the higher powers?
Of course, the best measure is for the purchaser to simply try and look through one before buying. Half the talk on this forum would dry up if high end tactical style scopes were in stock within easy driving distance of most users. I think less than a third of the scopes I own are stocked at any shop within an hour of my house.
Fortunately, I have a lot of shops in my area that sell optics. Many commercial off-the-shelf brands, but some exotics as well. I've had the opportunity to handle a few I've been interested in. The Viper HSLR with XLR reticle has been the latest I've had the opportunity to put my hands on and it seemed like a very nice scope. However, I was a bit concerned about being able to actually use the reticle effectively at lower power, hence my original question on whether or not it's a necessary feature in lower power variable optics.
No kidding! If someone remotely close to me stocked a selection of quality optics, my scope shopping would be much easier. It takes me nearly a year to decide on one. By the time I finally buy one, the market gets flooded with a plethora of new models and I instantly have buyer's remorse....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lol Hopefully it won't take me that long.
You all have been great. Looking forward to furthering the discussion. Thanks for your time.
