View Full Version : Opinion/pictures of Nightforce 1-4 reticles? (IHR vs. FC-3G)
I have only handled the FC-3G, and I liked it, but the illumination is rather weak. With an X300U the illumination washes out 100% on a white wall/door, but you DO have a very bolt reticle still. Aimed at darker things, it gives off a dull red glow over the illumination.
Anyway, which reticle is faster for combat-effective/IPSC target style hits 0-50 yards both illuminated/no illumination/dark/light, etc?
The IHR, or the FC-3G? I would also appreciate any reticle pix of the optics in question actually in use. I've looked and looked and looked and finally settled on the Nightforce 1-4. Now it's reticle-picking time.
*I don't care one bit about BDC capability. Forget that it exists.*
http://cdn6.bigcommerce.com/s-llwpiff/product_images/uploaded_images/fc-3gill-300x300-69574-1-.png?t=1436990972
https://1shotgear.com/sites/default/files/styles/uc_product_full/public/ihr_4.png?itok=GS9iLa4x
http://nightforceoptics.com/pdf/NFO_IHRsheet_2013.pdf
http://nightforceoptics.com/sites/default/files/FC3G_Reticle_Sheet_Final.pdf
Recently looked at these exact two reticles. Decided the IHR would be the best choice for me. Knowing holds makes the IHR a faster choice--for me.
Recently looked at these exact two reticles. Decided the IHR would be the best choice for me. Knowing holds makes the IHR a faster choice--for me.
Which would you pick for a shoothouse?
IHR all day long for a CQB scenario.
I have the FC2, had the FC3G, like both.
How is the IHR, without illumination . I had the 1-4 mil dot and it sucked without illumination. The cross hair was too fine to be used quickly during "run and gun".
Not what you are asking about, but I have a NF1-4 with the FC2.
Its very fast with a big dot, and a circle around it. The dot is big enough its not great for precision. I would think it would be the best for a shoot house.
I used it in Vtac Carbine 1.5 and street fighter. It worked out great for me, from contact distance sitting in cars, to shooting prone at 100yards.
IHR all day long for a CQB scenario.
Why?? I've used both and the FC3g is way easier to use up close. It's a 1.5moa dot surrounded by a thick segmented circle vs a .6moa crosshair.
Just an update. I purchased the FC-2 reticle instead. Put one on lay-a-way today as I didn't want it to scoot off in the next two weeks, as they only made that model for 1 year (2013) with the FC-2 AND the PTL lever. My reasoning was that the greater illuminated area, larger reticle (2 MOA dot vs. 1.5 MOA dot) and continuous "circle of death" has GOT to be easier to pick up than either the FC-3G or the IHR. As others have already mentioned, it has 5 MOA holds built in.
I've had the FC2 and FC3G, just had to sell the 3G, the FC2 was for sure easier for me, but the 3G is still fast.
I've had the FC2 and FC3G, just had to sell the 3G, the FC2 was for sure easier for me, but the 3G is still fast.
I looked through the 3G, and I think I will appreciate the FC2. I liked the 3G, but the FC-2 seems better just looking at them.
Were any changes made to the 1-4 NXS since 2013? I know the PTL was new for that year, but does my FC-2 have all the latest and greatest, being a 2013 model, or did different coatings or something come out for '14 or '15 that anyone knows of, just out of curiosity?
I talked to Nightforce about that too, as one of mt 1-4s was made in '13. I'm pretty sure the ones that came with the PTL will have all the improvements as the ones they are making right now.
I have a '13 made and a '15 made 1-4 and they're identical.
Don't forget that it's second focal plane scope, so the center dot is 1.5 or 2MOA at 4X. So it's gonna be 6-8MOA at 1X. Plenty easy to see. I think you'll be surprised at how well they work at night with the illumination off and a good 500+ lumen light.
I've had the FC2 and FC3G, just had to sell the 3G, the FC2 was for sure easier for me, but the 3G is still fast.
I wish they would make a 1-4 with the FC3g reticle, but instead of hold overs, put a 1 MOA (ala MOAR) scale somewhere so the scope can be used for ranging instead of a mostly useless BDC. I hate BDCs.
I talked to Nightforce about that too, as one of mt 1-4s was made in '13. I'm pretty sure the ones that came with the PTL will have all the improvements as the ones they are making right now.
I have a '13 made and a '15 made 1-4 and they're identical.
Don't forget that it's second focal plane scope, so the center dot is 1.5 or 2MOA at 4X. So it's gonna be 6-8MOA at 1X. Plenty easy to see. I think you'll be surprised at how well they work at night with the illumination off and a good 500+ lumen light.
One local shop let me look at an FC-3G in the back room with my X300U. It was pretty good, but I think the larger illuminated area (larger dot and circle too) of the FC-2 will work much better than the FC-3G. The FC-3G just seems half-ass to me. Like they wanted to make a 3-600 yard optic, and a 3-30 yard optic, and couldn't figure out how to do it, so they just smashed the two togather real hard. The FC-2 is much more 3-30 yard biased, but easy to use further out from what I hear.
Thanks for the datapoint!
I have zero stops on mine and I've cranked 'em all the way out to 500+ and stayed on an 8" target with ease.
I took 3rd overall with it in a match this past weekend that went from 3-125 yards. With no kind of go-fast anything on the gun. So it works well enough.
I think you did good with the NXS 1-4. IMO it's one of the best, and underrated scopes on the market. They're a no BS, no compromise scope. I see a lot of money wasted on lesser optics because the illumination is brighter.
Another ridiculous thing. If you have an Aimpoint Micro with an absolute mount, stick it right in front of your 1-4 and you can use it like that. It works just like a variable magnifier. Looks goofy as all get-out but is actually functional. I haven't shot very far like that so I don't know how two optics would affect POI, but it works like a champ at night.
Here's a link to Nightforce's reticle PDF if you haven't seen it. http://nightforceoptics.com/pdf/ReticleManual.pdf
Ps...
I need the 1.5" high unimount, right? Not the 1.375? That seems low compared to my aimpoint mounts.
Ps...
I need the 1.5" high unimount, right? Not the 1.375? That seems low compared to my aimpoint mounts.
I have mine in a LaRue SPR that's 1.5". I could handle lower, but it would be tight and definitely tiring when prone. I have a pretty small head so I'd definitely go with the 1.5"
I like lower 1/3 on my Aimpoints.
Since noone seems to have these photos, I took a few. My new Nightforce 1-4 NXS with FC-2 reticle arrived, and out came the cheap potato to document! All photos are with illumination set on "Max" unless otherwise noted. This should give a good idea of what one can expect in nearly every lighting environment one will encounter at night. Daylight pictures will have to wait for a bit, for technical reasons.
White wall, 3 meters, illumination off, 800 lumen bulbs (x2) behind white ceiling light diffuser:
http://i61.tinypic.com/riukvm.jpg
White wall, 3 meters, illumination on, 800 lumen bulbs (x2) behind white ceiling light diffuser:
http://i57.tinypic.com/mc3jhf.jpg
White wall, 3 meters, Surefire M600 Ultra (500 lumen) providing illumination, series:
http://i61.tinypic.com/2cxb2g3.jpg
http://i62.tinypic.com/30kyctz.jpg
http://i57.tinypic.com/p6qhj.jpg
Standing in living-room, standard residential brightness (to my eyes), unsure of lumens of bulb(s). 1X, aiming across parkinglot at door 50m distant:
http://i57.tinypic.com/nowtwg.jpg
Standing in living-room, standard residential brightness (to my eyes), unsure of lumens of bulb(s). 4X, aiming across parkinglot at door 50m distant:
http://i60.tinypic.com/11t95ag.jpg
Gas station, approximately 150m, 1x:
http://i62.tinypic.com/2qwdeuw.jpg
Gas station, approximately 150m, 4x:
http://i59.tinypic.com/333y0j6.jpg
Dark parkinglot into lit apartment, distance to door @ 10m:
http://i57.tinypic.com/33y5gkz.jpg
Overcast with light rain, 1x, full illumination, Jeep@150 yards:
http://i59.tinypic.com/2w1v5sx.jpg
Overcast with light rain, 4x, full illumination, Jeep@150 yards:
http://i59.tinypic.com/2prgydg.jpg
Overcast with light rain, 1x, no illumination, Jeep@150 yards:
http://i58.tinypic.com/2eeiepw.jpg
Overcast with light rain, 4x, no illumination, Jeep@150 yards:
http://i59.tinypic.com/vii59y.jpg
Very pleased so far. Here is a picture for size/scale. I have not bought a mount for it yet, although I'm working on a deal for the one I want.
http://i58.tinypic.com/2mgtnxx.jpg
-I do notice a tiny bit of magnification on 1x. It is functionally a non-issue, and there is no phoria.
-Everything is tough. The diopter adjustment locks, the scope and all adjustments feel very "robust".
-The glass is very very good. Not Kahles, but VERY good.
-Light transmission on 1x at night is very good. It is similar to the un-aided eye. Not darker, certainly.
-I noticed NONE of the diopter shift issues that I had with the VCOG. On 1x across the room it looks good, at 4x across the parkinglot it looks good...blurry smartphone pix not withstanding.
Which mount are you getting and will your FSP and X300 be a problem out front?
A little off topic, but what kind of battery life can you expect with this scope?
Which mount are you getting and will your FSP and X300 be a problem out front?
A little off topic, but what kind of battery life can you expect with this scope?
The scope is not going on the rifle pictured.
NF milspec 1.5" unimount
NF did not give me a concise answer on battery life at max.
If I was gonna use the DD fixed sight and X300 at 12:00 I'd get a tall LaRue mount.
The FC2 looks like it lights up pretty good. I use my FC3g at dusk quite a bit and I have to turn it all the way down to keep from over-powering the ambient light, but it doesn't get bright enough to use as a red dot. The few times I've used it investigate a bump in the night I didn't even turn on the illumination because it just doesn't help at close range with a light.
Thanks. I'm curious how the battery life compares with something like an Accupower.
If I was gonna use the DD fixed sight and X300 at 12:00 I'd get a tall LaRue mount.
The FC2 looks like it lights up pretty good. I use my FC3g at dusk quite a bit and I have to turn it all the way down to keep from over-powering the ambient light, but it doesn't get bright enough to use as a red dot. The few times I've used it investigate a bump in the night I didn't even turn on the illumination because it just doesn't help at close range with a light.
Rifle has Magpul PRO, and M300C in a Magpul offset mount. Rifle pictured is not the one that will be used, it was just handy.
Thanks. I'm curious how the battery life compares with something like an Accupower.
The manual says "up to 720 hours". Who knows it's that's on the NV setting, or just a very low setting, or what?
The manual says "up to 720 hours". Who knows it's that's on the NV setting, or just a very low setting, or what?
Yeah that's about useless. My guess would be that that is calculated based on the lowest possible setting.
Good thing is that it uses the same battery as an Aimpoint Micro. And the illumination is not necessary for the scope to function.
Could it cause any harm to leave it on, max setting, and just time how long roughly until it dies?
I figure it's meant to be used AT LEAST for an hour or so at a time, and heat-soaked is heat-soaked, so...no harm to do a run-down test, right?
I am coming in here a little late but if you are on this forum you have probably seen the video on the ACSS reticle. If NF could get that into a 1x4 or 1x6 that was daylight visible than you would really have my attention.
24 hour runtime profile using new Duracell CR2032, illumination set to "MAX".
http://i66.tinypic.com/1zzjt3l.jpg
24 hour runtime profile using new Duracell CR2032, illumination set to "MAX".
Thanks for doing that.
Digital_Damage
10-29-15, 09:21
people are still buying 2nd focal plane optics? Odd
people are still buying 2nd focal plane optics? Odd
Why? FFP sucks in an LPV. I had a VCOG, and I hated it. That aside, the FFP was "meh". It didn't hurt much, but I much prefer the SFP of my Nightforce, although Trijicon did execute the FFP beautifully, IMO, if BDC reticles are your thing.
Thanks for doing that.
You're welcome. I terminated the test after 30 some odd hours. The reticle was still VERY usable in every situation you would "need" an illuminated reticle, and I really saw no point in further testing. It will last a shift/night etc. and that's what matters, IMO
people are still buying 2nd focal plane optics? Odd
I think the same thing about people that still buy ffp lpv ;)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Digital_Damage
10-29-15, 18:30
I think the same thing about people that still buy ffp lpv ;)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ya... who in the world would want consistent math for holdovers on a battle rifle scope...
I'm guessing some are just using these as read dots.... there are better faster options out there if that is going to be the primary use.
Ya... who in the world would want consistent math for holdovers on a battle rifle scope...
I'm guessing some are just using these as read dots.... there are better faster options out there if that is going to be the primary use.
Such as?
Who dials dope on a 1-4?
Ya... who in the world would want consistent math for holdovers on a battle rifle scope...
I'm guessing some are just using these as read dots.... there are better faster options out there if that is going to be the primary use.
Do you really use your reticle to measure stuff on the fly? Do you usually scout out an area with the scope just somewhere in the mag range? Most second focal plane scopes have 1/2 their max power marked on the adjustment ring for this very reason. On scopes with a max power of 10X or so, the increased capability on lower and higher magnification settings greatly trumps the slightly added benefit of a first focal plane reticle IME. Some of the scope makers are coming out with some pretty cool ideas that are doing better with the FFP stuff, so I think in time, we'll some added utility in it.
Such as?
Who dials dope on a 1-4?
I do it quite frequently.. I have zero stop exposed turrets on both my NXS1-4s it increases the utility of the optics greatly. With MK262 from a 16" barrel I have no trouble (on a decent day) holding 2moa out 550 yards and putting the rounds where I want'em. The BDC reticle is just not close enough to use out past 300 yards for me.
The reticle is used to measure things and to a lesser extent see how far off your miss was, if you can actually see where you missed, which is not something that happens enough to rely on in any way.
Coal Dragger
10-29-15, 21:41
Yeah, not sure what the major allure of FFP is on a 1-4X or 1-6X. You're not going to be able to read the BDC or hash marks or mil dots on an FFP at 1X, or 2X, and if you are going to have to crank it up to see the reticle details to use it guess what? Might as well turn it all the way up, at which point it might as well be 2FP reticle.
On a high powered variable running with a top end magnification of 15X to 25X yes absolutely get a FFP if possible because sometimes you have to dial down due to mirage or available light not allowing full magnification.
I have an NF 2.5-10x32 and if I leave the illumination on, the battery will die within a couple of days.
I compared several 1-6x scopes and did not like the FFP. On 1x, the reticle would be so small as to be useless.
Myself, I don't need day time visible illumination. In good light, the reticle will be visible. I only need the illumination to be visible when the reticle is lost against darkened areas or in low light situations
Digital_Damage
10-30-15, 07:59
Yeah, not sure what the major allure of FFP is on a 1-4X or 1-6X. You're not going to be able to read the BDC or hash marks or mil dots on an FFP at 1X, or 2X, and if you are going to have to crank it up to see the reticle details to use it guess what? Might as well turn it all the way up, at which point it might as well be 2FP reticle.
On a high powered variable running with a top end magnification of 15X to 25X yes absolutely get a FFP if possible because sometimes you have to dial down due to mirage or available light not allowing full magnification.
No issues reading full mil increments on my 1-6 mk6 at 2x.
2nd focal plane adds an unnecessary variable. NF is the only high end still rolling that way now. S&B, Leopold, ect... all their newest offerings are FFP, if you run though a few classes you will get the low down on why. Even S&B's newest offerings are doing away with on the fly windage adjustments all together.
No issues reading full mil increments on my 1-6 mk6 at 2x.
2nd focal plane adds an unnecessary variable. NF is the only high end still rolling that way now. S&B, Leopold, ect... all their newest offerings are FFP, if you run though a few classes you will get the low down on why. Even S&B's newest offerings are doing away with on the fly windage adjustments all together.
Kahles K16i
Swarovski Z6i
Vortex Razor HD II
Steiner M5Xi
No issues reading full mil increments on my 1-6 mk6 at 2x.
2nd focal plane adds an unnecessary variable. NF is the only high end still rolling that way now. S&B, Leopold, ect... all their newest offerings are FFP, if you run though a few classes you will get the low down on why. Even S&B's newest offerings are doing away with on the fly windage adjustments all together.
Only on the higher mag scopes. Nightforce has the ATACR that's FFP.
With a circle dot type reticle like the FC2 or FC3g 2nd focal plane gives you a 1 or 1.5 MOA dot at 4X and 4 or 6 MOA dot at 1X. Makes it a lot easier to use at 1X even with no illumination.
Why the hell would you be ranging on 1X anyways? If it's far enough to worry about dopes and ballistics, then you should be running it at magnification anyways. The unnecessary variable thing is a bit of a load.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
Digital_Damage
10-30-15, 13:47
Why the hell would you be ranging on 1X anyways? If it's far enough to worry about dopes and ballistics, then you should be running it at magnification anyways. The unnecessary variable thing is a bit of a load.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
If you are primarily going to be running it at 1x to begin with what is the point in getting a scope. Like I said if that is the goal much better options available.
Magnification requires you to take an imprecise variable and calculate that into your hold. "It is set to 2x or is it really 2.5x". That gets more complicated the greater range of magnification you are given. Take a few classes and you will get them to fill you in on why the shift from SFP to FFP on LVP and MID scopes is happening.
1-4 and 1-6 have an intended purpose, it is not to go plinking only at 50-100m. If that is the goal get an aimpoint, eotech, etc .
Digital_Damage
10-30-15, 13:49
Only on the higher mag scopes. Nightforce has the ATACR that's FFP.
With a circle dot type reticle like the FC2 or FC3g 2nd focal plane gives you a 1 or 1.5 MOA dot at 4X and 4 or 6 MOA dot at 1X. Makes it a lot easier to use at 1X even with no illumination.
Leopold MK6 1-6 FFP, MK 8 1-8 FFP, New S&B short dots (1-4 and 1-6) FFP on and on and on. there is a reason that is happening. if your goal is 1-1.5 shooting only get a red dot.
If you are primarily going to be running it at 1x to begin with what is the point in getting a scope. Like I said if that is the goal much better options available.
Magnification requires you to take an imprecise variable and calculate that into your hold. "It is set to 2x or is it really 2.5x". That gets more complicated the greater range of magnification you are given. Take a few classes and you will get them to fill you in on why the shift from SFP to FFP on LVP and MID scopes is happening.
1-4 and 1-6 have an intended purpose, it is not to go plinking only at 50-100m. If that is the goal get an aimpoint, eotech, etc .
Past about 7 yards, LPVs are faster.
Many people don't like rds due to eye issues.
I was unaware that all the 3 gunners out there were giving points away by using SFP optics vs. FFP. I believe the only shooters using FFP scopes are sponsored by Leupold. Almost all others use SFP.
Leopold MK6 1-6 FFP, MK 8 1-8 FFP, New S&B short dots (1-4 and 1-6) FFP on and on and on. there is a reason that is happening. if your goal is 1-1.5 shooting only get a red dot.
You listed one company that does have a popular product, and another who's only real fan seems to be Larry Vickers. Noone runs SB anymore now that better scopes...that happen to be SFP...are available. Team Noveske went Kahles, I believe, and many others also dumped their SBs.
elephantrider
10-31-15, 14:27
Magnification requires you to take an imprecise variable and calculate that into your hold. "It is set to 2x or is it really 2.5x". That gets more complicated the greater range of magnification you are given. Take a few classes and you will get them to fill you in on why the shift from SFP to FFP on LVP and MID scopes is happening.
Huh? This is a non-issue with LPVs. What is this shift from SFP to FFP that is taking place?
Digital_Damage
11-01-15, 17:35
Huh? This is a non-issue with LPVs. What is this shift from SFP to FFP that is taking place?
SFP magnification has to be taken into account to calculate holdovers.
Sub tension POI will not be the same on a FFP scope than a SFP with the reticle behind he erector assembly.
The difference between 1x vs 6x on 175g SMK at 300m is a difference of 9 inches (depending on velocity and twist). That is a mis most in most cases.
If the goal is to shoot at 50-100m a 4x or 6x scope is not needed.
SFP magnification has to be taken into account to calculate holdovers.
Sub tension POI will not be the same on a FFP scope than a SFP with the reticle behind he erector assembly.
The difference between 1x vs 6x on 175g SMK at 300m is a difference of 9 inches (depending on velocity and twist). That is a mis most in most cases.
If the goal is to shoot at 50-100m a 4x or 6x scope is not needed.
The whole point of a LPV is to NOT shoot at 300M on 1X.
Distance=time.
You keep talking about calculating hold-overs. Do you even shoot?
elephantrider
11-01-15, 21:08
SFP magnification has to be taken into account to calculate holdovers. Sub tension POI will not be the same on a FFP scope than a SFP with the reticle behind he erector assembly.
The difference between 1x vs 6x on 175g SMK at 300m is a difference of 9 inches (depending on velocity and twist). That is a mis most in most cases.
Yes, that is how they work, you are correct. The reason I say is it a non-issue with LPVs (perhaps I should have clarified that I meant SFP LPVs) is that there is hardly a need to range, or use BDC hold overs on anything but maximum magnification. In other words if something is distant enough to require the use of range estimation or ballistic hold over by means of a reticle, you will want to have your optic on 4x, or 6x anyway. Maybe your experience contradicts that, but I have yet to run into a situation where maximum magnification is too much to be able to use the reticle effectively? If you are somewhere between 1x and 4x/6x, then your base zero (~0-300 yards) should suffice without need to range, or hold over with anything other than your reticle's center aiming point.
The FFP LPVs do retain the unlimited ranging ability, that you describe, but also require a compromise in the reticle design. The higher the magnification range, the greater the compromise is in the usefulness of the reticle at either high, or low magnification. SFP LPVs' reticles are more easily designed and balanced to work well at lowest and highest magnification, while giving up the not so useful ability to range and hold over at anything but maximum magnification.
If the goal is to shoot at 50-100m a 4x or 6x scope is not needed.
Again, you are correct, but a LPV scope also does not preclude fast effective shooting at short ranges, and of course LPVs have the longer range utility of 4-6x magnification, and ballistic reticles built in without the need for an add-on magnifier/RDS combo. The better LPVs keep up VERY well with the fastest RDS. Some LPVs keep up with RDS without the need for illumination and batteries. A lot of this is a different strokes for different folks issue, but I feel you are overstating the negatives of the SFP LPV, and downplaying the utility of the LPV in general.
Digital_Damage
11-01-15, 21:11
The whole point of a LPV is to NOT shoot at 300M on 1X.
Distance=time.
You keep talking about calculating hold-overs. Do you even shoot?
LOL... Ya I do quite a bit. Between qualifications and training just over 17,000 rounds last year (8000+ on rifle).
Using a 1-4/1-6 to primarily shoot 1x is using the wrong tool. As I have said, repetitively... Do what you will, buy a heavy, slow magnified optic to shoot 50 yards all you like.
Digital_Damage
11-01-15, 21:21
Yes, that is how they work, you are correct. The reason I say is it a non-issue with LPVs (perhaps I should have clarified that I meant SFP LPVs) is that there is hardly a need to range, or use BDC hold overs on anything but maximum magnification. In other words if something is distant enough to require the use of range estimation or ballistic hold over by means of a reticle, you will want to have your optic on 4x, or 6x anyway. Maybe your experience contradicts that, but I have yet to run into a situation where maximum magnification is too much to be able to use the reticle effectively? If you are somewhere between 1x and 4x/6x, then your base zero (~0-300 yards) should suffice without need to range, or hold over with anything other than your reticle's center aiming point.
The FFP LPVs do retain the unlimited ranging ability, that you describe, but also require a compromise in the reticle design. The higher the magnification range, the greater the compromise is in the usefulness of the reticle at either high, or low magnification. SFP LPVs' reticles are more easily designed and balanced to work well at lowest and highest magnification, while giving up the not so useful ability to range and hold over at anything but maximum magnification.
Again, you are correct, but a LPV scope also does not preclude fast effective shooting at short ranges, and of course LPVs have the longer range utility of 4-6x magnification, and ballistic reticles built in without the need for an add-on magnifier/RDS combo. The better LPVs keep up VERY well with the fastest RDS. Some LPVs keep up with RDS without the need for illumination and batteries. A lot of this is a different strokes for different folks issue, but I feel you are overstating the negatives of the SFP LPV, and downplaying the utility of the LPV in general.
Quite the opposite, I'm advocating that if you are going to buy a 1-4/1-6 get one with the most utility.
The low power issues with FFP scopes and reticles were resolved long ago by most of the higher end manufactures. Leopold and their illuminated TMR-D and CMR reticles, S&B with their CQB Shortdot. Even middle tier vendors have started the switch, Trijicon with their Vcog and horseshoe, etc..
LOL... Ya I do quite a bit. Between qualifications and training just over 17,000 rounds last year (8000+ on rifle).
Using a 1-4/1-6 to primarily shoot 1x is using the wrong tool. As I have said, repetitively... Do what you will, buy a heavy, slow magnified optic to shoot 50 yards all you like.
I asked Mike pannone about this. His observations on the timer with various shooters is thay 0-7 yards, an rds is slightly faster. Past 7 yards, a good lpv is faster whether illuminated or not. I also observed this with one shooter at a vtac course who brought a SFP lpv and a t1. Past about 25 yards, the LPV was much faster. At 25 yards it was close. At 7 yard vtac drills, it was very close with the rds being slightly quicker.
elephantrider
11-01-15, 22:54
Quite the opposite, I'm advocating that if you are going to buy a 1-4/1-6 get one with the most utility.
The low power issues with FFP scopes and reticles were resolved long ago by most of the higher end manufactures. Leopold and their illuminated TMR-D and CMR reticles, S&B with their CQB Shortdot. Even middle tier vendors have started the switch, Trijicon with their Vcog and horseshoe, etc..
Of the reticles you've mentioned, none of them appear very usable on 1x without illumination. No first hand experience with them, just looking at 1x and 6x reticle pictures. Those FFP designs had to balance the reticle size at 1x vs 6x, and thus necessitate the illumination at 1x. Using them like a red dot at 1x with the illumination is fine, but I'd prefer one that doesn't only work with a battery/illumination. Different strokes, I guess.
Utility? How much utility is there in being able to range or use a BDC on 2x, or 3x? Not much in my opinion. I'd prefer the utility of a reticle that is daytime usable on 1x w/o illumination/battery. Everyone measures utilitiy a little differently, so take your pick, but recognize the trade-offs.
Quite the opposite, I'm advocating that if you are going to buy a 1-4/1-6 get one with the most utility.
The low power issues with FFP scopes and reticles were resolved long ago by most of the higher end manufactures. Leopold and their illuminated TMR-D and CMR reticles, S&B with their CQB Shortdot. Even middle tier vendors have started the switch, Trijicon with their Vcog and horseshoe, etc..
...and Noone uses a vcog.
Leupold is the only popular one you listed. SB has been upstaged by kahles and Swarovski and their SFP scopes.
Digital_Damage
11-02-15, 07:41
...and Noone uses a vcog.
Leupold is the only popular one you listed. SB has been upstaged by kahles and Swarovski and their SFP scopes.
Don't know where you are getting that impression.
I see many S&B on the line during training, not one kahles or Swarovski
Digital_Damage
11-02-15, 07:50
Of the reticles you've mentioned, none of them appear very usable on 1x without illumination. No first hand experience with them, just looking at 1x and 6x reticle pictures. Those FFP designs had to balance the reticle size at 1x vs 6x, and thus necessitate the illumination at 1x. Using them like a red dot at 1x with the illumination is fine, but I'd prefer one that doesn't only work with a battery/illumination. Different strokes, I guess.
Utility? How much utility is there in being able to range or use a BDC on 2x, or 3x? Not much in my opinion. I'd prefer the utility of a reticle that is daytime usable on 1x w/o illumination/battery. Everyone measures utilitiy a little differently, so take your pick, but recognize the trade-offs.
Argument could be made TMR is not very quick and hard to see at 1x during the day.
CMR, CQB shortdot and vcog have a heavy horseshoe that surrounds the dot that scales down to a dot with heavy stanzas. It is visible unilluminated at 1x as a dot.
Your advocated utility, being able to accurately hit a 9 inch plate at 300m with 7.62 on 4-6x would be important.
LOL... Ya I do quite a bit. Between qualifications and training just over 17,000 rounds last year (8000+ on rifle).
Using a 1-4/1-6 to primarily shoot 1x is using the wrong tool. As I have said, repetitively... Do what you will, buy a heavy, slow magnified optic to shoot 50 yards all you like.
I shoot 50 yards with my LPV quite a bit. I can also dial elevation and windage on the fly to make hits out to as far as I have dope figured for (500yds ATM). I don't have a reticle that lends itself to ranging very well so it's either a best guess or a range finder.
You keep talking about using your reticle to calculate holds. That doesn't even make sense. Your dope is already calculated, or info is entered into a calculator to figure out your come-ups and overs for a given shot. If you don't have a spotter or a range finder then your reticle (if suitable) can be used to measure known size objects relative to your target to roughly determine distance.
elephantrider
11-02-15, 17:19
Using a 1-4/1-6 to primarily shoot 1x is using the wrong tool. As I have said, repetitively... Do what you will, buy a heavy, slow magnified optic to shoot 50 yards all you like.
Someone better tell ALL the top 3 gun shooters that they are DOING IT WRONG! Do they even know how much time they are giving up on each stage?
elephantrider
11-02-15, 17:39
Argument could be made TMR is not very quick and hard to see at 1x during the day.
I would definitely argue that. Not very useful IMO.
CMR, CQB shortdot and vcog have a heavy horseshoe that surrounds the dot that scales down to a dot with heavy stanzas. It is visible unilluminated at 1x as a dot.
This is what I am getting at. The scaling of the reticle with magnification shift IS a bit of a compromise in the reticle designs for these. The designers has to strike a size balance so that the stadia lines/horseshoe are a certain size at full magnification, and a dot like blob at 1x. How visible are the stadia marks at in-between power, is that not the whole point of FFP, not very useful IMO if you cannot resolve them with your eye at mid power? How usable is the "dot" blob at 1x? There are awesome 1-4, 1-6 SFP scopes that have great horseshoe with center stadia marks, that are usable through their full magnification range, and are not effectively two different reticles at high and low power. The only thing they don't do is allow ranging or BDC hold over at lower magnification. But if you can get that done at high power, do you even need to do it at lower mag. power?
Your advocated utility, being able to accurately hit a 9 inch plate at 300m with 7.62 on 4-6x would be important.
OK, so you can get that done at 6x? Then you can get that done with a SFP 1-6. What's the problem?
A little more on illumination...here my scope is, backed with a M300C, with no illumination.
This is part of the beauty of the FX-2 reticle. It works fine, illuminated or not.
http://i67.tinypic.com/65bg9f.jpg
http://i64.tinypic.com/nnjllh.jpg
http://i65.tinypic.com/2lsy0io.jpg
*You try holding a smartphone, optic, and M300C weapon light without getting scope shadow, lining all 3 up!
**Let me know how that works out for you with a FFP optic.
Digital_Damage
11-03-15, 08:06
Someone better tell ALL the top 3 gun shooters that they are DOING IT WRONG! Do they even know how much time they are giving up on each stage?
Those 3gun shooters use what they are paid to use, but that is another digressing mater. Just like you are saying they are all using scopes there is a thread in this very sub forum where someone is claiming all the top shooters are using aimpoints. I don't care to lookup the veracity of either claim.
My world is not 3gun, I don't have fixed objects at known distances to try and hit as quickly as possible.
We work with moving targets at unknown distances that you hope you take out as quick as possible in a tik.
Digital_Damage
11-03-15, 08:14
I shoot 50 yards with my LPV quite a bit. I can also dial elevation and windage on the fly to make hits out to as far as I have dope figured for (500yds ATM). I don't have a reticle that lends itself to ranging very well so it's either a best guess or a range finder.
You keep talking about using your reticle to calculate holds. That doesn't even make sense. Your dope is already calculated, or info is entered into a calculator to figure out your come-ups and overs for a given shot. If you don't have a spotter or a range finder then your reticle (if suitable) can be used to measure known size objects relative to your target to roughly determine distance.
If you have to take the time to pull out a range finder and enter a bunch of values into a calculator to accurately range and engage at 300-400m you are doing it wrong. Ranging with a reticle requires a FFP or knowing the true magnification of a scope, in 90% of cases the true magnification is not max or min. It is typically 4/5th of max, that is why ranging and hold overs with a SFP is not optimal.
I'm getting the feeling we are rotating in different worlds (3gun vs real) at this point in the conversation. I have laid out what my training has hammered into me and the active trends with manufactures. I'll let you guys carry on.
Those 3gun shooters use what they are paid to use, but that is another digressing mater. Just like you are saying they are all using scopes there is a thread in this very sub forum where someone is claiming all the top shooters are using aimpoints. I don't care to lookup the veracity of either claim.
My world is not 3gun, I don't have fixed objects at known distances to try and hit as quickly as possible.
We work with moving targets at unknown distances that you hope you take out as quick as possible in a tik.
Many of them use exactly what they want to use.
If you have to take the time to pull out a range finder and enter a bunch of values into a calculator to accurately range and engage at 300-400m you are doing it wrong. Ranging with a reticle requires a FFP or knowing the true magnification of a scope, in 90% of cases the true magnification is not max or min. It is typically 4/5th of max, that is why ranging and hold overs with a SFP is not optimal.
I'm getting the feeling we are rotating in different worlds (3gun vs real) at this point in the conversation. I have laid out what my training has hammered into me and the active trends with manufactures. I'll let you guys carry on.
How exactly do you range a target? Let's be blunt, I think you mean "person's body part", right? Can you tell by looking at me from 400m if my shoulders are 17" or 22" wide? How then is 0.25x going to matter? I'm just not seeing why having a useless optic on 1x is worth being able to hit a baseball instead of a softball at 400 yards.
elephantrider
11-03-15, 16:15
Those 3gun shooters use what they are paid to use, but that is another digressing mater. Just like you are saying they are all using scopes there is a thread in this very sub forum where someone is claiming all the top shooters are using aimpoints. I don't care to lookup the veracity of either claim.
I am confused here, are you correct, and everyone else wrong, or do the facts simply not matter at all? Logic much?
My world is not 3gun, I don't have fixed objects at known distances to try and hit as quickly as possible.
We work with moving targets at unknown distances that you hope you take out as quick as possible in a tik.
Has it dawned on you that while 3-gun targets are primarily fixed, the shooter is often moving? Perhaps the same qualities that make a LPV scope good for a moving shooter/fixed target may also help a stationary shooter hit a moving target?
Also, still waiting to hear about the usefulness of ranging/BDC on mid power settings.
Is this real world enough for you?:
http://soldiersystems.net/2014/03/29/gunfighter-moment-mike-pannone-18/
elephantrider
11-03-15, 16:24
If you have to take the time to pull out a range finder and enter a bunch of values into a calculator to accurately range and engage at 300-400m you are doing it wrong. Ranging with a reticle requires a FFP or knowing the true magnification of a scope, in 90% of cases the true magnification is not max or min. It is typically 4/5th of max, that is why ranging and hold overs with a SFP is not optimal.
SERIOUSLY? That would be some kind cruel trick by the scope mfgs. of the world.
I'm getting the feeling we are rotating in different worlds (3gun vs real) at this point in the conversation. I have laid out what my training has hammered into me and the active trends with manufactures. I'll let you guys carry on.
I'm getting the feeling that someone has bought, or bought into, something and now feels the need ignore advantages, disadvantages, and trade-offs. A one size-fits all mentality.
Digital_Damage
11-03-15, 16:56
SERIOUSLY? That would be some kind cruel trick by the scope mfgs. of the world.
I'm getting the feeling that someone has bought, or bought into, something and now feels the need ignore advantages, disadvantages, and trade-offs. A one size-fits all mentality.
It is true, first thing you learn. That is why when working with a Kestrel/applied ballistics it asks for three values on SFP configurations. LOW MAG, HIGH MAG and TRUE MAG. Some popular scopes are pre configured, like a certain popular older 5-24 TRUE MAG is actually 22.
I have only personally bought three optics, everything else has been issued to me for testing on a .gov project.
Digital_Damage
11-03-15, 16:59
I am confused here, are you correct, and everyone else wrong, or do the facts simply not matter at all? Logic much?
Has it dawned on you that while 3-gun targets are primarily fixed, the shooter is often moving? Perhaps the same qualities that make a LPV scope good for a moving shooter/fixed target may also help a stationary shooter hit a moving target?
Also, still waiting to hear about the usefulness of ranging/BDC on mid power settings.
Is this real world enough for you?:
http://soldiersystems.net/2014/03/29/gunfighter-moment-mike-pannone-18/
With all respect to Mike, you will not find many (if any) in the old guard wanting to get into FFP at any magnification. This is the same group that always complained that the H59/H58 was "too busy" "I'll just click it out", that is not the case with the new hogs coming up.
Singlestack Wonder
11-03-15, 17:30
If you have to take the time to pull out a range finder and enter a bunch of values into a calculator to accurately range and engage at 300-400m you are doing it wrong. Ranging with a reticle requires a FFP or knowing the true magnification of a scope, in 90% of cases the true magnification is not max or min. It is typically 4/5th of max, that is why ranging and hold overs with a SFP is not optimal.
I'm getting the feeling we are rotating in different worlds (3gun vs real) at this point in the conversation. I have laid out what my training has hammered into me and the active trends with manufactures. I'll let you guys carry on.
Ranging is simple with both FFP and SFP scopes IF one has the proper knowledge of how to use their reticles. For my purposes, target distances are not clearly defined as in gungames. I've spent considerable time learning my reticles as well as practicing ranging in the field.
elephantrider
11-03-15, 17:47
It is true, first thing you learn. That is why when working with a Kestrel/applied ballistics it asks for three values on SFP configurations. LOW MAG, HIGH MAG and TRUE MAG. Some popular scopes are pre configured, like a certain popular older 5-24 TRUE MAG is actually 22.
I have only personally bought three optics, everything else has been issued to me for testing on a .gov project.
With all respect to Mike, you will not find many (if any) in the old guard wanting to get into FFP at any magnification. This is the same group that always complained that the H59/H58 was "too busy" "I'll just click it out", that is not the case with the new hogs coming up.
This is getting to a level of ridiculous that is almost not even worth responding to. You keep inserting things that do not apply to the discussion at hand. Information about higher magnification, long range optics, Applied Ballistics options, etc, and not really anything to back up assertions you have made. Your responses are in the neighborhood of straw man arguments. Did you even read that M. Pannone article? He states his position clearly and it is nearly the opposite of what you just typed out.
Outlander Systems
11-03-15, 18:23
No shit!
Who in the hell needs BDC sub 100m!?
Such as?
Who dials dope on a 1-4?
F
If you have to take the time to pull out a range finder and enter a bunch of values into a calculator to accurately range and engage at 300-400m you are doing it wrong. Ranging with a reticle requires a FFP or knowing the true magnification of a scope, in 90% of cases the true magnification is not max or min. It is typically 4/5th of max, that is why ranging and hold overs with a SFP is not optimal.
I'm getting the feeling we are rotating in different worlds (3gun vs real) at this point in the conversation. I have laid out what my training has hammered into me and the active trends with manufactures. I'll let you guys carry on.
3-gun shooters who get paid to use an optic are few and far between. The super vast majority of competition shooters are not sponsored by anyone.
I live in the real world, I carry an AR on the ranches I work on 100% of the time. It's part of my job.
I still don't understand what you're talking about with the ranging targets and all that noise. If the target is 3-400M out, then what else do I need to know? I look at my dope card, twist up 22 clicks, and squeeze the trigger.
A SFP scope's reticle is calibrated at a certain mag. My 2.5-10 is 10. The last time I used it to range something, I measured a connex box and shot the target that was about 100 yards past it. It was about 930 yards and I got a first round hit.
Digital_Damage
11-03-15, 22:08
This is getting to a level of ridiculous that is almost not even worth responding to. You keep inserting things that do not apply to the discussion at hand. Information about higher magnification, long range optics, Applied Ballistics options, etc, and not really anything to back up assertions you have made. Your responses are in the neighborhood of straw man arguments. Did you even read that M. Pannone article? He states his position clearly and it is nearly the opposite of what you just typed out.
All of it applies... you just don't understand why. I have give very detailed explanations. These are not assertions, this is what is taught in modern classes now days.
If you want to use a 1-4/6 as a red dot knock yourself out, but you said 1-4/6 SFP optic provides the shooter more utility in the 300-400m range and that is just not true. No one is teaching that in heavy battle rifle classes anymore and for good reason.
I've gone enough rounds about this, and it is just going in circles while the points are either not sinking in or there is just to much pride in an entrenched position here.
You're not in a forum full of old deer hunters here.
Maybe there's a reason the things you're saying don't add up...
elephantrider
11-03-15, 23:51
All of it applies... you just don't understand why. I have give very detailed explanations. These are not assertions, this is what is taught in modern classes now days.
If you want to use a 1-4/6 as a red dot knock yourself out, but you said 1-4/6 SFP optic provides the shooter more utility in the 300-400m range and that is just not true. No one is teaching that in heavy battle rifle classes anymore and for good reason.
I've gone enough rounds about this, and it is just going in circles while the points are either not sinking in or there is just to much pride in an entrenched position here.
Excuse me while I search for my B.S. flag. I totally do understand the nonsense you are attempting to float. YOU, simply will NOT even acknowledge that there are at least trade offs in using FFP LPV scope. You keep twisting what others are saying, and making false "re-statements" of things that were never claimed (this includes a complete mis-statement of what was in the Mike Pannone article that I posted the link to). Each time someone has taken issue with one of your claims you respond not to their rebuttal, but ad a new wrinkle as to why you are correct, and how FFP is superior all the time.
The latest:
I NEVER said use a 1-4/1-6 as a red dot, in fact I argued the opposite, and YOU in effect are arguing for that by advocating the FFPs that REQUIRE a "red dot" like reticle on 1x power.
I NEVER said a SFP gives more utility in the 3-400m range, but now that you bring it up, I don't really see how they would perform any worse, unless this is where your fantastical need to use the FFP mid-magnification kicks in, and you start ranging, BDCing, and leading moving targets at some mid-range power. I guess if your nonsense about SFP reticles not being calibrated except at the square root of Pi to the Nth power magnification is to be believed then SFPs are worthless in any situation.
I Never brought up "heavy battle rifles," so again unsure of relevance. But if you want an example of a top tier instructor advocating exactly what I am typing, then simply READ the M. Pannone article that was linked to. BTW, he is no the only one I can point to who would agree. Maybe all of those guys are just "old" and out of date?
Going in circles? Not sinking in? Entrenched position? Go look in a mirror. You cannot even admit to the limitations of FFP in a LPV, while at the same time are inventing fatal flaws in SFP LPVs. It is getting mind boggling.
All of it applies... you just don't understand why. I have give very detailed explanations. These are not assertions, this is what is taught in modern classes now days.
If you want to use a 1-4/6 as a red dot knock yourself out, but you said 1-4/6 SFP optic provides the shooter more utility in the 300-400m range and that is just not true. No one is teaching that in heavy battle rifle classes anymore and for good reason.
I've gone enough rounds about this, and it is just going in circles while the points are either not sinking in or there is just to much pride in an entrenched position here.
Turn your illumination off, and then go shoot a 7 yard VTAC 1-5 at night with your WML illuminating. Let us know how that works with a FFP optic.
elephantrider
11-04-15, 01:04
Turn your illumination off, and then go shoot a 7 yard VTAC 1-5 at night with your WML illuminating. Let us know how that works with a FFP optic.
His response will be that you are just using it wrong. Tell the world to keep at least 300 meters away from you at all times so that your FFP can be used properly.
Dave Williams
11-05-15, 13:54
Interesting thread guys. Where is a good place to learn about sfp vs ffp? I know John McPhee teaches the heavy carbine classes. What type of lpv does he recommend?
Interesting thread guys. Where is a good place to learn about sfp vs ffp? I know John McPhee teaches the heavy carbine classes. What type of lpv does he recommend?
You just need to look at 'em. On a FFP, the reticle magnifies with the image, on a SFP, it stays the same size.
Everyone squallers about how great it is to have the reticle subtensions always true with FFP, but unless you have a scope over about 14X on the top end then it really kills you on the low end because the reticle usually gets too small to use before you get the scope turned all the way down. I've used a 4.5-14 with a fine Mil-Dot and it was effectively about a 7-14.
FFP comes in handy if you're trying to measure something and mirage is an issue because you can't see at max mag, so you can use the reticle at any mag setting.
I prefer SFP with anything up to a 14X top mag since they'll turn down to 2.5-4.5. Utilizing that low mag on close range targets is easier since the reticle not being shrunk down to where you can't see it. With SFP you effectively have a bigger bolder reticle for the close shots and a thinner finer one for the far stuff. FFP is the opposite.
I think there is some interesting things coming in the near future with FFP optics though.
If you're like most serious shooters who shoot at unknown distances, you have a good laser range finder and/or a spotter calling range/wind/etc and all the stuff on the reticle just looks cool while you twist knobs and yank on the trigger...
Dave Williams
11-05-15, 22:32
Thanks for the response!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.