Printable View
In the 'Buy, Sell or Trade' yesterday @Beetroot posted this in regards to a high magnification scope for sale:
So that leads to my question of "Then what tactical scope specs does cut it in 2020?".Quote:
Originally Posted by Beetroot
As I was of the opinion that a 2nd FP was better for hunting as with 1st FP the reticle is too thin at low power to see against an animal and too thick at high power...
Depends entirely on the reticle. The target rifle reticles are the ones that are too thin generally speaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermitage
A decent quality tactical reticle like the Bushnell G2DMR or similar is good for all magnifications. On a 6-24x scope, I use it at ~10-16x for deer, or at 24x for long range varminting, and the reticle thickness is simply not an issue. This is on a longer range, 300m-700m type rifle.
The issues arise in low light, which is where the illuminated reticles come into play. A low power illumination is amazing on an animal at the last of the light. I have one scope relatively new to me with a Tritium illuminated dot and a 56mm objective - holy shit I can see animals perfectly clearly on 6x or 10x mag at 150m that I can't even see with the naked eye.
There are as many answers to this as opinions, very much a personal preference. I like tactical reticles for shooting multiple animals quickly, so I holdover on the reticle instead of trying to adjust the dials. I've yet to use a tactical reticle that was either too thick, or too thin.
In practice the thick/thin of the reticle in FFP scopes is a non issue in my experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermitage
Greetings All,
The main problem with the SFP scopes and mil dot or multipoint reticles is that they are only correct at one magnification, usually 10 power so the mil dot or multipoint reticle is kneecapped by the SFP. I am amazed how many do not know this. The SFP scopes can show some reticle shift as power changes especially the less expensive ones.
That said I have three mil dot SFP scopes with moa turrets but all are fixed 10 power scopes which gets over the problems.
Regards Grandpamac.
The ffp reticle that is harder to see at a lower magnification is a non issue if the manufacturer want to do something about it.
Burris did it well with there veracity reticle .
https://www.burrisoptics.com/scopes/...cope-2-10x42mm
The Schmitt and bender Millot reticle on their 4-16 classic is another exemple.
Thick side bars at low magnification and thinner detailed lines on the center for the higher magnification.
The bushnell lrhs is also a very good one:
https://www.precisionoptics.net/Elit...H_p/e3124h.htm
The G2 reticle in the bigger models is a bit too complicated for real hunting situations.( I own both!)
The reality is that a lot of "tactical" scope are used mostly during the day time for target shooting , and the bright daylight luminosity is a non issue when using the fine reticle. The ones with illumination alleviate the problem, and the ones with the thicker reticle on the outside edge as mentioned above also mostly resolve the problem for real hunting conditions.
The reticle on that night force scope is also pretty good:
https://www.nightforceoptics.com/rif.../nx8-1-8x24-f1
Just a ashamed that it is not available in higher magnification scopes
And this one even better
https://www.nightforceoptics.com/fil...-COMM-v4_1.pdf
The limitation of a sfp scope with a mil or moa reticle is also potentially an advantage. Yes the reticle angles are only correct at one setting and by changing the magnification you alter their value but if not dialling and using holdovers like flyblown said by trading off a bit of magnification you get an increase in available elevation.
So by halfing the magnification you double the value of each hash mark. It's a very effective technique with slower cartridges.
What's with this "Tactical" bullshit. Does everyone want to be in the armed forces?
Yes thats true but you cannot be guaranteed of the accuracy of the values of subtensions/hash marks as you cannot guarantee that the magnification markings on scope are indeed true. Ie 10x may only be 9 or 11 and therefore messing up your doubled mill/moa calculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Henry
Lots of people do long range gong/target shooting or various field shooting competition where these types og scopes are useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dermastor
I've looked through those reticles and they are probably the best hunting rets yet. Very fast to centraliseQuote:
Originally Posted by Friwi
I see no issue with the hardware, it's the need for it to be classified "tactical". Tactical to me says "I have an inferiority complex and need to bolster my image". Often reserved for lesser brands as a marketing gimmick, or that guy who has never shot a deer but makes out he has.Quote:
Originally Posted by GWH
The main "issue" with the scope in question is the mismatched reticle and turrets, whilst it used to be common to have a Mil reticle and MOA turrets you won't find it on any new scopes.
Mismatched is certain not unusable by any stretch but being able to measure misses with the reticle and then dial the correction into the scope with no mental gymnastics is a big advantage.
SFP vs FFP is a different argument with pros and cons for each.
Generally speaking for a hunting scope SFP is probably the way to go, for targets/longer range/higher magnification you want FFP.
The advantage of FFP is the reticle subtensions stay the same at all magnification, in your SFP scope the reticle is correct at 12x so if you were around 15-20x you can't use the reticle for holds without some form of mental arithmetic, not impossible to do in the field but with FFP you don't have to think about it.
Biggest issue with FFP is not so much the reticles being too thick at high mag as most reticles are well designed for that but that they are very thin on low magnification.
If your 6-24 was FFP it likely wouldn't be an issue on 6x but my FFP 3-15 has a very fine reticle on 3x. I've done enough shooting with it that it's not really an issue and illumination can help but a big ol SFP duplex reticle would be a better choice if shooting close range deer in the bush were the rifles main purpose.
People used SFP MOA/Mil scopes for decades with great success so it's not like they are worthless but in the last 10 or so years the tactical/precision scope market has changed dramatically for the better.
Basically since Vortex released the Gen1 Viper PST for 1000USD the market in that price range has improved greatly.
"Tactical" is just a convenient term to use, you could just as well say practical or precision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dermastor
Unfortunately "Tactical" comes with a lot of negative connotations.
Tactical scopes are typically different than hunting or benchrest/target scopes do deserve their own category.
Attachment 154701Quote:
Originally Posted by Dermastor
The answer is yes and no. Yes they want to be edgy and militaristic and the spartan gear that is all ugly and angular, good stuff.. No, they don't want to do a lot of sweating, getting yelled at and shitting to schedule. Also probably not too hot on running into machine gun fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dermastor
I prefer "clicky dially scopes"
I've been sold on top end military grade scopes since I realised that while weighing a metric ton, you can drive a nail with it and it will hold zero.
Really nice to leave rifle in jet boat or 4x4 and not worry about the scope.
Quite true Marty Henry,Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Henry
But it adds complexity with more things to think about and possibly stuff up. I, for one, do not need any help with the latter. Being a simple soul I rather like the idea of being able to take a shot quickly at medium ranges. I have heard of instances of a shot being presented in open country where the hunter has carefully ranged the animal, dialed up the scope from it's 100 metre zero and settled his bipod only to find that the deer has wandered behind a tree never to be seen again. Some of these shots were well inside 300 metres and could have been taken with a rifle zeroed for 200 metres using a multipoint reticle to roughly estimate range. My days of hunting hard have slipped away so trips with a rifle are largely therapeutic so simple systems suit me best. As always your wants, needs and results likely differ. All the best.
Regards Grandpamac.
You don't dial up from the 100m zero. You set hour medium range no hold zero and off you go.Quote:
Originally Posted by grandpamac
If you ever get the chance to look through some of the higher end "tactical" scopes, like the Schmidt and Benders or the nightforce range of FFP scopes, you'll see that the issue of a reticle which is "too thin" isn't actually an issue at all.
As has previously been mentioned, the fact that reticle subtensions on FFP scopes remain the same over all magnifications is an advantage. No need to worry about what power you're on, the measurements are always the same.
Light transmission on the newer high end scopes is also pretty mind blowing. I use leica products for my binoculars and spotting scopes, and as good as they are, light transmission on a nightforce scope leaves them for dead.
Again quite true Tussock,Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
I expect you would be both surprised and disappointed to find how many still zero dead on at 100 metres or yards. This was the case in the examples I mentioned. In my long distant youth centre fire rifles were always zeroed at 200 or 300 yards (or 2 or 3 inches high at 100 yards) but when scopes became common many felt the need to zero dead on at 100 and some still do. Not for me however.
Regards Grandpamac.
This part of the world is littered with drench containers with holes all over them. Minute if drench container is normal shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by grandpamac
In the Highlands of Scotland you will see 'Passing Place' signs on single track roads, some of which have nice groups on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
I have all my center fire rifles zero'd at 100m if feel the need to have a 200m or 300m "zero" on for a pop shot would just dial it to 2 or 300m and carry on walking till game appears.
I have been using FFP scopes more or less exclusively for >10 years now and the idea that the reticle is too thin/thick at low/high power has never once been an actual problem in the real world for me with the scopes I've had
