Rifle Scopes FFP Why would one have one if?

[kombayotch]

But this is the thing, it only tests basic marksmanship. It does not test things like ranging or dealing with targets that aren't at even or known distances or know speeds or how to deal with misses without the aid of a spotter. There are sighting shots, shots are marked with a big orange marker (at least the sighters) and the target itself can be used as a reference for making adjustment. The shooter learns to use the target as a reference for size, bases his adjustments off that and does some simple math using the evenly divisible distance. This falls apart when you have unknown distance, unknown target size and no markers to show you where your shots are going. Shooters who have been taught to do things this way struggle in unknown distant shooting , especially when you add the stress of time pressure.

A prime example is a match I once went to where they took a target of knowing size, scaled it to 2/3, and put it in a gully that gave the illusion that it was farther than it was. Everyone missed the first shot. That was the match directors intention. The people who used their reticle for correction, hit the target after the second or third shot. The people who tried to do the MOA math based on target size kept over adjusting and it took them many more shots to get on target.

UKD matches have extreme precision shots, but they also have quick engagements, and position shooting. They are meant to simulate real life, which doesn't have flat, even surfaces or targets that stick around for as long as it takes for you to set up the perfect shot.

The simple solution to point blank is to get an illuminated reticle or one like the March FML that has thick outer posts. I've won CQB matches running my 3-24x42 march on my AR.

 

[Muskett]

Each Country has their own take on these classic Service Rifle Matches. I know the British one is pretty useful. These shoots were once shot with battle iron sights. Now its done by the services with issue battle optics, and the scoring area reduced. Basics sure but also done to a level to give real confidence and true ability. (Most of the spotters are for scoring purposes). Many lessons learnt are of use in real field conditions. Timings are sharp; for example the Sitting Rapid: 200m, ten shots, five rounds on two targets, from the standing in 30 seconds, the bull is 5 or 6 inches and many will do a possible. The full programme is much more involved than you think. There are some amazing shots there who know their trade. Civilian versions can never do the whole programme like the night shoot. A lot does transfer well over to live fire field shooting.

More expensive civilian optics would have an advantage I'm sure. In truth the Military ones are catching up and Governments/tax payers are buying better kit.

I'm not much good at Olympic Rapid fire pistol, but its shooting and its difficult. Thats cool under pressure.

The more you shoot in real field conditions the better you get at it. Unknown range then carry a laser rangefinder or check your map/GPS. All matches are contrived. Regularly shoot an area and it doesn't take long to "know it". If it wasn't a challenge then why bother. The Theory of the Group basically says if you shoot enough shots at something with a poor group you will hit it eventually, do the same with a laser and be off and you will never hit it. There as so many ways to skin a cat. When the shit hits the fan it goes everywhere.
I shoot Driven Wild Boar, it makes it interesting as its never the same shot. Same goes for bird shooting. I'm having fun with a .17HMR on rabbits which can be as challenging as anything. I think we all like shooting.

 

[Lowlight]

Why do "we" have to convince "you" of anything ?

If your type of shooting cannot take advantage of the benefits of a FFP scope, what concern is that to any else ?

If you're not subject to the same type of competition or combat, it's a waste of breath, as it would also be if a bench rest shooter came on and asked the same thing... Nobody cares what you use or why, but understand, you're not doing anything similar so it would make sense our needs are different.

 

[Rob01]

Unknown range then carry a laser rangefinder or check your map/GPS.

FFP scopes are not about unknown distance shooting. They are used for any shooting that using the reticle will help as in elevation holds, windage holds, moving targets and calling corrections as well. Far down the list is using to range for UKD targets.

You have been here 5 years and still haven't learned that?

 

[buffybuster]

Two pages.........

If you don't feel handicapped with the SFP and don't see the advantages FFP reticle, then I guess you don't need it. Simple as that.

 

[Lowlight]

Don't waste your breath, it's that same old Tom Hanks impersonation from the Movie, "Big" ...

"I don't get it" .... over and over, with zero interest in actually getting it.

 

[Muskett]

The thread has gone on several tangents, like so many shooting conversations do. Just like it would over a beer. You answered my question yonks ago. "Convince" is just the way we say it; remember American English is different to British English, I'm pleased you got Piers Morgan sacked.. we didn't want him back though. You probably think that of me now, but I don't follow Sniper Hide closely enough to know this question has been asked too often; done to death. You don't know how lucky you are to be able to shoot all the toys you do.

For me its been an informative threat and strong arguments given. I've gained a lot, so thank you. I'll try and follow UKM more now. I'll go and brush up on my practical too;
http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz128/Muskett_2009/mqp10barricade2525x700.jpg

The FFP and SFP question is now closed. I get it.

 

[KYpatriot]

Has anyone heard of any scopes that have a portion of each reticle in both planes? A smooth crosshair in the SFP and mil or moa graduations in the FFP? Is there an engineering reason this couldn't be done?

 

[Victory]

USO makes a duel focal plain, and Redmanss was telling me about another company in another post. I'll see if I can find it. A long time ago that was an idea that went around here, and USO took to the task. From what I remember it is a complicated process getting it work well. I think the price point on these optics is why we haven't seen the big brand names coming out with them. Also the more complex, the harder to make it rugged. I've always liked the DFP idea, just don't know if anyone will perfect it and be successful doing it.

 

[Quickdraw40]

Leupold and Burris also have dual FP scopes.

 

[Victory]

Dang, guess I haven't seen those.

Have you used any of those quick draw?

 

[Quickdraw40]

Played with them, mostly lower power 3-gun type scopes.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[zatoan]

it might help if you mentioned which video game you are playing. the scopes don't always work the same across games. sounds like you need a bigger monitor

 

[Redmanss]

[MENTION=6431]Victory[/MENTION], it was Minox who is the latest with a DFP setup on their 1-8x, FFP reticle and SFP dot that engages at <2.5x. MINOX - Visible Innovation: Description

I believe also the long delayed S&B PMII 1-8x is a DFP setup as well, but don't quote me on that. Vague memories from when I actually desired it, but I guess the lens coatings were made of unicorn tears.

What would be tits would be a DFP optic that is on a 8x erector (4-32x56) that has a SFP crosshair and a FFP mil hash system, with small (like .05mil height) .2mil marks in the center reticle portion that don't become obvious until you get to >15x or so. Oh, and while I'm at it, have it track perfectly and be bomb proof under 30oz. Hey, if I'm dreaming, then let me dream guys. Call that shit the "BEAST Master".

 

[Coloradocop]

Don't waste your breath, it's that same old Tom Hanks impersonation from the Movie, "Big" ...

"I don't get it" .... over and over, with zero interest in actually getting it.

I think a lot of people want to "get" this, but can't really do so until they've had the chance to get behind a rifle with a FFP optic and directly contrast it with a SFP scope. I've seen a few people arrive at an "ah-ha" moment after you put them on the range with the two different types of scopes and demonstrate why it works for all of the scenarios mentioned in this thread. Some folks just can't really wrap their mind around it until they do it in person.

You made a good point in your previous post about the progression of shooting over the past 30 years. I talk distance shooting with some of the old heads I know from time to time, and hear about the methods that they favored back in the day, and still believe to be "best". Some of these guys were operational military snipers way back in the day, but admittedly haven't touched a bolt gun since leaving the service. In many ways their methods seem antiquated and peculiar to someone in my age bracket (mid-30's), simply because equipment and methodologies have advanced since that time.

And, while I don't want to take this thread off on some tangent, I think you also hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the fact that spotters are becoming obsolete in many ways. Once I got set up with proper equipment, and learned to properly spot my own shots, my shooting improved dramatically.

 

[Muskett]

Once shooters would take points of aim off the target. Mildot made it possible to take points of aim off the reticule. Hurus has taken that to the extreme. For FFP reticules its a compromise to how much sight picture you fill with dots and hashes and how much centre of the picture you can utilise without dropping through the bottom. High magnification just adds to what compromises need to be made and how much real-estate on the sight picture you want taken up by reticule. Thankfully with glass etching that can be very fine and not so horrible; there are even hollow mildots.
Given an option/time, be it FFP or SFP, click adjustment hasn't be bettered for elevation. Windage just isn't so straight forward as it still can get as scientific as "give it a bit"!

The Military use FFP and click adjust; Lowlight and the "youngsters" are by the sounds of it pushing FFP reticules ability to greater limits and finding testing courses of fire too. All good stuff; I just need to get out more...
There is never a "best". The best you can do is find something that works for you and keep an open mind. Once Lowlight has done all the hard work, because it is work in progress, then there will be the scope package for me to jump the fence to. So keep up the good work.

 

[kombayotch]

In my experience, the "ah-ha" moment often doesn't happen until the shooter looses the ability to do the adjustment math in some way. On square ranges, I mostly only seen that happen with people who get a mil/mil FFP scope and try to run it doing the calculations based on distance and target size. They start struggling because they "can't think in metric". When you show them they can just use the reticle, then the light goes on and they're open to learning. I find that doesn't happen very often when they have an MOA/MOA FFP scope because they just keep using it the way they used their old SFP scope, doing the math. It isn't until you take them out to a field, put a random size targets at a random distance without them knowing what those are, and show them how much quicker they can get on target using the reticle. Then the light goes on.

In places like the UK or the southern parts of Canada, where the only access to long distance shooting people have is on a military range where distance and target size is known and only one distance is shot at any given time, it's really hard to show people the benefits of FFP. Especially when they're using stuff like F-Class target that have scoring rings that are scaled to be 1 MOA at the distance you are shooting at (in these places the range is often shared between many disciplines except during matches). They will always revert to either doing the math or using the scaled target rings and they'll really never get it. They'll focus on things like reticle thickness or the granularity of the scope clicks instead and never understand the benefits of FFP. They'll just keep going back to having a range finder and "not needing to range at every magnification".

I get that for most shooting disciplines, FFP isn't necessary and never will be. But, what I find funny is that many people insist on having a mag-fed tactical bolt gun (that often has to be build to match some military issue rifle), but have no interest in learning to shoot it like a tactical rifle.

 

[MJY65]

I get that for most shooting disciplines, FFP isn't necessary and never will be. But, what I find funny is that many people insist on having a mag-fed tactical bolt gun (that often has to be build to match some military issue rifle), but have no interest in learning to shoot it like a tactical rifle.

Many shooters don't have access to wide open spaces or tactical matches.

 

[finbox]

My original question really was not what to use in a Competition where the pressure is built by the rigid course of fire and time limits.

When hunting I like to have a reticule I can see on lower magnification. When on the range, or a long range shot, where time is not the overriding factor... all the time in the world..., then I still prefer a SFP reticule. Given that choice would you go for a FFP or SFP? Are you hooked on one or the other?

It looks to me you have a paper punching background. "The reticles to big, the reticles to small" none of that matters on mammal size targets.

It the real world, comps, combat, hunting, time is everything. The faster you are the better

Long range shot does not equal "all the time in the world" if it takes a Elk 10 seconds to walk over a ridge at 700 yards....it takes the same amount of time if he's 100 yards away.

Your assuming all FFP scopes have to small/big reticle at the mag limits. Some MODERN reticle work great at both.

 

[kombayotch]

Many shooters don't have access to wide open spaces or tactical matches.

Sure, but again: why build a tactical mag-fed boltgun, then harp on things like reticle thickness, click size or any of the other SFP talking points? If someone is so concerned about precision, a single shot action is going to be stiffer than the repeater and will likely have tighter tolerances, the trigger on a tac gun isn't exactly a hair trigger, and you can put a heavier, stiffer barrel on a rifle that's only ever going to be shot prone off of a bipod. Why even have a mag if you're not concerned about speed? There is no need for it when you have "all the time in the world" to range the target and set up your shot.

So many people build rifles that are built for speed, then scoff at the reasons tac shooters run FFP... which is, for speed.

 

[Muskett]

kombayotch, sums it up well.
The Military do do open ranges, and one or two have been opened up for civilian use; certainly there is a plate shoot in the hills of Wales. Hunting wise generally its all within Point Blank where the Stalk is more important and it would be frowned upon to take extended range shots. Europe is heavily populated and habitat close... just don't get long shots often. Safe backstop is a huge consideration so every shot has to be considered, no one rushes. Nor does anyone train for home defence. You are even often limited to how many rifles you can own.
I use the Zeiss 60 illuminated reticule because it is ideal for the hunting and target shooting here. A Roe deer might be 30m away, a Fallow 150m and a Red 320m. Then I could go to Bisley square range and shoot to 1000m. My next rifle will be a Blaser R8 in 300WSM and will have to do both running boar bayonet range and Highland stalking. I'll probably have two scopes for it. I'm telling you guys this so you can see where I'm coming from and that I'm not looking for a UKD match rifle combination. As others have said wouldn't it be great to have SFP sight picture reticule size on very low mag and FFP for everything else.

"The faster you are the better". I prefer to say swift as to make a successful shot takes application which isn't hurried nor does that mean "takes forever". Practice and get your act together then it can be very fast indeed. The longer the shot or smaller the target the more time it takes to get everything right. Seems that FFR has some advantage here at mid to long range and for follow up shots or multi target engagements. However, if you only have one thing to shoot at at a time and hit it first time then the rest is immiterial.. job done. If your rifle is light weight then your heart rate can be noticed; on a heavy rifle its not so obvious and makes for a steadier platform. So, how long an effective shot takes has a lot to do on how stable a sight picture can be found that is long enough to release the shot.

I think laser rangefinders should be allowed for any match; you don't have to allow time to use them though. If you are pushing the boundaries then nothing should be dismissed. I believe there is a scope now, or in development, that not only rangefinds but makes the necessary adjustment too and releses the shot when on target. Its done on tanks. We will all be dinosaurs soon, and the playstation generation will be running the world from game pads... Or not...

However we put it I'm sure we are all trying to get to the same place and experience the same difficulties. Solutions might vary.

 

[MJY65]

I think laser rangefinders should be allowed for any match; you don't have to allow time to use them though. If you are pushing the boundaries then nothing should be dismissed.

I like that approach. Unfortunately, all "gun games" go through this. Many start out with the goal of being more realistic, but they all suffer from rules that either specify or exclude certain equipment or techniques that require increased specialization to win.

Ultimately, most of us will never be in a situation to employ these skills with someone shooting back, so it comes down to having fun with whatever aspect of the shooting sports appeals to you the most.

 

[Lowlight]

If you look at many of the new FFP reticles, you'll find they are actually thinner, and the magnification does not change the "thickness" it only changes the appearance. Physically it is not changing, it just staying in relationship to the magnification used.

So the idea it is bigger or smaller is completely false, it never changes size.

Schematically, if you look it up, you can get thin FFP reticles, the idea is to balance the magnification needed and where you intend on using with the features and the subtension of the reticule. As it is, why would you buy a 5-25x to shoot it on 6x ? Very few if anyone does that, it's used 10x, 12x, or higher but there is no real need to shoot a scope of that type at 6x, especially the better scopes. Sure you can move and scan on lower power, but you normally shoot it on a higher power. So regardless of the fact it harder to see the graduations of the reticle, that is because it is not meant to be shot that low, except as a point and shoot reference point. If the use is hunting inside 100m why would you invest in a 5-25x on that particular scope to begin with ?

It's a tool, using the tool correctly is the point more than anything else.

 

[Muskett]

MJY65, I completely agree with you. In my younger days I had to fight the system all too often to get "more realistic'" shooting practices. Fortunately, my military was quite open to this and we put together some interesting exercises. Many are now standard practices. I started with a Lee Enfield, young soldier with an SLR, majority with a SA80 with optics which I believe makes the UK the first to issue on mass. Now everyone does it. So I've been part of the transition, and shot everything I could get my hands on then and since.

My one pet hate is rules for the sake of it.
I agree too that many of the "more real" shooting sports get bogged down with rules as competitors look for advantage. There is some justification to stopping money over ability but in truth if you want advancement then the more "open class" the more likely new approaches will be tried. Having fun is the best incentive to get enough people to have some momentum. Different classes other than just "open" can allow beginners and those without unlimited funds to join in. But if you want to push boundaries then embrace the technology and ingenuity that comes from beating the challenge. If people get stupid, take the piss, then making them run 200m usually gets rid of the benchrest kitchen sink. If timings get too short then it becomes trick shooting. If targets get too small or practices beyond reason then it becomes a lottery. Some disciplines concentrate on one skill, where I prefer a more rounded approach testing all round ability; multi practice matches. Its all fun.
If you want real then everyone would need to carry a full battle order, be denied sleep for a minimum of 24 hours, have a dodgy tummy, and tabbed for 20 miles, having been bored to death for weeks cooped up in some crummy barracks. I can't think many of us are battle fit any more either; well I'm not and a heavy rifle is heavy... it wasn't when I was 20.

I say the more challenging the better and all credit to those who are getting things to happen. Every time we seem to be getting close to the limitations of shooting, someone manages to take it to another level. Sometimes you have to see it to believe it.

I remember when we Brits were given a lesson in handgun shooting by I think it was the National Guard Pistol Team. They were shooting two levels up, though we won the CQB tactical match. 2 years later we had come up to their level to be competitive. We just never realised it could be done to such a level. Now move and shoot are an integral part of handgun matches and civilian shooter, having fun, made that happen. Things have moved forward again and there is some superb handgun shooting going on with some very challenging shoots. Some pretty talented people doing it too.
I know pistol shooting is easier to set up interesting practices than rifle. Rifle does need to catch up and it is happening. UKD looks like its at the forefront of this. Annoyingly, there is limited opportunity to do it over here though that might change.

 

[Lowlight]

You don't need UKD targets, you need a dynamic course of fire and a shorter time to get it done.

Alternate positions, reduced times and variety of the target ranges at every stage.

UKD has nothing to do with it...

Hell the SH Dot Drill is done at 100 yards, you shoot a sub moa dot from the standing to the prone where the last dot is 6 seconds from start to hit. Take that mentally and put it into a course of fire with known distance targets. (Make the target ranges uneven if it helps)

Start from the standing with the rifle in your hand, move 10 yards, drop prone and engage a 2 MOA target @ 785 yards with no more than 2 shots, open bolt, move 10 yards to a barricade and engage a 435 yard target from the top of the barricade with no more than two shots, move another 5 yards and shoot a 2 MOA target from the supported kneeling @ 640 yards with no more than 2 shots, transition to another target at 525 yards, then drop to the prone and hit a 888 yard target all in under 1:30. (a hit moves you on)

The target distance has very little to do with it, how you move and engage the targets is the deciding factor.

 

[Muskett]

Sounds like a very good and challenging shoot. Should test anyone, and any kit, as its too difficult if you haven't got it all together.... which is the point.

You will have to excuse me because I don't even know what you are calling it all. UKD?? all new to me. Suppose I should have read it all up before. Anyhow, I'm all for dynamic and the more you mix it up the better its going to be.
I've tried to find a y tube on it and not sure I've found it or not. Link please if there is one.

 

[kombayotch]

On the ranges he shoots on, the only one that would allow him to shoot at targets that are at different distances would be the UKD range. He would be limited to a single distance at a time on the other ranges. Its very likely that they would only allow military personnel to use the UKD range... the UnKnown Distance range. The one without any mounds.

The closest thing he would have to this would be "rundowns", where the whole line runs to the next shooting mound (100 yards/meters ahead). The problems with that is that the entire line has to do it together. This is why the dynamic content in their matches favor fixed exposure times. Whatever they do, it needs to be done for the whole shooting line. They have no practical way to run one shooter at a time through a stage. Also, steel is likely not allowed on the military range, so everything needs to be paper.

 

[Lowlight]

Find a farm that will let you shoot, nobody says it has to be done on high power range.

if that is his problem, there is no amount of explaining that will help him understand, take a trip to another country that will let them figure it out.

 

[kombayotch]

Here are some YouTube vids:

 

[kombayotch]

As I've been saying, its really hard to explain to people who have only shot under those conditions. They just don't get it... they need to try it.

I doubt he would have access to a farm, and if he did, they probably have some ridiculous laws that would prevent from doing it.

 

[Muskett]

Lowlight, you summed up FFP scopes perfectly. Its not the scopes problem but how I could utilise its features with the type of shooting I am limited too; its my problem. The point that FFP's with higher mag aren't really intended for low mag use is what I always thought too. Its not a fault just how it is and if you don't feel retained by it. You don't buy a high mad FFP scope to use it on low power after all.
I understand that the size doesn't change but just how the reticule fills the picture. I happen to like the sight picture that a SFP scope gives but then if I could utilise the features of FFP fully then I would probably warm to them more. Horses for courses.

The UK:
I'm not unfamiliar with UKD (I was being thick), have it all the time with my varminting and hunting; just not at extended long range. Rabbits get hit with .308's, 22.250's and all manner of ordinance when there isn't any foxes about, and at extreme range. (Possibly putting up a target would be more legally problematic than a rabbit). UKD's we had them in the military with ETR, fall when hit targets, spread over huge areas too. I've also put some together in the past. CQB's, march and shoots, anything really to make things more dynamic.

Big farm, yes it can be done but not as a match! Its be known for some of us to get together and have a comprehensive zeroing session. You have to have an "Open Ticket" and use your fox or deer rifles! It can't be done on a regular basis either. Not illegal but don't take the Mick, and yes we have plenty of laws and the threat that if you get something wrong you lose your license forever. There is a UKD range in Wales with steel plates and it does extended long range; but its a trip and not free. Sadly its just not pop down to your local range.
Here are a few picks of a zeroing session:
Floating deck:
http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz128/Muskett_2009/mqp17garethhelibedford700x525.jpg
Speed shoot:
http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz128/Muskett_2009/mqp20long525x700.jpg
Rotating target on a long arm:
http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz128/Muskett_2009/mqp20long525x700.jpg

So we aren't all stuck in the mud and dynamic is found occasionally. But it is true that long range distance is difficult to find here with a free fire zone (nearest for me is the Highlands of Scotland).

The vid was a great watch. Nothing here I haven't done at some time but never in one comp/practice. Its something I would love to shoot, and regularly... well enough to really practice for, plus invest in the kit to do it well. Heck, thats what rifles are made for. Thats how to test beyond the basics.
All great stuff.