ericbc7
Well-Known Member
I think the following is a real-world scenario where FFP can work better than SFP;
You set up on a prairie dog town and your scope is zoomed out to see bullet impacts. With steady cross wind, the first shot or two show you are impacting 3 hash marks to the right of the crosshair. Zoom in to make that little dirt squirrel as large as a football and put that same 3rd hash mark on the dog's head and touch the trigger. In SFP scopes the relative distance between cross hairs and hash marks change with changes in magnification.
I said it can work better, what i mean is that it can take less thought. You could for example take the same scenario with a SFP scope and instead of initially noticing hash marks, notice land marks, zoom in and then choose a hash that matches the offset. This is a bit tricky but depending on terrain can be an option.
for target shooting, the thin reticles of SFP's are pretty nice.
You set up on a prairie dog town and your scope is zoomed out to see bullet impacts. With steady cross wind, the first shot or two show you are impacting 3 hash marks to the right of the crosshair. Zoom in to make that little dirt squirrel as large as a football and put that same 3rd hash mark on the dog's head and touch the trigger. In SFP scopes the relative distance between cross hairs and hash marks change with changes in magnification.
I said it can work better, what i mean is that it can take less thought. You could for example take the same scenario with a SFP scope and instead of initially noticing hash marks, notice land marks, zoom in and then choose a hash that matches the offset. This is a bit tricky but depending on terrain can be an option.
for target shooting, the thin reticles of SFP's are pretty nice.
