Rifle Scopes Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

S

scout1

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Nov 14, 2006
121
1
Apache County,Arizona
#1
This is similar to another topic that is active right now but I didn't want to step on it.

Is the cost difference worth it? Example: I just happen to be looking at picking up a Leupold Mk4 6.5-20x50 M1. This scope is going for $1250.00. The front focal version of this scope is going for $1700.00. The difference in price is not chump change. Will the average user fully utilize one over the other? I can't say that I'm considering the FF, just thowing the question out there. $450.00 buys alot of bullets and powder.

scout1
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tuxedo007
#2
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

depends on if your doing a lot of unknown distance shooting were your ranging a lot and or need quick follow up shoots making adjustments in my opinion there well worth it
 
#4
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

Depends on what type of shooting you'll be doing. It's very usefull for ranging, wind hold overs, elevation hold overs and unders. In my opinion is to spend the money now rather than regret not getting it later. You'll use it eventualy
 
#5
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

Follow up question. On non front focal scopes I am of the understanding that the reticle divisions are accurate at the highest magnification, correct? If that is so then on the Leupold 6.5-20x50 non front focal scope is the 20 power the power that the reticle is accurate for holdovers, leads etc..? I tried finding this out on the Leupold site but was unable to do so.

I'm strongly considering the purchase of this scope for my in progress rifle build, but after doing searches here on this topic I am really confused on which to buy, front focal or non.

scout1
 
#7
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

Scout1,

I am not arguing the information that Lindy just provided. However, the SFP reticle is not always accurate at the highest power. For example, my 4.5X14 IOR is calibrated at 10X.
 
#9
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

That's why I wasn't arguing.
smile.gif


The way he worded the question, I didn't want him to mistakenly think that was always the case.
 
#10
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

Lindy,

You mention the SFP reticle, I'm not familier with that one,( maybe I'm having a mind fart). Does your info also hold true for the Leupold TMR? That is the reticle that I would be getting.
 
#12
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

i agree with abolt, my millet trs i is accurate on about 11 power. best thing to do if you get an sfp scope is to find what power it is accurate at and mark it. the best way i find to test it is with a yard stick at exactly 100 yards.
 
#14
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

I get asked this question quite often and here is my .02

FFP is perfect for the kind of shooting we like to do, Tactical. If you engage multiple targets at multiple ranges OR measuring targets for range calculation a FFP will help you greatly. I find myself shooting on 10x allot when i shoot COF's with multiple targets at random distances requiring holdovers.

Now, for hunting I dont want a FFP simply because i want the big x hairs in my scope so i can see them on 3x. I dont use holdovers while hunting and if i am going to shoot further than point plank zero then i have time to range, dial get comfy and squeeze the trigger.

Given the two very different shooting situations above, its your call if you need FFP or not. Its good to have both
smile.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: NewsShooter
#15
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

heatseekins,
I don't find myself shooting in matches much any more, used to shoot in a bunch. I live in the middle of nowhere which makes for great shooting country but its a long way from formal matches. I usually go out by myself or with one or two buddies. I own a great randefinder(Swarovski) and one of us is always on that while another is shooting. So with no time pressure in the mix the SFP may be just fine for what I do. It sure can get involved reseaching new gear for new projects.

scout1
 
#16
scout1 said:
This is similar to another topic that is active right now but I didn't want to step on it.

Is the cost difference worth it? Example: I just happen to be looking at picking up a Leupold Mk4 6.5-20x50 M1. This scope is going for $1250.00. The front focal version of this scope is going for $1700.00. The difference in price is not chump change. Will the average user fully utilize one over the other? I can't say that I'm considering the FF, just thowing the question out there. $450.00 buys alot of bullets and powder.

scout1
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
#22
Depends on what your use is. I may get slammed for this, but IMO, for hunting, I prefer SFP. The reason being, I spend the majority of my time on the lower magnifications (ie 3.5-7). And an FFP reticle is damn near unusable at those magnifications.
For anything other than that use, FFP is a no brainer. Well worth the $$$.
 
#24
Yes If your using it for comp I used a sfp NF on a new rifle for a comp last weekend because it’s my break in scope and I didn’t have time to switch it probably cost me 15 points. For hunting the reticles do get small but I use holdovers and a dope card even when hunting.
 
#31
In all seriousness... if you want to improve on first round hits with accurate wind holds. Definitely go FFP. If you're just planning on sending one and going from there then that's your choice. If you shoot with people that you may want to communicate what you're seeing down range (accuratly) then yes it's well worth it.

Depending on personality you'll change your barrel more than your scope so why not do it right the first time?

As far as wind calls go, listen to the everyday sniper podcast. They've ironed it out so well and it works nearly perfectly. You'll really just want to spend the money if you find any satisfaction in first round hits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HEnrI
#34
Agree with many here who have said the same thing already.

I much prefer SFP for bench or stationary shooting. For quick tactical shooting FFP works well. Either can work well as the other, given enough time behind the trigger. For my big heavy target rifles I prefer SFP (current fav is my Trijicon 5-50x56). For my sporting rifles used for run and gun I prefer the FFPs in lower magnification.

Above all, getting practice with your setup is the key in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Alpha Class High Magnification 6-36/7-35 FFP Scope Review
Replies
119
Views
7K
CSTactical
CSTactical
Halfnutz
CMP M1 Advanced Maintenance Course-Build your own "Expert Grade".
Replies
8
Views
1K
Halfnutz
Halfnutz
Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 Review and comparison with NF ATACR 4-16x42, S&B US 3-20x50 and March 4.5-28x52
Replies
139
Views
20K
Denys
Denys
Toast
Marlin Model 37 Mountee vs. Henry Golden Boy-Golden Eagle 22LR (PIC HEAVY)
Replies
0
Views
356
Toast
Toast
powerspc
SOLD Leupold DAGR (Dual Aperture Gunsight Riflescope) - $3,800
Replies
0
Views
317
powerspc
powerspc
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts