This scope stuff is driving me crazy... Need scope advise for a 10T .308

[m12lrs]

Just to restate... I already have a scope on it... a 3-9x? Bushnell, and I've got about 300rds through the rifle so far. I'm not a noob to shooting, but I am to LR shooting, and to optics. Because I am older, and my eyes suck, I do really need good glass and decent magnification. I do not intend to compete. As far as ammo... my handloads outshot the 168grn FGMM I use as a barometer in my .30 rifles, I've been reloading for almost 30 years. I didn't realize the Sierra 175 had a different design, I'll have to give them a try. I've never gone above 168grn because neither my M1 or M1a are really designed for it; the thought of a 208grn bullet is Fantasy Land to me... but I might give them a test-drive, too.

Blackthorn, no offense taken. I use that term a lot because it seems like everyone is trying to be someone; last week at the 100yd rifle range, there were 3 guys running around with assault vests on, shooting AR's that looked like they weighed 20# with all the crap on them. I just want to poke holes in paper at longer distances than I'm used to, but I want to learn to do it well... and correctly.

Reading on the internet and watching YouTube... and you think there's a difference of opinion here? :D So far I've gotten some really good info here at SS, and now I know what I need to be researching and looking for.

As it turns out, I have dibbs on a used Burris 4x20 scope that I think will fit the bill.

Just my opinion

You aren't planning to be a PRS competitor right? You just want an optic you can learn to shoot your 308 at 600 yrds and eventually to 1000?

Age old arguments on all the shooting forums.. mil vs moa front focal plane vs second focal plane

Lets look at who uses what

Mil-FFP the military, the tactical crowd and competitor's who need rapid range estimates

MOA-SFP target shooters and most hunters

I say pick the one you are most comfortable with. Both work just fine. Lots of.strong opinions out there. Don't let them decide for you

Lots of.good scopes out there. Lots of junk too. And a few exceptional ones. I am old and need all the.magnification i can get. When i was 20 a 10X was all i needed. Now my target scopes top magnification is in the 40 to 60 power. All depends on what you pocketbook can stand. I would not pick something with less than a top magnification of 24X.

Low end vortex PRS or Luepold 3i and up from there

[Charlie98]

Depends on the twist rate of your barrel. In my somewhat limited experience, the 175 grain SMK's seem to do best in a 1 in 10" twist or tighter. If I remember correctly, the M1A has a 1 in 12".

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

My Savage has a 1:10, IIRC. The M1a is more limited by the gas system with heavy bullets, not necessarily the barrel twist. People shoot 175's, but running them long-term requires some adjustments to the gas system, or just running them at lower velocity. Trying to hotrod 175's in an M1a will usually result in broken stuff.

I started with 168's because I already have a good stock of them, and some known load data for them. The Savage does NOT like ~150grn bullets...

[Banana Juice]

Yes sir, same here. My Savage has a 1 in 10" twist and loves the 175 SMK's. Bergers have shot well out of it also, but I have te tweak the loading just a bit. I have not tried anything heavier yet, but I do plan to experiment with my handloads and heavier bullets in the near future.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[yobuck]

^^^There you go, along with what Mr. Furious said.

I am sorry I let an old braggart get under my skin.

Well what can I say, other than that was just another uncalled for cheap shot, and hopefully others will recognize it as that also.

I hope the OP got enough information to help him make a choice on his scope purchase, because that is the main issue here.

I also think that due to the rather recent influx of people becoming interested in the various aspects of long range shooting, it would be a good thing for a topic on scopes be started.
Not just a what scope do I need or should i buy type topic as this one was, but an in depth discussion on how they actually work, along with the various reticle and adjustment options, and the advantages each might have for certain type applications.

[Charlie98]

I also think that due to the rather recent influx of people becoming interested in the various aspects of long range shooting, it would be a good thing for a topic on scopes be started.
Not just a what scope do I need or should i buy type topic as this one was, but an in depth discussion on how they actually work, along with the various reticle and adjustment options, and the advantages each might have for certain type applications.

I was looking for a sticky of some sort before I posted, I think it would be a good idea. On one of the computer forums I frequent, they have a set of questions you copy/paste/answer as part of a post on a new system build... even something like 5 or 6 questions to get the basic info from the OP would probably help a lot and cut down on 'we need more info' posts, and it's why I structured my OP in that manner.

[Sleeper99]

I go back to basic features. I am only a few years into shooting at distances past 100 yards. Do yourself a favor.

1. FFP
2. Matching turrets/reticle.
3. Target style turrets.
4. Zero stop if you can get it.
5. The best glass you can afford.

I think although there are many opinions, most will agree with the above list.

[J.Baker]

I go back to basic features. I am only a few years into shooting at distances past 100 yards. Do yourself a favor.

1. FFP
2. Matching turrets/reticle.
3. Target style turrets.
4. Zero stop if you can get it.
5. The best glass you can afford.

I think although there are many opinions, most will agree with the above list.


For what he's looking to do I agree with everything but #1.

Everybody seems to think they need a FFP reticle all the sudden. Unless you're using your reticle to range and determine distance, the only thing a FFP does for you is drain more money from your wallet. It's also a hindrance if you're a precision target shooter (F-clas, benchrest, etc) as it makes the reticle larger/thicker as the magnification goes up, and depending on the reticle type and brand of scope it may be completely useless when set to the lowest magnification because it gets so small in the field of view. Doesn't make a lick of difference when a hit's a hit anywhere on a 12x12" steel plate, but if you're shooting paper for group or score it makes a world of difference. The OP said he's shooting at known distances which usually means a range, so no need to be able to range (he can still range with a SFP reticle at the specified ranging magnification when needed). Usually known distances also means he could be shooting at paper or steel targets.

FFP's are just the current fad, and much like bull barrels for AR's it will likely start to fade after a few more years. They have their place, but far too many think they need one when they would really be better served by a SFP scope for what they're doing.

Of course, if you want to avoid 3/4 of the scope stuff that's driving you crazy and instantly narrow down your options, choose to go with a fixed 10-16x scope. Military snipers have used them for decades, they're more robust and reliable as they have fewer moving parts, being fixed power they completely eliminate the need to choose between a FFP or SFP reticle, and IMO learning to shoot at distance with less magnification makes you a much better shooter in the long run. You can also often get much higher quality glass for the same money in a fixed power scope verses a similarly priced variable power, and you will find that with higher quality glass you don't need as much magnification.

Can't recall if you stated a budget price in an earlier post, so I will assume $1,000 for the sake of this post. I would recommend you seriously take a look at fixed power scopes from the SWFA SS line, the IOR Valdada Tactical models, or the Sightron SIII 10x42mm. All of these options are top quality scopes that have been around for years and are well proven.

Just something to consider...

[Banana Juice]

I have a Sightron SIII 10x42 as mentioned above. I think this is one of the best scopes out there, period. For what it's worth, if I had to pick only one scope to use on any given rifle of known accuracy for a SHTF type situation, this is definitely it.

Also worth mentioning here..... I had a 10x Super Sniper. It was a good scope, but I sold it with a rifle as a package deal a couple years back. The 10x Sightron is better in every category across the board. It's also almost twice the price, but absolutely worth it. You definitely get what you pay for.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[Sleeper99]

@Mr. Furious.
I would respectfully disagree that FFP scopes are a fad.

I frequently shoot alone, as I enjoy my range time as my quiet time. A FFP scope allows me to shoot at a lower magnification level (which you support) spot my own hits/misses and use my reticle to make easy adjustments. This would not be possible with s SFP scope unless used at maximum magnification with a limited field of view.

I believe that one of the reasons the military has used fixed power scopes for so long is for their increased durability and to allow the reticle sub tensions to always be correct. (Like a FFP variable scope)

I rarely shoot past 3-500 yards but I have not problem shooting paper for groups at those distances with FFP scopes and have only shoot steel at distances beyond 500.

I would agree that if you desire to shoot paper for groupings at 600-1000 the thickness of the reticle may be more of a factor.

[yobuck]

I would agree with the fixed power scope, and also with Mr Mc Furious opinion on the FFP/SFP situation.
I have a fixed 10 power Bushnell tacticle scope on my 223 Savage model 12 and couldn't be happier with it.
Current price would be under $300 new and it has a mil dot reticle.
Also have a Sightron varieable on a 22/250 Ackley model 12 that never moves off 10 power.
I bought that used for $250 from a guy who needed a new Nightforce.
It has 1/8 minit clicks, but who cares, I don't count clicks anyway just minits, and the large numbers or a full rev on the dial produces the same as a 1/4 minit scope.
But, an 1/8 minit dial could be very important for a small bore competitor.
Zero stop, good idea, (But), you still gotta remember to dial back, its not automatic, and they can be pricey.
There are several little tiny allen head screws holding the turret cap on most scopes.
On some you just pick up the cap and rotate it.
You need to loosen those and place the dial on zero, then retighten them after your initial sighting in at 100 yds.
On at least a Leupold, and possibly others as well, you can cut a thin slice from a 12 gauge shotgun shell case
and install that on the turret for a zero stop.
Nightforce charges close to $300 for a zero stop, Bruce Baer who is a stocking dealer, charges $35.
But you gotta remember to dial back with his also lol, and sooner or later everybody forgets.
Best to do as little dialing as possible, especially when hunting.
I would suggest looking up, and reading up, on a (Horus reticle) and form a picture of that in your mind.
Remember, that same principle applies to any scope, regardless of type reticle, type of dial, or focal plane.
Hold on the target where the last bullet hit for your follow up shot, and forget the dial.
Unless of coarse your a precision target shooter.

[foxx]

FFP v. SFP

Here's a thought, seriously.

Get a a Primary Arms 4-14 (or whatever it is) with FFP for about $250 and a variable SFP from SWFA for about $350. (or something similar) Both of these companies make decent scopes for the money and have good resale value. Maybe a fixed SS 10x from SWFA and a maybe even a Weaver T36.

Shoot them all and decide for yourself which you prefer. Sell what you don't want. If you are like me, you'll end up keeping them because, depending on the circumstances and the gun, you'll find they are all pretty dang good but none of them are ideal for every situation. Soon you'll want a different rifle for each scope. :)

If this is totally not doable, then get a SWFA SS 10X. It works.

[SageRat Shooter]

I have now used both FFP and SFP scopes.... I find that I prefer the FFP over the SFP for my shooting applications thus far (P-dogs and paper both at distance). I have not found the FFP reticle to be too "big" for fine work, but I have the floating dot in the middle of my crosshairs rather than posts.

As of right now, the only reason I would go back to a SFP is for the "super extreme long range shooting" where you need the subtensions to increase as you lower the magnification, in the event that I don't have enough adjustment on the elevation turret.

I'm not likely to ever shoot past 1000 yards (if that) So I don't forsee ever needing to go back to a SFP.

However, for a regular old hunting rifle and brush beater I'll still use the trusted old SFP... set it about 1.5 inches high @ 100 yards and leave it. (200 yard max).

[J.Baker]

Here's the point of my argument against the "everyone should just buy a FFP" trend...

Vortex Viper PST 5x24x50mm FFP with EBR-2C(moa) reticle

Good reticle design - offers hash marks every 2 MOA
Major hash marks every 4 MOA with windage dot every 1 MOA
Minor hash marks every 2 MOA between majors, no windage dots
At 6x magnification the reticle is sometimes hard to pick out from the background due to how thin it is and it covers roughly 1/2 the overall field of view. That said, all of the hash marks are still separated enough to be usable for ranging or hold-off.
Above what I estimate to be about 14 or 15x magnification, you loose the full range of the reticle (36 MOA below center crosshair)
At 24x the last viewable hash mark on the lower vertical is 24 MOA




6x Magnification

14x Magnification

24x Magnification



3319
3320
3321



On this scope the reticle is still usable at the lowest power. I wouldn't say it's ideal for use at low power as usually that means close-in moving targets (i.e. a running coyote) and the thinness of the crosshair at 6x makes the reticle very difficult to see on the move. At high magnification the reticle works well as the lines are thin, but you do lose 1/3 of the available holdover range. The reason the reticle is good at high power is also why it's poor at low power - the manufacturer has to make a decision as to what power they want the reticle to work best at with a given magnification range. That's the limitation of FFP reticles, they're not always going to be as useful or beneficial at ALL magnification levels in all scopes - just like SFP reticles.

On a side note, this reminds me I need to contact Vortex to see what the deal is with my reticle being off-center. Note in the 14x mag. image above that the ends of the thicker outer bars are visible on the left and bottom, but not the right. On the 24x view you can see to the left the 24 MOA hash is visible, while on the right the 22 MOA hash is the last visible.


NightForce SHV 4-14x50mm F1 FFP with MOAR (moa) reticle

Fairly simple reticle design - offers hash marks every 1 MOA starting at 2 MOA from center crosshair
Major hash marks ever 2 MOA
Minor hash marks every 1 MOA
No "Christmas Tree" providing windage holds
At 4x magnification the reticle is very small and covers roughly 1/4 of the field-of-view. 1 MOA hash mark spacing makes them fairly useless as they are to close together, but the longer 10, 20 and 30 MOA hash marks are still effective.
At 14x magnificaion the reticle takes up roughly 3/4 the field-of-view and works well.




4x Magnification

14x Magnification



3322
3323



On the NightForce the reticle is easier to see at minimal power (4x) due to it's being slightly heavier, but it might as well just be a duplex as the hash marks are all squashed together and just look like a solid jagged line. At max magnification (14x) you still have use of the full range of hold over offered by the reticle, though given it only takes up 3/4 of the FOV I would guess they scaled it for the higher power 20X version of the SHV. Again, the scaling plays a roll in where the most useful magnification range of the reticle will be.


Leupold VX-3i LRP 8.5-25x50mm FFP with TMR (MIL) reticle

Failry simple reticle design - offers hash marks every 1/2 MIL
Major hash marks every 1 MIL
Minor hash marks every .5 MIL
Minor hash marks every 0.2 MIL at outer end of all 4 axis
No "Christmas Tree" providing windage holds
At 8.5x magnification the reticle is very fine and covers roughly 1/3 the field-of-view. Major and Minor hash marks are all easily discernable and usable.
At 25x magnifiation the takes up roughly 3/4 of the field-of-view.




8.5x Magnification

25x Magnification


3324
3325



The larger measuring unit (MIL) and higher minimum power of the Leupold makes the reticle much more usable than both the Vortex and NightForce MOA units IMO at it's lowest setting. The downside of that of course is you have a more course adjustment that's less precise for precision shooting (1/4 MOA - .25975"; 0.1 MIL = .36") - that's a difference of 1" per click at 1,000 yards. The higher low-end magnification also means it will be much less useful for shorter range work, especially on moving targets. The full reticle is also still completely visible at max magnification (other than the rather pointless 5 MIL hash on the thick outer bars) so you're not giving anything up at 25x like on the PST.


Everyone brings up that you can only range with a SFP reticle at one magnification, but they never want to mention that often times the benefit of a FFP reticle disappears at some magnification range simply due to how the reticle is scaled and/or if that scale is suitable for the magnification range offered by that particular scope. This is especially true with FFP scopes that have a higher magnification factor with a wider magnification range (like the currently trending 5x and 6x multiplier options).

On the other hand, with a SFP scope you will always have full view of the reticle and all of it's hold over points, but the distance between those points will change. Most are calibrated to range at max magnification (let's say 24x in this example). So lets say at 24x the hash marks are 1 MOA apart. You're not limited to only ranging at that magnification though; you can also range at 12x where the hash marks would be 2 MOA apart, or at 6x where the hash marks would be 4 MOA apart. The notion that you can only scale at one magnification is a farce, you just have to be a little smarter than the average rock.

I'm not arguing that SFP is better than FFP, or vise-versa. I own both and think each has it's place and each has it's own pro's and con's given a specific application of use. As stated, a lot of that depends on how well the reticle design works with the magnification range of the FFP scope it's in and the reticle's scaling (hash mark spacing).

The same reticle design in a SFP scope is just as useful and beneficial for ranging and measuring misses as it is in a FFP scope. The same reticle in a SFP scope will let you measure them just the same. If you're shot splashes in the dirt two hash marks low and one to the left, you hold over two hash marks and one to the left on the next shot. Two hash marks at a given magnification on a SFP is always going to be two hash marks at that magnification and whether you're hunting or shooting timed competition you're not going to waste time dialing in clicks.

[darkker]

1) Here's the point of my argument against the "everyone should just buy a FFP" trend...
2) Everyone brings up that you can only range with a SFP reticle at one magnification, but they never want to mention that often times the benefit of a FFP reticle disappears at some magnification range simply due to how the reticle is scaled and/or if that scale is suitable for the magnification range offered by that particular scope. This is especially true with FFP scopes that have a higher magnification factor with a wider magnification range (like the currently trending 5x and 6x multiplier options).
3) On the other hand, with a SFP scope you will always have full view of the reticle and all of it's hold over points, but the distance between those points will change. Most are calibrated to range at max magnification (let's say 24x in this example). So lets say at 24x the hash marks are 1 MOA apart. You're not limited to only ranging at that magnification though; you can also range at 12x where the hash marks would be 2 MOA apart, or at 6x where the hash marks would be 4 MOA apart. The notion that you can only scale at one magnification is a farce, you just have to be a little smarter than the average rock.


1) It's only a "trend" if you are a Merrican shooter, they are and have been widely adapted in Europe. Our market is the one late to the dance.
2) This is a double edged sword. If you want to accurately gauge how far off the mark your shot was, then at a magnification other than what the SFP was calibrated for; it is also subject to your complaint of less desirable. Nothing is perfect, but this is a dishonest example since it applies to both.
3) This confuses me, unless you have an unbelieveably cheap scope, you Never lose part of the reticle in the FFP with magnification. IF and you better be sure they tell you this, IF your scope is actually a 5-24X then you could scale it. The trouble is that many scopes are never that precise, like Leupy, they never exactly match, nor is the mag ring exact enough for you to linearly do that. If you like guessing and approximating, then it is close. If you don't want to tinker, guess, and approximate then get a FFP.

Also lets be honest about what the OP wants. Since he is just starting out, a variable with a top end in the stated 24X range; that will be a supremely expensive scope, if you actually want optics with any form of clarity.
A guy who wants to learn and get past 100 yards is great, but I can't in good conscience tell him to go drop $1-3,000 on a scope. When you children first get their driving license, do you go buy them a $70,000 car?

Significant instances where FFP has the advantage in a variable-power scope:
--Quick adjustments for wind or lead. Especially if you are chasing a fast mover like coyotes or prarie dogs. You can hold or dial without looking at power and deciding how to math it out for actual difference. Your scope is always correct.
--Multiple targets at multiple ranges. Whether against the clock at a match, or multiple critters and likely scattering. You can adjust by sound of clicks or hold regardless of your magnification. You also have instant feedback on how far off your shot was, without having to look at the magnification and do your math to decide how far off the mark you were.

Significant instances where SFP has the advantage in a variable-power scope:
--Shooting at very high magnification with very small targets. While a FFP reticle can also work well here, as you pointed out the low mag size is less than desirable. But this is more of a fixed bullseye shooting situation.

FFP is more expensive to build correctly or accurately. As many of you already know, a fixed-power scope makes the whole FFP/SFP a moot point.
Functionally, SFP has no widespread advantages. If as you stated you can't be bothered to waste time dialing a correction, you REALLY can't be bothered to then look at your magnification ring, do the quick mental memory of how close to stated your scopes magnification is, then quickly decide how far off your SFP reticle is from reality and correct. You are bordering on trying to have it both ways in your argument.

[LoneWolf]

1) It's only a "trend" if you are a Merrican shooter, they are and have been widely adapted in Europe. Our market is the one late to the dance.
2) This is a double edged sword. If you want to accurately gauge how far off the mark your shot was, then at a magnification other than what the SFP was calibrated for; it is also subject to your complaint of less desirable. Nothing is perfect, but this is a dishonest example since it applies to both.
3) This confuses me, unless you have an unbelieveably cheap scope, you Never lose part of the reticle in the FFP with magnification. IF and you better be sure they tell you this, IF your scope is actually a 5-24X then you could scale it. The trouble is that many scopes are never that precise, like Leupy, they never exactly match, nor is the mag ring exact enough for you to linearly do that. If you like guessing and approximating, then it is close. If you don't want to tinker, guess, and approximate then get a FFP.

Also lets be honest about what the OP wants. Since he is just starting out, a variable with a top end in the stated 24X range; that will be a supremely expensive scope, if you actually want optics with any form of clarity.
A guy who wants to learn and get past 100 yards is great, but I can't in good conscience tell him to go drop $1-3,000 on a scope. When you children first get their driving license, do you go buy them a $70,000 car?

Significant instances where FFP has the advantage in a variable-power scope:
--Quick adjustments for wind or lead. Especially if you are chasing a fast mover like coyotes or prarie dogs. You can hold or dial without looking at power and deciding how to math it out for actual difference. Your scope is always correct.
--Multiple targets at multiple ranges. Whether against the clock at a match, or multiple critters and likely scattering. You can adjust by sound of clicks or hold regardless of your magnification. You also have instant feedback on how far off your shot was, without having to look at the magnification and do your math to decide how far off the mark you were.

Significant instances where SFP has the advantage in a variable-power scope:
--Shooting at very high magnification with very small targets. While a FFP reticle can also work well here, as you pointed out the low mag size is less than desirable. But this is more of a fixed bullseye shooting situation.

FFP is more expensive to build correctly or accurately. As many of you already know, a fixed-power scope makes the whole FFP/SFP a moot point.
Functionally, SFP has no widespread advantages. If as you stated you can't be bothered to waste time dialing a correction, you REALLY can't be bothered to then look at your magnification ring, do the quick mental memory of how close to stated your scopes magnification is, then quickly decide how far off your SFP reticle is from reality and correct. You are bordering on trying to have it both ways in your argument.

Darker! I commend you! This is the best post you have conjured up since you jumped on this forum and exactly the point I was trying to make! People who regularly shoot at distance whether in recreation or high level competition get this! This is why I haven't seen an SFP scope in the hands of a Marine Scout Sniper over the last 5-6years of my career! FFP just makes the whole experience easier and more enjoyable!

[J.Baker]

1) It's only a "trend" if you are a Merrican shooter, they are and have been widely adapted in Europe. Our market is the one late to the dance.
2) This is a double edged sword. If you want to accurately gauge how far off the mark your shot was, then at a magnification other than what the SFP was calibrated for; it is also subject to your complaint of less desirable. Nothing is perfect, but this is a dishonest example since it applies to both.
3) This confuses me, unless you have an unbelieveably cheap scope, you Never lose part of the reticle in the FFP with magnification. IF and you better be sure they tell you this, IF your scope is actually a 5-24X then you could scale it. The trouble is that many scopes are never that precise, like Leupy, they never exactly match, nor is the mag ring exact enough for you to linearly do that. If you like guessing and approximating, then it is close. If you don't want to tinker, guess, and approximate then get a FFP.

Also lets be honest about what the OP wants. Since he is just starting out, a variable with a top end in the stated 24X range; that will be a supremely expensive scope, if you actually want optics with any form of clarity.
A guy who wants to learn and get past 100 yards is great, but I can't in good conscience tell him to go drop $1-3,000 on a scope. When you children first get their driving license, do you go buy them a $70,000 car?

Significant instances where FFP has the advantage in a variable-power scope:
--Quick adjustments for wind or lead. Especially if you are chasing a fast mover like coyotes or prarie dogs. You can hold or dial without looking at power and deciding how to math it out for actual difference. Your scope is always correct.
--Multiple targets at multiple ranges. Whether against the clock at a match, or multiple critters and likely scattering. You can adjust by sound of clicks or hold regardless of your magnification. You also have instant feedback on how far off your shot was, without having to look at the magnification and do your math to decide how far off the mark you were.

Significant instances where SFP has the advantage in a variable-power scope:
--Shooting at very high magnification with very small targets. While a FFP reticle can also work well here, as you pointed out the low mag size is less than desirable. But this is more of a fixed bullseye shooting situation.

FFP is more expensive to build correctly or accurately. As many of you already know, a fixed-power scope makes the whole FFP/SFP a moot point.
Functionally, SFP has no widespread advantages. If as you stated you can't be bothered to waste time dialing a correction, you REALLY can't be bothered to then look at your magnification ring, do the quick mental memory of how close to stated your scopes magnification is, then quickly decide how far off your SFP reticle is from reality and correct. You are bordering on trying to have it both ways in your argument.

I started to reply to this in detail, but then I remembered that trying to have an open and honest discussion with you is like talking to a brick wall due to your closed-mindedness and overly high regard for your own opinion, so I'm just going to leave it lay.

[stomp442]

I shoot, and I shoot a lot. I hate FFP scopes. Especially those with busy reticles. The majority of my hunting is long range and if I am shooting for fun it's even longer. I have no problem being able to tell how far off I am even with a simple duplex reticle. I do however have a hard time seeing what I am aiming at when the stupid reticle is 20x bigger than it needs to be.

[keeki]

That's the reason I went back to sfp, just too hard to use on varmints at close range because the reticle is small and busy

[LoneWolf]

Above statements are the difference between a highend FFP and low end FFP. I don't have any of those issues and never did whether it was the fixed SWFA, Gen 1 Razor, or the Gen 2 Razor I have now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[yobuck]

This is starting to get really good. lol
Thank you Mr mcFurious.