Rifle Scopes Why is FFP more expensive?

[brand692]

Re: Why is FFP more expensive?

Sorry, I typed that on my iphone and lost track of where I was. Yeah, a dual plane reticle is what I was referring to.

BTW, thanks for a GREAT link. Hadn't seen that one yet. Sometimes that good stuff is buried under some of the nonsense threads.

 

[Rafael]

Re: Why is FFP more expensive?

Lots of good ideas in that thread. The pics/drawings I made are just my interpretation of what it should look like.
I try to bump it to the top now and then but no one wants to see the same old thread popping up all the time.

 

[laylowlong]

Re: Why is FFP more expensive?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: brand692</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have to be honest. I like both SFP and FFP scope for different uses. If someoe could combine them I think I'd be willing to pay some extra money. Ideally I think the scopes cross hairs should be in the second focal plane. I also think that the subtensions, or hash marks, or dots, or whatever, should be put on the the first focal plane.

This would solve the major problem with a FFP and that is as you zoom in or out, you don't suffer from a gigantic reticle at 25x and a tiny one at 5x.

Additionally it would preserve what everyone likes about a FFP scope-correct subtensions at all powers.

That I would pay extra for. But until that happens, I guess I'll settle for paying extra on FFP scopes only.... </div></div>

Right, what we want is the opposite of what we get, i.e. thicker lines at 5x,
super fine at 25x. That'll be the bees knees.

 

[brand692]

Re: Why is FFP more expensive?

Check out the link Rafael posted.

 

[dcjs]

Re: Why is FFP more expensive?

Didn't mean to get into this, but there is one thing that I want to address because I've seen it being repeated not just in this thread: It does not <span style="font-style: italic">"require more engineering work to make the reticle subtend the same on all powers in a FFP scope"</span>. That's just like saying that a yardstick that, put on a wall, subtends the same number of bricks no matter whether you are looking at it from 5 or 10 feet away, requires a lot of engineering to build.
There is no way to change the reticle subtension on target with a FFP reticle. The reticle either has the correct dimensions for the focal length of the scope to give a certain subtension on target or it doesn't.

As a side note, I don't think it's cool to bash somebody because he's asking a technical question about stuff he only knows how to <span style="font-style: italic">use</span>. I could certainly learn a bunch about practical shooting from lots of people here, but that doesn't mean I don't know how the damn scope works. The reverse may be true for someone else, so what? An obvious idea would be to learn from each other, but the latest fashion here rather seems to be to primarily look for reasons to bash people one doesn't like and let the facts play a secondary role. Those few posts that have some substance get lost in all the other crap. This trend is highly discouraging to people who could really contribute something to this platform, as well as those who come here to learn and not to prove to others how big their internet balls are.

 

[orkan]

Re: Why is FFP more expensive?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a side note, I don't think it's cool to bash somebody because he's asking a technical question about stuff he only knows how to <span style="font-style: italic">use</span>. I could certainly learn a bunch about practical shooting from lots of people here, but that doesn't mean I don't know how the damn scope works. The reverse may be true for someone else, so what? An obvious idea would be to learn from each other, but the latest fashion here rather seems to be to primarily look for reasons to bash people one doesn't like and let the facts play a secondary role. Those few posts that have some substance get lost in all the other crap. This trend is highly discouraging to people who could really contribute something to this platform, as well as those who come here to learn and not to prove to others how big their internet balls are. </div></div>

You sir, are my new favorite person. I 100% agree wholeheartedly and I'll add a +1. Thank you very much for that information. When I have some time, I'll PM you some questions if you don't mind? Obviously I'd like to do it in public so more people could get information as well, but I don't think that is a possibility anymore.

 

[JBW3]

Re: Why is FFP more expensive?

After the direction that this thread took I was alomost not even going to waste my time posting, but I think there are some interesting points that should be understood.

1. FFP reticles are much harder to make correctly. The etching of the pattern is considerably smaller than RFP. Line widths are much finer, and in turn much harder to produce correctly and accurately.

2. Dust; a spec of dust in the FFP is magnified much more than RFP, in turn takes longer to get perfectly clean.

3. Extra lens in FFP usually.

4. The time that it takes to adjust the reticle in a FFP design during assembly is greater than RFP. Making sure the reticle is in focus at all powers through the magnification range.

5. Most all FFP plane scopes that I have looked at use much larger diameter erector lenses to create a wide enough FOV, in turn higher costs.

6. Initial R&D costs on FFP designs are true, the erector lenses are much more optimized along with the cam design.

7. Every magnification/power scope needs to have it's own reticle design. You can't use a 6X MIL-Dot in a 2.5-10X turned down to 6X.

Hope that helps guys.
John III

 

[orkan]

Re: Why is FFP more expensive?

Thank you JBW. That does indeed help. I appreciate your effort.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Why is FFP more expensive?

Thanks, John - it's nice to get an opinion from someone who knows what the heck he's talking about.

 

[chas1759]

Re: Why is FFP more expensive?

Nope, the reason Corvette costs more than the Camaro is because the Vette gets more smiles per gallon!




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tookinkee</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bigsky23</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why does a Vette cost more than a Camaro? Cause it's better.

Sorry, just being simple minded. </div></div>

You would be surprised to know how much it actually cost to design a vehicle no matter the make or model. Numerous amount of testing and safety that must be passed. R and D research like stated with any new product is going to be more expensive along with supply and demand. Corvette is an ICON car, where camero is not.</div></div>

 

[396chevy]

Re: Why is FFP more expensive?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: orkan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I know the benefit of anti-lock breaks on my car... I don't have to know how they function to know they work.</div></div>

I love these threads informative and entertaining at the same time!!
Oh and Anti-lock breaks don't NECESSARILY make you stop in a shorter distance, although they do greatly help to maintain directional stability {IE keep you in a straight line}, Sometimes standard breaks will stop your car in a shorter distance, sometimes. I'm not saying they are not a great invention, I'm just illustrating a little know fact.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Why is FFP more expensive?

Umm, cars have <span style="font-style: italic">brakes</span>.

And on surfaces like ice, all anti-lock <span style="font-style: italic">brakes</span> will do is to ensure that you slide straight into whatever you're going to hit - which is not to say that's a bad thing...

 

[396chevy]

Re: Why is FFP more expensive?

"NOTICE TO ALL" my spelling sucks, but I like your point.

 

[no one]

Re: Why is FFP more expensive?

hey 396..have you any idea what that gal on your avatar is saying?

My FFP lipreading skills put it as "A bug up my ass"

She sure looks good saying whatever she's saying..

 

[MTETM]

Re: Why is FFP more expensive?

JBW#3,
Thank you,
One of the best optic posts in a while!
Too bad it isn't where more people will read it.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JBW#3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After the direction that this thread took I was alomost not even going to waste my time posting, but I think there are some interesting points that should be understood.

1. FFP reticles are much harder to make correctly. The etching of the pattern is considerably smaller than RFP. Line widths are much finer, and in turn much harder to produce correctly and accurately.

2. Dust; a spec of dust in the FFP is magnified much more than RFP, in turn takes longer to get perfectly clean.

3. Extra lens in FFP usually.

4. The time that it takes to adjust the reticle in a FFP design during assembly is greater than RFP. Making sure the reticle is in focus at all powers through the magnification range.

5. Most all FFP plane scopes that I have looked at use much larger diameter erector lenses to create a wide enough FOV, in turn higher costs.

6. Initial R&D costs on FFP designs are true, the erector lenses are much more optimized along with the cam design.

7. Every magnification/power scope needs to have it's own reticle design. You can't use a 6X MIL-Dot in a 2.5-10X turned down to 6X.

Hope that helps guys.
John III </div></div>