Rifle Scopes Pics... MLR vs TMR vs ML16 vs P4F, SFP & FFP

[Hellbender]

I am gonna make the change to some FFP mil/mil scopes for my match guns, and decided to start with a Falcon Menace 4-14 FFP w/ ML16 for my .22 trainer and a Nightforce F1 MLR for my new .243 build.

Got the Falcon in and was pleasantly surprised at the apparent quality, we'll see how it holds up.

Got the F1 in and was disappointed with the reticle, I am returning it and ordered a S&B 4-16x50 with the P4 reticle, it should be here tomorrow and I will post similar pics when it gets here.

DO NOT judge these pics for image quality, as that was NOT my intended purpose for taking these, these are only to show what the different reticles look like under similar conditions, and for the FFP scopes, the size of the reticles at lowest and highest power and a shot at 10X to compare all at a level power. Only one pic was taken of the SFP scopes as they are the same at all powers.

These were taken in my shop, under florescent lighting with my camera on the auto setting, scopes pointed at a white board. Focused for my farsighted eyes. It is TOUGH to get an decent pic through a scope, so again, these are just for reticle size and look comparison.

I downloaded all the pics to P-Bucket, cropped them to the circle, then resized them all to the same size. So should be as size comparable as possible, under my limited conditions.

NOTE !!! ALL THESE RETICLES ARE CLEAR & FOCUSED TO THE NAKED EYE!!

Leupold SFP TMR (Mils accurate at 20X)

Leupold SFP TMR (Mils accurate at 14X)

Nightforce SFP MLR (Mils accurate at 22X)

Nightforce F1 FFP @ 3.5X

Nightforce F1 FFP @ 10X

Nightforce F1 FFP @ 15X

Falcon Menace FFP ML16 @ 4X

Falcon Menace FFP ML16 @ 10X

Falcon Menace FFP ML16 @ 14X

SEE S&B FFP P4F IN BELOW POST.


I'll post my opinions of the reticles later, after I get the S&B here, I'm not much of a kool-aid drinker, so we'll see if the hype is worth the $$, IMO.

 

[OFIS]

Re: Pics... MLR vs TMR vs ML16, SFP & FFP

good resource

 

[head2h2o]

Re: Pics... MLR vs TMR vs ML16, SFP & FFP

Those pictures of the NF F1 are very helpful. That reticle looks much smaller than the same one in the NF SFP scope.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Pics... MLR vs TMR vs ML16, SFP & FFP

Well, it may. It may be useful to bear in mind that a SFP reticle is only accurate at one power.

A FFP reticle <span style="font-style: italic">at that same power</span>, will be indentical to a SFP reticle, assuming that the reticles are of the same shape and type.

But a FFP reticle changes size with power, so comparing a FFP and a SFP reticle can only usefully be done at the power at which the SFP reticle is accurate.

 

[goldeneagle76]

Re: Pics... MLR vs TMR vs ML16, SFP & FFP

The NF F1 is #1 in my list of scopes to get right now. But I must say I am not impressed at all with that reticle in those pics.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Pics... MLR vs TMR vs ML16, SFP & FFP

You might try to find someone with an F1, so you can look for yourself. I have an F1, and I like it. The reticle in real life looks better than it does in that picture.

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Pics... MLR vs TMR vs ML16, SFP & FFP

Plus you folks need to keep in mind while looking at say the Falcon at 14X and the NF F1 at 15X that both reticles have the same subtensions-therefore the obvious conclusion that I draw is that the NF F1 has a lot more field of view.
I'm sure it looks much better through the scope, as Lindy said.

 

[Hellbender]

Re: Pics... MLR vs TMR vs ML16, SFP & FFP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, it may. It may be useful to bear in mind that a SFP reticle is only accurate at one power.

A FFP reticle <span style="font-style: italic">at that same power</span>, will be indentical to a SFP reticle, assuming that the reticles are of the same shape and type.

But a FFP reticle changes size with power, so comparing a FFP and a SFP reticle can only usefully be done at the power at which the SFP reticle is accurate.
</div></div>

Lindy, that is a very good point, both the SFP reticles are higher powered scopes, a Leupy 6.5X20 and a Nightforce 5.5x22, so they are not comparable to the 14-15X scopes.

I can fix half that problem, as I have a 4.5x14 Leupy with a TMR on my .22 and will get a pic up today some time!

I will also make a note on my post above.

Thanks.

 

[Hellbender]

Re: Pics... MLR vs TMR vs ML16, SFP & FFP

Bummer, the S&B won't be here today......I had to call and raise the daily limit I had set on the debit card!

 

[Rob01]

Re: Pics... MLR vs TMR vs ML16, SFP & FFP

Here's some S&B through the scope pics
http://www.finnaccuracy.com/sb_pm2_52556.html

 

[Hellbender]

Re: Pics... MLR vs TMR vs ML16, SFP & FFP

Added the Leupy SFP @14X

 

[Hellbender]

Re: Pics... MLR vs TMR vs ML16 vs P4F, SFP & FFP

S&B FFP P4F @ 4X

S&B FFP P4F @10X

S&B FFP P4F @ 16X

 

[Matt in Virginia]

Re: Pics... MLR vs TMR vs ML16, SFP & FFP

fwiw,
An F1 Nightfoce would sure look better to me if offered at half of MSRP. Until instructors and hucksters pay the same for the scopes as the rest of us I am a bit less than impressed with their conclusions. At one time Nightforce was offering F1s at half of MSRP to the chosen. I was promised two, however, very little ever became of the promise after I delivered a sweetheart deal on a Schmidt Bender on my end. While, I might add, spending 12 hours a day nursing my father through stage 4 cancers of so many types I have not the will to recollect...

Lindy, however, is one of the few I have faith in even if he paid half price for his F1. And I have no clue or inference that he did...

That is one thing Kevin McClung has my complete respect for... He does not accept "comps" or sweetheart deals and hence his commentary, fwiw, is based on actual hands on experience with NO feeling of obligation to the company.

Lindy has my respect in a like fashion...fwiw & imho

Regards, Matt Garrett
757-581-6270

 

[Lindy]

Re: Pics... MLR vs TMR vs ML16, SFP & FFP

No one makes a perfect scope. Every one is a tradeoff.

The Nightforce F1 has good glass, excellent reliable and repeatable adjustments, an illuminated reticle, and a zero stop which is easy to adjust and works. It's available at a price substantially below what I consider to be its competition, which are made by Schmidt & Bender and Premier Reticles.

My preferred reticle for tactical shooting is the Premier Gen II, because the marks at one mil intervals are easily distinguishable even in low light from those at half mil points, and I do a lot of shooting using holds rather than dialing.

However, that reticle is not available in a Nightforce scope, and when I bought the Nightforce, the Premier Reticles Heritage was too new a scope for me to be comfortable with it.

I've looked through a lot of scopes. I've rarely seen one where the optical quality made a difference to the shooter's ability to see the target well enough to shoot it, except in low-light conditions.

The primary items of interest to me in a scope are, with the highest preference first:

1. Reticle - is it one suitable for all lighting conditions, and can I use it easily for holdovers, holdunders, moving target leads, and wind holds? (That pretty much means a FFP reticle.)

2. Reliability. That means the scope must be rugged <span style="font-style: italic">and</span> the adjustment system must be repeatable and reliable.

3. Power Range. I'd like at least a 4-1 zoom ratio. For tactical shooting, I like a power range of 4-16. If I can get a 5-1 zoom ratio, I'd prefer 4-20.

4. Eye relief. Generous eye relief, and one which changes little with power changes.

5. Optical quality.

6. Price.

Getting wrapped around the axle about optical quality is, IMO, not useful. Yeah, a pretty picture is nice, and high magnifications are good at long distance - until the mirage kicks up, which pretty well moots optical quality.

Your mileage may vary.

Technology brings us improvements over time - but if you wait for the "next best thing" just over the horizon, you'll wait forever.

For those interested in proficiency with a precision rifle, I recommend getting a good rifle, a good scope, and a load that shoots well in it. Get good training, and spend your money and time on practice.

The search for perfection in gear does not advance marksmanship.

 

[Matt in Virginia]

Re: Pics... MLR vs TMR vs ML16, SFP & FFP

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No one makes a perfect scope. Every one is a tradeoff.

Getting wrapped around the axle about optical quality is, IMO, not useful. Yeah, a pretty picture is nice, and high magnifications are good at long distance - until the mirage kicks up, which pretty well moots optical quality.

Your mileage may vary.

Technology brings us improvements over time - but if you wait for the "next best thing" just over the horizon, you'll wait forever.

For those interested in proficiency with a precision rifle, I recommend getting a good rifle, a good scope, and a load that shoots well in it. Get good training, and spend your money and time on practice.

The search for perfection in gear does not advance marksmanship.
</div></div>

fwiw & imho,
The above post should be made, in its entirety, into a sticky...

One usually has to pay dearly for that level of advice. That said it is not the type of advice one will read quoted in advertisements of the newest scope, rifle, sling, etc.. Which might serve as a clue...

Read and heed should you be of an open and rational mind...imho

Regards, Matt Garrett
757-581-6270

 

[DP425]

Re: Pics... MLR vs TMR vs ML16, SFP & FFP

I've shot with the TMR in the Mk4 M2 and I really like that reticle- effective for movers as well as ranging. I'd say it's a definite enhancement over the conventional Mil-Dot. Only complaint is the cross hairs not meeting in the center- it's a bit difficult for me to get use to.

 

[Red_SC]

Re: Pics... MLR vs TMR vs ML16, SFP & FFP

That's one of the things I like about that reticle.