-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Lightweight FFP Scope
- Thread starter Triple BB
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
adam32
Well-Known Member
Take the labels off of all of them, then do a side by side comparison and the "best" ones become even harder to tell the difference.
If you only want mechanical durability and repeatability then why not get SWFA and call it good? How is the March/NF/SB that much better for the cost difference?
I've never been a "high end" optics fan, just because I honestly cannot tell what I'm getting for the money, sorry but I just can't justify it. And have yet to have anyone give me a good reason to justify it.
duckhunter175
Well-Known Member
Maybe doing a side by side comparison would help you see the difference. But it sounds like your mind is made up that anything with a four figure price tag isn't worth it.
And maybe for you it isn't and for people who may only dust off the rifle, shoot one group before calling it good for deer season it might be good enough...
But there are plenty of people who are interested in maximizing performance and plenty who go on hunts where of something fails they are flushing significant time, effort and $ down the drain.
So Burris and SWFA may not have the features or quality that everyone is looking for, doesn't make them wrong for wanting better.
I spend tons of time behind my Binos, it only took me a quick glance when I had vortex, leupold, Zeiss, Leica and Swaro up on tripods next to each other to know which was the best and I'm not an optical expert. But those Swaro ELs have earned it for me and I wouldn't apologize to anyone like you who wants to sharpshoot my decision and then say absurd things like "they aren't better than my Burris/Diamondbacks/etc"
And maybe for you it isn't and for people who may only dust off the rifle, shoot one group before calling it good for deer season it might be good enough...
But there are plenty of people who are interested in maximizing performance and plenty who go on hunts where of something fails they are flushing significant time, effort and $ down the drain.
So Burris and SWFA may not have the features or quality that everyone is looking for, doesn't make them wrong for wanting better.
I spend tons of time behind my Binos, it only took me a quick glance when I had vortex, leupold, Zeiss, Leica and Swaro up on tripods next to each other to know which was the best and I'm not an optical expert. But those Swaro ELs have earned it for me and I wouldn't apologize to anyone like you who wants to sharpshoot my decision and then say absurd things like "they aren't better than my Burris/Diamondbacks/etc"
Danehunter
Well-Known Member
rfurman,
I agree that scope turrets must absolutely be repeatable. I test for that by shooting two squares. Then, to check for vertical true tracking I shoot a tall ladder test (cross lines 3" apart on a plumb vertical line). It is very satisfying - and a relief - to see each test prove good turret adjustments. But the ammo cost is not small so I pretend it's "practice".
So far I have had good luck with Bushnell Elite ERS 3.5 - 21 and Elite LRTS 4.5 - 18 scopes and an SWFA 3 - 15 scope using those tests and a bubble level. My Browning X-Bolt Pro has a built in level in the rear Talley ring.
Eric B.
I agree that scope turrets must absolutely be repeatable. I test for that by shooting two squares. Then, to check for vertical true tracking I shoot a tall ladder test (cross lines 3" apart on a plumb vertical line). It is very satisfying - and a relief - to see each test prove good turret adjustments. But the ammo cost is not small so I pretend it's "practice".
So far I have had good luck with Bushnell Elite ERS 3.5 - 21 and Elite LRTS 4.5 - 18 scopes and an SWFA 3 - 15 scope using those tests and a bubble level. My Browning X-Bolt Pro has a built in level in the rear Talley ring.
Eric B.
palerider3
Well-Known Member
So many of the lower priced scopes just don't come with the reticle choices that I prefer. Looking for lightweight FFP scopes with a mil/mil Christmas tree reticle and you really start to limit yourself to higher end optics. The March and AMG fit right into those for me. I really wanted to like the vx-5hd 3-15 but you just can't find it with a reticle that does what I want. My next hunting scope will probably be an NX8.
You don't have to justify anything to anyone in regards to what you spend your money on but your claims are just not true. You could blind fold me or put me in a pitch black room and I could tell you the difference between the mechanics of Kahles, Nightforce, March, Swaro x5, etc. If you do not see the value then don't buy. To tell others there is no difference could not be farther from the truth. There are a few cheaper scopes that are great at maintaining zero and have repeatable tracking such as the SIII. The problem for me is the reticle is sub par, it is only 15moa per rev and only recently came out with a ten year old "zero stop. It is in no way on par with what the big boys are putting out now. I would actually tell you the SIII is very close to the old NXS non high speed non zero stop. SWFA does make a few ok scopes but if you are trying to tell me that they compare to a Nightforce, March, X5, etc you and I are done discussing rifle scopes for ever.
Bushnell does have some nice scopes I would love to test but I can't get on board with MIL.
adam32
Well-Known Member
Except you said durability and repeatability are what matters to you, not clarity. I really doubt a SWFA would fail any more or any less than a March. I know you saw the thread on the other forum about March's failing...
Maybe you should just be a little nicer to your optics? I can't imagine what your rifle must look like...
If you must have all the "extra fancy" stuff on your scopes to kill animals then so be it, but the MAJORITY of hunters don't, so it IS A WASTE OF MONEY...and you still can't tell me why they are worth double or triple the cost of others out there...I don't see the value and can back up my claims. You do see the value but can't back up your claims.
Marine24
Well-Known Member
I run a March 3-24x42 with the FML-1 reticle on my 6.5 CM. It is a combo target/hunting rifle. It is my best scope but can be tough to get behind when pushing 20X plus. It doesn't have illumination, which I appreciate as my eyes get older
Actually on a similar hunt for a 338-06 that Mark Chanlynn is building for me. I prefer FFP and mil reticle/turrets but would like to have a either capped elevation/windage or at least locking turrets.
My standard has been the VX-6HD and have looked at the Leica Magnus line, but neither are FFP or mil adjustments.
Actually looking at the Meopta Optika6 3-18x50 MRAD scope. Tempted with the idea of going with an illuminated March, Tangent Theta, S&B or some of the other premier lines that I've learned to appreciate but hard sell for that much scope on a 400 yard rifle that won't see the outside of the safe more than three months out of the year.
Doesn't mean I'm not still trying to rationalize that decision.
Actually on a similar hunt for a 338-06 that Mark Chanlynn is building for me. I prefer FFP and mil reticle/turrets but would like to have a either capped elevation/windage or at least locking turrets.
My standard has been the VX-6HD and have looked at the Leica Magnus line, but neither are FFP or mil adjustments.
Actually looking at the Meopta Optika6 3-18x50 MRAD scope. Tempted with the idea of going with an illuminated March, Tangent Theta, S&B or some of the other premier lines that I've learned to appreciate but hard sell for that much scope on a 400 yard rifle that won't see the outside of the safe more than three months out of the year.
Doesn't mean I'm not still trying to rationalize that decision.
SnakeRiverEric
Well-Known Member
I see that Maven has not been mentioned yet, RS 1 3x15x44 FFP might be an option to look at.
cubdriver84d
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 12
I have an rs.1 with the moa turret and like it. However, I have a march 3-24x42 inbound to try in its place. Should save 4 oz or so over the maven.
nt7332
Well-Known Member
Might can find u a used premier 3-15 for a descent deal. Glass is very good and they are packed with features.
I use FFP scopes for PRS. My primary go-to's are the S&B PMII and the Nightforce ATACR F1, both in 5x25x56, MIL based which weigh about 1-1.5 pounds more then my preferred weigh and 10-15% larger in size then I prefer in my hunting scopes. Were it not for the weight and bulk, I would have no issue using either of these scopes FFP's for LRH over my preferred SFP scopes. With these PRS scopes, the optical quality, reliability, tracking, and usability of the reticle substensions/illumination across the magnification range is outstanding, and I have at times considered "eating" the added weight and bulk to take advantage of the capability and performance of these scopes for LRH. These scopes get subjected to more operational use in a couple of matches then most of my hunting scopes get in a full season, and continue to perform to perfection. IMO, their overall performance doesn't appear to be equaled by the lighter/smaller/lower cost FFP alternatives I've tried or handled. That's why I'm particularly interested in hearing the inputs on the various scopes discussed in this thread, Perhaps I'm just spoiled by my high end FFP scopes. I will be anxious to have a look at the 20X(max), Nightforce F8.
