Discussion Forums

Scott Struif

In the LR Shooting book, Nathan advises against analog ranging generally, because it’s impossible to know the dimensions of a particular animal, even though the average dimensions of its species may be known. However, in the FFP vs. SFP section, he seems to say, if you want to try it, there’s no big advantage to FFP because a reference chart can be used with a SFP scope at lower power (such as those supplied by Sightron). (I hope that, rather than giving away too much of the book’s substance to those who haven’t purchased it, I’m giving them a taste of what’s in store for them if they buy it. Besides, my question is unrelated to analog ranging, anyway.) In Nathan’s book, an advantage reticle hash marks may provide is to allow you to avoid dialing to maximum elevation, which can possibly stress the scope’s internal mechanism. Now to my question: Vortex runs a podcast series they call “Vortex Nation.” I’m not recommending it, but there’s one podcast entitled “How to choose the right scope.” In it, 3 young Vortex salesmen caution against buying their FFP scopes for general hunting use, even their illuminated models. The reason? At low power the reticle disappears, particularly against a dark background. With an illuminated model, you’re left with the equivalent of a red dot sight, they say. I appreciated their candor, and frankly wondered if their aim was to boost sales of their low-end scopes, which probably constitutes their highest sales margins. Their podcast is more long-winded than this post. They didn’t even mention eye-relief as an issue. My objective is reticle granularity, or fineness, relative to the target. This applies more to shooting paper than game, but is still applicable. So, for example, with a SFP scope, as the magnification increases, the granularity of the reticle increases, because the target gets bigger and the reticle stays the same. Conversely, with a fine FFP reticle, the granularity at low power is theoretically better, because the reticle shrinks with the target. The kicker is, can you see the reticle, particularly in low-light against a dark background? In that scenario, is the equivalent of a red-dot an advantage, or is it better to have a bold reticle that’s still visible? I understand there is no perfect, do-it-all scope for all applications. My question is, is the extra cost of an illuminated FFP scope worth it for general hunting, including close-in woods hunting?