Swarovski acquired Kahles in 1974
- Thread starter pvc37
- Start date
"Different" and "Better" are two separate things entirely.
A long time ago, I wanted to build me a 700-based "sniper rifle" ... I knew I didn't have the money to actually build a credible M24/M40 clone but nevertheless wanted to have a .308 700 'tactical'-style rifle. I was shopping with my Dad on a Friday night, we stopped at a LGS, it was jam packed with customers ... and I happened to notice they were having a big Leupold sale ... and after checking out a few with an actually very-helpful LGS employee (Imagine that!) - I absolutely fell in love with , if I recall correctly, a Leupold VX-3i 4.5-14x40mm "Boone & Crockett" reticle rifle-scope ... it was a ridiculously good deal (at the time) and I thought the glass & quality seemed great, obviously big name recognition, and for some reason I was just drawn to the reticle (I was young and not very experienced nor knowledgeable ... I had also bought a few Nikons with their BDC Reticle and thought using their Spot-On App with the BDC Reticle was awesome...) - and the salesman quite accurately pointed out to me ... "You putting this on a hunting rifle right?" ... No... "... A .22LR for just-for-fun-shooting??" ... No, building a half-aced 'sniper rifle' ... "ohh... well to be honest, I'd love to sell it to you, but it will be useless on a tactical rifle with that reticle , to be honest... This is a hunting rifle scope, that reticle is designed for hunters..." OHH...
And of course, he was right. Could I have used it, sure... Just like you can use a Mil-Dot reticle for Hog Hunting and a Christmas Tree for mule deer ... not necessarily the first choices though.
I'm pretty sure Trijicon itself was all Second Focal Plane for a LONG time before coming out with dedicated tactical / FFP stuff. And everyone knows and loves Trijicon. That AccuPoint 5-20x50mm I used to want so badly as a kid doesn't suck just because it has a SFP reticle. Just different.
A long time ago, I wanted to build me a 700-based "sniper rifle" ... I knew I didn't have the money to actually build a credible M24/M40 clone but nevertheless wanted to have a .308 700 'tactical'-style rifle. I was shopping with my Dad on a Friday night, we stopped at a LGS, it was jam packed with customers ... and I happened to notice they were having a big Leupold sale ... and after checking out a few with an actually very-helpful LGS employee (Imagine that!) - I absolutely fell in love with , if I recall correctly, a Leupold VX-3i 4.5-14x40mm "Boone & Crockett" reticle rifle-scope ... it was a ridiculously good deal (at the time) and I thought the glass & quality seemed great, obviously big name recognition, and for some reason I was just drawn to the reticle (I was young and not very experienced nor knowledgeable ... I had also bought a few Nikons with their BDC Reticle and thought using their Spot-On App with the BDC Reticle was awesome...) - and the salesman quite accurately pointed out to me ... "You putting this on a hunting rifle right?" ... No... "... A .22LR for just-for-fun-shooting??" ... No, building a half-aced 'sniper rifle' ... "ohh... well to be honest, I'd love to sell it to you, but it will be useless on a tactical rifle with that reticle , to be honest... This is a hunting rifle scope, that reticle is designed for hunters..." OHH...
And of course, he was right. Could I have used it, sure... Just like you can use a Mil-Dot reticle for Hog Hunting and a Christmas Tree for mule deer ... not necessarily the first choices though.
I'm pretty sure Trijicon itself was all Second Focal Plane for a LONG time before coming out with dedicated tactical / FFP stuff. And everyone knows and loves Trijicon. That AccuPoint 5-20x50mm I used to want so badly as a kid doesn't suck just because it has a SFP reticle. Just different.
Post #27 beat you to it. Swaro sure likes to be quiet about it, not quite sure why the European sport optics manufacturers have such an aversion to FFP scopes with turrets and mrad reticles
Most of your target shooters use a simple fine crosshair and second focal plane because it is a little sharper image FFP serves no purpose in that situation. As it has been said many times before an F class scope and a PRS scope are way different. Must have the right tool for the job .
Compare like to like, and there is zero difference in glass clarity or quality between ffp and sfp.
However, sfp is cheaper to produce and therefore you will generally have a little better quality glass and coating in similar cost scopes.
The Leupold lrp were a good example of this. It was damn near double to price to get the exact same scope with a ffp reticle. However, I have used both and they looked identical side by side.
Many of them are advertised on their own country as law enforcement or military items. They don't sell because they won't or can't sell depending on the country.
It was pretty eye opening when Frank had someone on his podcast claim Leupold sells more scopes than every European manufacturer combined.
The US is the biggest and most robust scope market there is. There's nowhere else you'll find gun collections of hundreds of rifles all scoped out.
It doesn't have to be more expensive, the OG Vortex PSTs came out in both FFP and SFP versions and the price was much the same.
The NX8 is similar price FFP vs SFP.
If manufacturers wanted to they could offer both SFP and FFP designs of the same scope (provided they allow for it when they design them) many just don't do it.
I doubt that there is a significant price difference between SFP and FFP for manufacturers. The glass reticle itself - maybe - but everything else is basically the same. That sounds like an urban legend.
Just ask Western Australia who now wants to ban rifles and cartridges that can be effective at long ranges... why, because of the potential to be used for criminal activity, even though there's not one case of a long range rifle used in a crime in that manner.
Pastoralists 'blindsided' by firearms act re-write after weapons cache discovery
The WA government and police say the discovery of a suburban weapons cache highlights the need for reform, but pastoralists and farmers are sceptical.www.abc.net.au
And just like that's some FBI agent had an idea......
Both of nightforces bench rest scopes are 2 nd focal plane. All the F class shooters around here use the march 20-80 sfp scopes so there must be something to it. Target shooting 2nd, tactical 1st FP it looks like.
Perhaps guys shooting a bullseye at a known distance don't have any need for a FFP subtended reticle?
They did make a FFP hunting scope in FFP. I have one, 3-12x50 L Kurz ,TDS-Plex in FFP. Works great for me,2 Stone sheep,1 Dall, 1 mountain goat, 3 moose and 4 elk.
bingo
As far as I have been told, Swarovski prefers to have some separation from Kahles being more a "Tactical" lineup of scopes potentially used in Military or LEO roles. Their huge birding community apparently frowns upon "Tactical" use yet are ok with scopes used for hunting 
Whether or not that is the case today, I'm not sure.
Whether or not that is the case today, I'm not sure.
I've heard it from several reps at different manufacturers multiple times. Something about the position of the reticle in the front makes it more time consuming to build, as every lens in front of it can have an effect.
And you think they wouldn't take advantage of any cost difference?
What I'm saying is there may be a small difference but it's certainly not $100s or $1000 more expensive, like the Leupold LRP example.
I have heard it too but it sounds like marketing speech to me. FFP reticles could be a bit more difficult to assemble and keep clean but I still do not see any reason it should be significantly more expensive to manufacture than SFP.
Sales/marketing types will charge a premium for whatever feature they think a market segment thinks is essential and will often make up bullshit stories about why the "cost" is greater.
So beware what you hear and from who.
ETA: beyond always being lower, actual cost has less to do with selling price than most think. Just cause model a cost less than model be doest mean it will sell for less
Last edited:
According to Leupold an illumination module costs $500 - $600, according to almost every other manufacturer the cost is $0 - $50. Does Leupold use much more expensive illumination than almost every other mfr? I highly doubt that, but they think their market base will pay the additional cost if they want it. I think similar happens with SFP vs. FFP - it's up to the mfr to decide the cost difference and some are more expensive than others.
Similar threads
