View Full Version : Better option than 2.5-10 FFP?
I have a Vortex 2.5-10 x 32 FFP but I don't like it. I think SFP is a better option in this range because I don't holdover or use the reticle to range at any magnification except 10, and the reticle is too small @ 2.5 to be seen easily.
So I'm back to the drawing board, looking for a SFP 2.5-10 or something like that (and no, I can't afford Nightforce, though that would be my first choice)...
so that leaves Vortex 2.5-10x44, which is SFP. does anyone know if it has the same clarity as the FFP?
any other choices out there?..
Valdada, Leupold Mk4, Bushnell all make some iteration of second focal plane glass.
I have been considering both of these and was leaning towards SFP but I have heard/rumor that the glass on the SFP is not as 'pleasant', maybe glass/parallax. Seemed odd to put parallax on the FFP 10x scope. I'll check these out when I pick up my rangefinder.
If Leupold hadn't put such a $h!tt! button on their $1000-$1500 dollar VX6 scopes I would already have one. Button looks great! performs and feels like $h!t. Glass is very decent in all lighting, battery and motion are awesome, turrets are good, that @#$%& button @#$%& @#$%&.
Krampus
I totally agree about the 2.5-10 being better as a SFP. That being said, I hated the glass on my Vortex 2.5-10, plus when using the scope when it was at or slightly below freezing the clicks just turned to mush.
IMO the reticle is much too thick on the VX6 firedot scopes, which I suspect has to do with the fiber optic element which makes the dot.
Take a look at the 2.5-8x42 Leupold TS30A2. Its actually closer to a 3-9, but the reticle doesn't match the turrets if thats a deal breaker. Generally, not that big of a deal in a SFP scope IMO, and the elevation is marked for drops with a 77gr mk 262 round. The TMR reticle is very nice in it, good open center which isn't too large, and the illumination is very strong. MUCH better than on my 2.5-10x42 NF. If you are LE/Mil/Gov they are priced very good.
I'm not a fan of the illumination in the 2.5-10x42 NF, and the view through the rear of the scope just seems cramped. I don't know if this was because I was comparing it to a Mark 6 3-18 which has a 34mm tube or not, but the occular lens on it just seems as if it could be bigger. The tick marks on the parallax adjustment kind of suck, I'd rather just have numbers or yards etc.
I generally don't like and pushbutton illumination, but I'm contemplating the new 4-16 NF F1 with the MOAR reticle. Being 34mm I'm hoping the view through the back would seem bigger, and they are now labeling the parallax know. IMO, in a FFP scope anything below 4 and you are barely able to make out the reticle. On my Mark 6, 3 and 18 were rarely used. Most of the time I never went above 15 as things started getting darker and the reticle thick.
The Steiner 3-15 T5Xi looks very impressive, but I can't stand the layout of the SCR reticle. I don't really like any of the Steiner reticles as a matter of fact. But, if I could get a T5Xi with a standard mildot I'd be all over it.
If you have the space on your credit card, the 3-15 Tangent Theta 30mm looks very nice. Priced on the high side for where its market competition is.
You could always save your coins and keep an eye out for a used NF 2.5-10x32. They're not super expensive, not when compared to new, and NF is as damn near bomb proof as you can get so really your biggest concern would be cosmetic. Keep a look out every time NF releases another "last run ever!OMG!!!" of the x24 and watch guys dump their x32's left and right. Seems like it happens once every year or two, and you could score a nice NF for a solid price.
Push button illumination is flat out stupid. US Optics has been using it for years, it sucked back then and it sucks now, and apparently everybody thinks they need to be like those guys.
I disagree about low-magnification FFP reticles with the caveat that the reticle must be done well, and purpose designed for that situation. Most are just adaptations of any normal reticle and they fail pretty miserably.
If you have an example of a well done sub 12x FFP I would appreciate it.
Krampus
steyrman13
02-04-15, 08:15
If you have an example of a well done sub 12x FFP I would appreciate it.
Krampus
USO 1.8-10 comes to mind. Mk6 1-6, s&b short dot any of them, uso 1-8, there are more
USO 1.8-10 comes to mind. Mk6 1-6, s&b short dot any of them, uso 1-8, there are more
A FFP tmr on a low/low-mid FFP is unappealing and hard to see at less than full power. The people designing and using these reticles must have the eyes of a bionic eagle.
Krampus
I have been considering both of these and was leaning towards SFP but I have heard/rumor that the glass on the SFP is not as 'pleasant', maybe glass/parallax. Seemed odd to put parallax on the FFP 10x scope. I'll check these out when I pick up my rangefinder.
If Leupold hadn't put such a $h!tt! button on their $1000-$1500 dollar VX6 scopes I would already have one. Button looks great! performs and feels like $h!t. Glass is very decent in all lighting, battery and motion are awesome, turrets are good, that @#$%& button @#$%& @#$%&.
Krampus
yeah, I've heard the SFP is softer, don't know if that's the PST or the HF (hunting) one, though. might easily be from before they offered the PST version...
the PST 2.5-10x44 SFP has the same specs and supposedly the same glass as the FFP. it lacks parallax knob but it's also $200 cheaper and I'm on a budget...
yeah, I've heard the SFP is softer, don't know if that's the PST or the HF (hunting) one, though. might easily be from before they offered the PST version...
the PST 2.5-10x44 SFP has the same specs and supposedly the same glass as the FFP. it lacks parallax knob but it's also $200 cheaper and I'm on a budget...
I've never checked out a x44, but I've heard the x32 has better lass. :confused:
I know my 2.5-10x32 FFP has amazing glass during the day. But it gets dark quick due to the smaller objective. I would say that's the only downside.
I totally agree about the 2.5-10 being better as a SFP. That being said, I hated the glass on my Vortex 2.5-10, plus when using the scope when it was at or slightly below freezing the clicks just turned to mush.
you hated the glass, really? which Vortex 2.5-10, the FFP or SFP?..
Take a look at the 2.5-8x42 Leupold TS30A2. Its actually closer to a 3-9, but the reticle doesn't match the turrets if thats a deal breaker. Generally, not that big of a deal in a SFP scope IMO, and the elevation is marked for drops with a 77gr mk 262 round. The TMR reticle is very nice in it, good open center which isn't too large, and the illumination is very strong. MUCH better than on my 2.5-10x42 NF. If you are LE/Mil/Gov they are priced very good.
I'm not a fan of the illumination in the 2.5-10x42 NF, and the view through the rear of the scope just seems cramped. I don't know if this was because I was comparing it to a Mark 6 3-18 which has a 34mm tube or not, but the occular lens on it just seems as if it could be bigger. The tick marks on the parallax adjustment kind of suck, I'd rather just have numbers or yards etc.
I generally don't like and pushbutton illumination, but I'm contemplating the new 4-16 NF F1 with the MOAR reticle. Being 34mm I'm hoping the view through the back would seem bigger, and they are now labeling the parallax know. IMO, in a FFP scope anything below 4 and you are barely able to make out the reticle. On my Mark 6, 3 and 18 were rarely used. Most of the time I never went above 15 as things started getting darker and the reticle thick.
I agree with FFP being near useless at anything less than 4 or 5. another possible for me is 4-16 but again, I hear (heard) mumblings about the Vortex 4-16 glass being soft...
The Steiner 3-15 T5Xi looks very impressive, but I can't stand the layout of the SCR reticle. I don't really like any of the Steiner reticles as a matter of fact. But, if I could get a T5Xi with a standard mildot I'd be all over it.
If you have the space on your credit card, the 3-15 Tangent Theta 30mm looks very nice. Priced on the high side for where its market competition is.
I've got expensive taste in glass but I'm afraid those would send my credit card to the ICU and me to the doghouse when my wife saw the bill.
I want something that doesn't weigh 2 lbs., this is going on a 16" with 5.56 stainless match barrel but it still needs to be man portable. the other usual suspects in the category are pretty heavy, damn expensive -OR- they don't offer illum. there's no Holy Grail...
I've had the same search once, finally just went in for the NF. Until the manufactures come up with something new, it's the best balanced for this power and focal plane.
I've had the same search once, finally just went in for the NF. Until the manufactures come up with something new, it's the best balanced for this power and focal plane.
well, that would be my desire but I can't really afford NF so looking for the next best thing. I got the 2.5-10 FFP based on reviews, etc., I never looked through one before I bought it.
does anyone still wonder why NF hasn't made their venerable 2.5-10 FFP? it's dumb, that's why...
without a full size reticle, or unless your illum knob goes up to 11, any attempt to use the reticle at the bottom end is miserable. I'd rather use a 4x ACOG for close action than this scope at 2.5...
BrigandTwoFour
02-06-15, 12:44
I have the same PST 2.5-10x32 FFP. You are right, the reticle is tiny at the bottom end. I can still use it, but I find that the scope spends most of its life between 4x and 10x. I do use the FFP for holdovers, though.
I honestly don't think there is a good tradeoff here without going to one of the 1x-4/6/8x choices. The two magnification ranges are built for different niches. A 2.5-10 with SFP is fine if you don't need the holdover/ranging marks. Otherwise, the next best solution is to have the offset RDS or irons (that's the route I'm going to go).
you hated the glass, really? which Vortex 2.5-10, the FFP or SFP?..
I agree with FFP being near useless at anything less than 4 or 5. another possible for me is 4-16 but again, I hear (heard) mumblings about the Vortex 4-16 glass being soft...
I've got expensive taste in glass but I'm afraid those would send my credit card to the ICU and me to the doghouse when my wife saw the bill.
I want something that doesn't weigh 2 lbs., this is going on a 16" with 5.56 stainless match barrel but it still needs to be man portable. the other usual suspects in the category are pretty heavy, damn expensive -OR- they don't offer illum. there's no Holy Grail...
I had the 2.5-10x44 SFP Vortex. Glass was milky. Hated it. Same reason I never even mounted the 4-16 Vortex...sent that right back.
would look for a NF 2.5-10
I had the 2.5-10x44 SFP Vortex. Glass was milky. Hated it. Same reason I never even mounted the 4-16 Vortex...sent that right back.
hmmm, not very encouraging. I wish I had some place local to see them but I don't. and I don't want to do the buy and return internet shuffle.
how long ago was this? some reports are that this has been true initially but fixed recently. any chance that's correct?..
I have the same PST 2.5-10x32 FFP. You are right, the reticle is tiny at the bottom end. I can still use it, but I find that the scope spends most of its life between 4x and 10x. I do use the FFP for holdovers, though.
I honestly don't think there is a good tradeoff here without going to one of the 1x-4/6/8x choices. The two magnification ranges are built for different niches. A 2.5-10 with SFP is fine if you don't need the holdover/ranging marks. Otherwise, the next best solution is to have the offset RDS or irons (that's the route I'm going to go).
I have 1-6 on another gun. great but not what this gun is set up for.
if you can do holdovers at 4x FFP, you've got better eyes than I do. I still don't understand why people want to range at anything less than max mag. at any range that you need to range or holdover, you're much more accurate at max power. for me, with a cattail it's quicker and less fuss to just wind up the mag than try to work at the low end. but then, as you say, this FFP scope reticle shrinks to nothing at 2.5. really wish the SFP version of this or the 4-16 had glass that was comparable.
a fixed 10-12 power with offset secondary might be ok but I'd rather put the money into primary scope...
How about a FFP scope, with zero stop and a reticle you can actually use @3x...and under $1100.
http://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-Tactical-E3124H-Riflescope-Reticle/dp/B00J4IZ3BK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423515820&sr=8-1&keywords=bushnell+lrhs
I have 1-6 on another gun. great but not what this gun is set up for.
if you can do holdovers at 4x FFP, you've got better eyes than I do. I still don't understand why people want to range at anything less than max mag. at any range that you need to range or holdover, you're much more accurate at max power. for me, with a cattail it's quicker and less fuss to just wind up the mag than try to work at the low end. but then, as you say, this FFP scope reticle shrinks to nothing at 2.5. really wish the SFP version of this or the 4-16 had glass that was comparable.
a fixed 10-12 power with offset secondary might be ok but I'd rather put the money into primary scope...
A common misconception is that the only application that a Mil or MOA based reticle is only useful for ranging. An FFP reticle is also extremely useful for shooting moving targets, and engaging multiple targets in sequence at various ranges, all while under a short time constraints.
If you've never participated in a LR Tactical rifle shoot, you should do so, and it will quickly dispel any notions you may have about FFP vs SFP.
I wonder why I’ve never seen anyone talk about the Redfield Revolution scopes (http://redfield.com/riflescopes/) in this forum. I’ve chosen one for a future gun I haven’t purchased yet, and am thinking about one for the .308 bolt gun I recently bought, mostly because the price on the Leupolds are way too much for me and I’m not crazy about the Vortex reticles. As for FFP or SFP, I can’t find any info on the Redfield site that talks about focal planes, so I guess one would have to assume SFP. The Redfield is made in Oregon on the same equipment the Leupolds are made on. A plus for me.
4-12 Leupold roughly $800 to $1500. Redfield Roughly $260.
ldunnmobile
02-09-15, 17:34
Everyone always overlooks the 3-12x44 Bushnell with G2dmr. I think its fantastic for the money.
A common misconception is that the only application that a Mil or MOA based reticle is only useful for ranging. An FFP reticle is also extremely useful for shooting moving targets, and engaging multiple targets in sequence at various ranges, all while under a short time constraints.
If you've never participated in a LR Tactical rifle shoot, you should do so, and it will quickly dispel any notions you may have about FFP vs SFP.
if you are engaging multiple targets in sequence at various ranges, all while under a short time constraints, you sure as heck aren't using a FFP scope set at 2.5x...
I had the same problem with the 2.5-10 PST. I wanted to love the scope. It was compact, the magnification range I wanted, way better price then the NF... But my eyes aren't correctable to 20/20 even with glasses, and the FFP reticle was a no go for me. Sold it after one range trip, just couldn't make out the reticle that well on any setting. I ended up getting the Leupold VX-R 3-9 from Liberty Optics at a good price. A lot of people don't care for that TMR reticle, and say that it is too thick, but I can see it. Better to see a thick reticle then not see it at all. Plus, this isn't for putting tiny holes in paper at 300 yards, this is just a lightweight option with pretty clear glass and not $1,400. It works for me. as with everything else, ymmv.
The TMR isn't too thick. The TMR in its Firedot iteration is. If you use a TMR in any other of their scopes, say the Mark 6 or Mark 4 you'll see a big difference.
Roger that, and great point. I haven't used either the Mark 6 or 4, but I have always read/heard their is a difference between those scopes and their TMR versus the Firedot TMR. I hope to see the difference one day, but for now I'm happy with the "thick" TMR, so Imagine I'd be super content with the upper end lines.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.