Originally Posted By: VarminterrorI think they've been covered, but here are my perceived advantages for FFP for the type of shooting that I do:
1) Covers the same amount of the target no matter what zoom setting
2) Saves time ranging with your reticle
3) No hold over correction for zoom setting
(Recognizing that 2 & 3 are really factors of 1).
Originally Posted By: ZLooking at shooting to 1000 yards and can't convince myself of the FFP scope. It seems that on low power the FFP reticle is very fine. Correct me where I am wrong please.
Technically, the FFP reticle is just as "fine" relative to the target no matter what zoom level you're at. An FFP reticle will always cover the same amount of target (subtend the same angle in your FOV) no matter what magnification setting you choose. It'll look coarser or finer to your eye, but relative to the target, it does not change. In an SFP scope, the reticle covers more target when zoomed out, less of the target when zoomed in. WHAT THAT MEANS TO ME: Say I have 2 3-9x40mm scopes, one in SFP one in FFP. If a reticle covers 1/4MOA - recognizing that reticles in SFP scopes are usually calibrated against their HIGHEST magnification, then both scopes will cover 1/4" of a target at 100yrds, 2.5" of a target at 1,000yrds when zoomed to 9x. Now, zoom out to 3x. The FFP scope still covers 1/4" of the target, but the SFP scope now covers 3/4" of the target! At 1,000yrds, the FFP covers the same 2.5", whereas the reticle on the SFP covers 7.5".
FFP scopes also save a little time if you're a shooter that uses their reticle for ranging of unknown distance, known size targets. SFP scopes can be used to range also, but again, they are only calibrated to ONE magnification range. WHAT THAT MEANS FOR ME: If I am zoomed to the calibration setting, then there is no difference, but if I'm not, then I have to either change my zoom, range, then change my zoom back - wastes time and might lose the target as I zoom in and out. For an FFP, the subtensions never change, so the same ranging calc's work no matter what zoom you're on. The other option for an SFP scope is to build in a correction factor based on zoom setting. If your reticle is calibrated to 9x, but you're at 3x, then you can divide by 3, but if you're at 5x, you have to divide by nine, multiply by 5... That takes time too AND it assumes that your magnification zoom is perfectly linear - I have a couple scopes that I know are NOT linear for zoom (meaning 24x setting is not actually 4x zoomed from 6x setting).
So combining both of those points, a real world example is this: leading a running coyote. With an SFP scope, you have to pick how far ahead - in inches or feet - that you want to hold, then estimate based on the target appearance in your FOV. Comparing the same exact inches of hold at 3x vs. 9x will fall on a different location for the reticle. For an FFP scope, you can pick a hold per hundred yards, mentally note that in your scope, and it will always be at the same reference point on the reticle, no matter what zoom setting you're on.
Since most of us consider sighting a visual action, and most of us start with cheaper SFP scopes, it does throw most of us off a bit at first to see the reticle change size in our scope, but you do get used to it. Is it worth a lot to most shooters? Eh, maybe not.
So the largest advantage is for guys shooting quick succession at unknown distance targets, especially movers, or guys that might shoot from different magnification settings frequently.
While i agree with what your saying... Your example is unrealistic. Do you know how fine a reticle would have to be to only cover 1/4 MOA at 100 yard on 3x (typicle reticles cover ~3/4moa on 9x)? It would be unusable. Get into a more variable 6-24 type zoom (seldom guys shoot a 3-9 at long range, and I'm unaware of one with stadia) the reticle at full power covers one [beeep] of a lot more area than 1/4 moa. Thats because an 18x change! Yes it still covers the same area on 6x as it does on 24x but the reticle is 18x thinner also (comparitivley on the 2nd place). They have to make it thick on 24 so it's still viewable on 6. I want the reticle thickness at 6x but the zoom of 24 so i can pick the spot I'm aiming at. Not "at" the target... Or the target completely covered But again. That's me and my preference. Others are different.
One could argue that a straight power scope is better. Personally i just soon have one as a FFP. It has the EXACT same advantages y'all have gave for ffp (the variable just acts like a digital zoom, your still seeing the EXACT same thing, it's just magnified with less FOV). The straight power just adds ease & less fuss...
(note the sarcasm & irony here)
I'm not bashing FFP scopes, yes they have advantages. It's just worth noting they have disadvantages also.