Is FFP the new 6.5 Creed?

[urbanrifleman]

Not trying to be argumentative. Trying to learn. What are the engineering shortcomings to which you refer?

Ya know sometimes on forums we play the "what if you could have only X-number of whatever"...guns, chamberings and so on...Right now if I could have only one scope, of the ones I own it would be the 6-24X50 mm, illuminated MOA Christmas tree reticle, adjustable parallax, SFP. That one is the most versatile and user friendly IMHO.

One thing I wish was still popular is the objective lens adjustable parallax. I think everybody going to side parallax is not a great step forward.

Some people mentioned a few of them.

Personally, I think the only "shortcoming" is the COST. hahaha

 

[Rob01]

Cost isn't even an issue anymore. There are FFP scopes under $500 now.

And side parallax is a huge jump over objective adjustment. Lay down behind your rifle and try to adjust that objective parallax. Then do it with a side parallax. Which is easier and quicker? I'll wait. LOL

 

[RabbitSlayer]

I was hesitant to get on the FFP band wagon, but I sure like it for targets and prairie dogs. I know an average adult PD standing is about 9 inches. Its not exact, but I can at least estimate within 100 yards or so. On the flat prairie its super hard to estimate range and even good range finders dont work well. I only hold and never dial on the dogtown. I still love SFP with a thin duplex. I like it for all other hunting which for me is walking for jack rabbits and calling coyotes. The reticle in low power is worthless in FFP scopes and they are pretty much all very heavy.

 

[Snozzberries]

What I want is a scope where the reticle lines stay the same thickness throughout the zoom range, like a SFP, but the hash marks move to the proper location like a FFP.

I want the best of both worlds.

 

[AccelR8]

Cost isn't even an issue anymore. There are FFP scopes under $500 now.

And side parallax is a huge jump over objective adjustment. Lay down behind your rifle and try to adjust that objective parallax. Then do it with a side parallax. Which is easier and quicker? I'll wait. LOL

Maybe it’s just me.

The only advantage I see for side parallax is that you can see the numbers from the firing position without getting up to look at the objective. But I find the yardage graduations are rarely correct. This to to a larger degree with side parallax than adjustable objective.

I don’t adjust parallax by turning the knob while looking at the numbers. I do it by looking through the scope while adjusting. I look at the focus and sharpness of the image and by moving my head a little bit up and down or side to side, looking for relative movement between the reticle and the target. When there is no relative movement the parallax adjustment is correct.

It’s every bit as easy, for me anyway, to turn the objective while looking through the scope as it is to turn the side knob. Plus it seems to me the old adjustable objectives provided a more finite adjustment than the side knobs. The resolution, if you will, of the side adjustment is less. I guess that’s why on some of those air gun scopes used for field target competition they put on those big wheels on their side parallax. It allows a much finer, more precise adjustment.

Of course if you can keep your eyeball in the proper location parallax is less of a concern!

 

[Intell]

I use both, sometimes for the same job.
I’ll go argue with myself now.

 

[AccelR8]

I’ll go argue with myself now.

We're not arguing. We're discussing!

 

[Rob01]

Maybe it’s just me.

The only advantage I see for side parallax is that you can see the numbers from the firing position without getting up to look at the objective. But I find the yardage graduations are rarely correct. This to to a larger degree with side parallax than adjustable objective.

I don’t adjust parallax by turning the knob while looking at the numbers. I do it by looking through the scope while adjusting. I look at the focus and sharpness of the image and by moving my head a little bit up and down or side to side, looking for relative movement between the reticle and the target. When there is no relative movement the parallax adjustment is correct.

It’s every bit as easy, for me anyway, to turn the objective while looking through the scope as it is to turn the side knob. Plus it seems to me the old adjustable objectives provided a more finite adjustment than the side knobs. The resolution, if you will, of the side adjustment is less. I guess that’s why on some of those air gun scopes used for field target competition they put on those big wheels on their side parallax. It allows a much finer, more precise adjustment.

Of course if you can keep your eyeball in the proper location parallax is less of a concern!

The numbers are there just for reference and not to be taken as gospel. You can't see the numbers on an objective adjusted parallax scope anyways when behind the rifle trying to adjust it so numbers aren't really a useful tool for it.

If you have monkey arms then reaching up and adjusting the objective is easy or if it's a short low power scope but not something that is easily done by most with a higher power scope. Used one in the past and no way I would go back to making my life slower and harder with them. There has to be a reason they are far in the far minority compared to side parallax and ease of use is it. You can adjust just fine with a side parallax adjustment. If you like the objective adjustment then have at it but hard pass for me.

 

[urbanrifleman]

I wonder if they had called it 260 22-250 if it would have taken off...

 

[Ledd Slinger]

FFP Bushnell DMR @ 21x looking at 300 meters....

(click to enlarge)

View attachment 1465022

Bushnell XRS @ 30x at the same 300 meter gongs...

View attachment 1465024

There is unquestionably no problem with the reticle being to fat at high magnification.

Thin reticle is one thing, but from from 21x to 30x, it's plain to see in the pics you've lost half of your hold over capability because the hash marks have left the field of view. On lowest settjngs, you can't even see the hash marks for hold over.

FFP is OK in certain short throw power ranges, but pretty worthless in wide variable scopes.

I can clearly see my hold over on any power level with SFP

 

[Rob01]

And after you do all the math to figure your hold over you can take that shot. LOL You got 5 mils at 30x which is enough to get past 600 yards with most calibers. I usually sit around 16x when shooting matches and have over 10 mils visible and can hold over past 1000 yards.

 

[Kracken McGraw]

I wonder if they had called it 260 22-250 if it would have taken off...

I was looking at some Hornady product yesterday and their podcast with the three men that developed the Creedmoor cartridge came up. It was worth the watch to see the round table discussion on how it came about.

 

[Rob01]

I wonder if they had called it 260 22-250 if it would have taken off...

Seemed to have done just fine as the Creedmoor. Enough to make grown men get their panties in a bunch at the smallest mention of it. LOL

 

[AccelR8]

I usually sit around 16x when shooting matches and have over 10 mils visible and can hold over past 1000 yards.

This. In fact, I have a 5-25 FFP I’ve added a throw lever to. I positioned the throw lever so it’s straight up at 16X. This makes it easy without looking to return to my most commonly used magnification. And it doesn’t matter if I land at precisely 16X or not because, well, First Focal Plane quick and easy.

 

[Dgd6mm]

I was looking at some Hornady product yesterday and their podcast with the three men that developed the Creedmoor cartridge came up. It was worth the watch to see the round table discussion on how it came about.

I'm going to have to look that video up. Someone has been going to my gun club once a week and shooting 6.5 Creedmoor and leaving 40 pieces of brass on the ground. I've been picking it up, for what I don't know, yet...

 

[urbanrifleman]

Seemed to have done just fine as the Creedmoor. Enough to make grown men get their panties in a bunch at the smallest mention of it. LOL

Agreed.

I'm just glad that something is getting these younger guys shooting. Because without these younger guys getting into shooting it's going to disappear in the next decade. It is going to take a lot to get these latest young guys out shooting, they much prefer to sit in their rooms and play video games.

 

[rijndael]

It is going to take a lot to get these latest young guys out shooting, they much prefer to sit in their rooms and play video games.

I don't know ... my 11 year old runs around with a plate carrier, blue guns, and a helmet with some peltor look-alike muffs. He saved his money to buy a Romeo 5 for his S&W 15/22. At this last range trip he saw a guy with PEQ15 and a can on a 10.5" AR ... he B-lined it for him to discuss his 'kit'.

 

[Kracken McGraw]

I'm going to have to look that video up. Someone has been going to my gun club once a week and shooting 6.5 Creedmoor and leaving 40 pieces of brass on the ground. I've been picking it up, for what I don't know, yet...

 

[6Creed73]

Thin reticle is one thing, but from from 21x to 30x, it's plain to see in the pics you've lost half of your hold over capability because the hash marks have left the field of view. On lowest settjngs, you can't even see the hash marks for hold over.

FFP is OK in certain short throw power ranges, but pretty worthless in wide variable scopes.

I can clearly see my hold over on any power level with SFP

I'm going to assume you don't shoot PRS, because if you did I don't think you'd say FFP is useless in variable power scopes. FFP dominates in that space for a reason...its quick and accurate. It doesn't matter if part of the hold over marks aren't visible at the highest magnification, because in a half a second I can change the magnification to get the hold I want...the beauty is it doesn't matter what magnification I'm at, because the holds are still accurate when I change it.

Sure, you can see your hold over marks on SFP in all magnifications, but how is that an advantage? You can only use them on one specific magnification. So in a match you'd be stuck on that one magnification if you want to hold over...If you don't want to hold over, I'm not sure how one could really be competitive going against guys who can adjust for wind/evation in a split second and you're spinning turrets.

 

[whatsupdoc]

Maybe it’s just me.

The only advantage I see for side parallax is that you can see the numbers from the firing position without getting up to look at the objective. But I find the yardage graduations are rarely correct. This to to a larger degree with side parallax than adjustable objective.

I don’t adjust parallax by turning the knob while looking at the numbers. I do it by looking through the scope while adjusting. I look at the focus and sharpness of the image and by moving my head a little bit up and down or side to side, looking for relative movement between the reticle and the target. When there is no relative movement the parallax adjustment is correct.

It’s every bit as easy, for me anyway, to turn the objective while looking through the scope as it is to turn the side knob. Plus it seems to me the old adjustable objectives provided a more finite adjustment than the side knobs. The resolution, if you will, of the side adjustment is less. I guess that’s why on some of those air gun scopes used for field target competition they put on those big wheels on their side parallax. It allows a much finer, more precise adjustment.

Of course if you can keep your eyeball in the proper location parallax is less of a concern!

I have used both objective and side parallax, I would never buy another objective
parallax scope.
Possibly from a bench sitting beside the rifle adjusting the objective may be no issue but shooting positioned behind the rifle, side parallax is king.

I am surprised that they still make scopes with adjustable objective.