Scopes - FFP or SFP for F Class

[AlanF]

...my opinion is that you need to walk from scopes and use peeps, as these guys can't really work it out.

Or alternatively, we could change to a target that suits scopes, and give you masterful TR types the opportunity to adapt your sights to it .

[KHGS]

As you can tell from all these different ideas on scopes, my opinion is that you need to walk from scopes and use peeps, as these guys can't really work it out.
Scott.

Truer words were never spoken

Brave statement!!!
Keith H.

[GSells]

We are supposed to be helping lol! I think the guy is more confused than ever lol!
Ok my 2 cents . SFP is fine in f class , 1/8 moa is an advantage. Still not a bad idea to learn Mils and then go to moa ! It didn’t do me any harm . Mils is an advantage in PRS where you need quick holds .
A vortex 6-24 pst gen 2 is a great budget scope . It holds up to the recoil of a 338 edge fine .
Regards Graham.

[jrobbs]

Thanks everyone for your input. I have much to consider.

Thanks again

[Gyro]

True Graham, a Vortex PST 6-24 is a good example of a solid scope that won't break the bank and is not so cheap that you would/should need to doubt it's ability to adjust and track well.

There's LOTS to learn JR so get something reliable so at least you know it's not the scope that's costing you precision. Obviously it has to have target turrets and parallax adjustment and enough magnification and optical clarity to adequately resolve target detail at all the F Class distances. You may need to consider the amount of vertical adjustment travel a scope has too ? And MOA is the language for F Class, not mils.

The reticle style and line thickness is really a personal preference. Same with FFP or SFP. Those details are really not important when you're starting out. Same with 1/4 moa or 1/8 moa adjustment clicks : sure it may sound good to choose 1/8 moa for supposedly greater precision but I say don't worry about it. As your experience grows you will sort out more clearly what you prefer. Regards Rob Kerridge.

[wsftr]

My first rule for a scope - it must be reliable
My second rule for a scope - I must be able to depend on it
My 3rd rule for a scope - I will pay good money for rules 1 and 2
My 4th rule for a scope - 1/8th clicks
My 5th rule for a scope - well its not a rule as such - scope faults can be a beearch to resolve...

after that I'll shag around with cross hairs, glass, feel of clicks etc...and pretty much like any bit of gear I own - it took me a couple of iterations to get there.

here is my scope journey

NF 5.5.-22 x 56 .25moa - see rules 1 and 2 56mm just because bigger seemed better (rule 4 didn't exist yet)
NF 8-32 x 56 - because I decided I wanted a bit more magnification and I got 1/8th clicks
NF 15-50 x 52 - because I wanted better glass (now I'm not sure I care that much) and 0 stop. The fine reticle I don't have an issue with. It allows very precise holds when doing load dev and in comps I have never had a problem. Maybe if my eyes got real old it would be a problem...dunno.

All my scopes have a cross hair design - thats just personal preference tho. Many like dots.

The scopes I have read the best reviews on for reliability and repeatability have been Kahles

So for me SFP, 1/8th clicks, simple (as possible these days) cross hair and robust is what I look for in a scope for F-class comp now.

[pjifl]

You can use MOA for PRS - especially if the range uses Imperial distances. It is just a matter of using your mind and thinking in yards and inches. Not hard but becoming unfamiliar with many people now.

BUT F targets ring sizes are based on MOA. For US targets this is exact. ICFRA targets have been bastardized but still in my opinion MOA makes far more sense.

1/8 clicks in my opinion are very desirable. They may be less desirable in Match Rifle.

SFP is far more preferable because you can change the Target to Graticule pattern size at will. Thus you can adjust it to use Ticks to exactly box a Target aiming centre or aiming rings. This is the best technique when sighting becomes poor or almost nonexistant. Many people look at scope Graticules in the shop or on a computer screen and have never seen what they look like when Mirage gets bad. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON TO BE SO BAD THAT NO RINGS ARE VISIBLE ON A TARGET. I HAVE SEEN IT SO BAD THAT EVEN A WHITE x ON A TARGET IS NOT VISIBLE. Of course, the Tick marks are only true value at one set magnification if you want to aim off.

Thick lines in a Graticule do not reduce precision - especially if used centred on the target. Why do the world's best pistol shooters use very thick blocky foresights and rearsights ?? Think on that. Close to a majority of F class shooters I know are plagued with Graticule lines that are too fine - far too fine. We have come to this because all the armchair critics have convinced manufactures to go thin - and the makers are there to sell and make money. IF YOU CENTRE AIM, YOU ARE LOOKING AT AND BALANCING THE AREAS OF THE TARGET JUST OUTSIDE THE GRATICULE LINE RATHER THAN THE LINE ITSELF. The Graticule depends a lot on personal preference but I urge you to deliberately beg or borrow some scopes to look through actually aiming them while on a rifle range.

Sensible ticks are there for a purpose and they do no harm. If you see all the outer ticks you are not concentrating on the point of aim ! All right - you do not want a Graticule as busy as a XMAS tree like some of the ranging ones. Totally uncluttered Graticules - perhaps Duplex - with lines of substantial thickness rules on a Dangerous Game Hunting Rifle but not in F rifle.

I believe 24 X is a silly choice for F class. Stretch out and buy the scope that will last you a lifetime. Get a 40X which can be zoomed down in power if you wish. I know quite a few shooters who have regretted buying even a 32X scope and after few years have sold off the scope.

I make no apology for stating these views which may seem out of step with some other advice. BUT the main thing - get some experience behind a scope - while actually aiming - and while on a range - in different atmospheric conditions.

Peter Smith.

[Trevor Rhodes]

You can use MOA for PRS - especially if the range uses Imperial distances. It is just a matter of using your mind and thinking in yards and inches. Not hard but becoming unfamiliar with many people now.

BUT F targets ring sizes are based on MOA. For US targets this is exact. ICFRA targets have been bastardized but still in my opinion MOA makes far more sense.

1/8 clicks in my opinion are very desirable. They may be less desirable in Match Rifle.

SFP is far more preferable because you can change the Graticule pattern size at will. Thus you can adjust it to use Ticks to exactly box a Target aiming centre or aiming rings. This is the best technique when sighting becomes poor or almost nonexistant. Many people look at scope Graticules in the shop or on a computer screen and have never seen what they look like when Mirage gets bad. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON TO BE SO BAD THAT NO RINGS ARE VISIBLE ON A TARGET. I HAVE SEEN IT SO BAD THAT EVEN A WHITE x ON A TARGET IS NOT VISIBLE. Of course, the Tick marks are only true value at one set magnification if you want to aim off.

Thick lines in a Graticule do not reduce precision - especially if used centred on the target. Why do the world's best pistol shooters use very thick blocky foresights and rearsights ?? Think on that. Close to a majority of F class shooters I know are plagued with Graticule lines that are too fine - far too fine. We have come to this because all the armchair critics have convinced manufactures to go thin - and the makers are there to sell and make money. IF YOU CENTRE AIM, YOU ARE LOOKING AT AND BALANCING THE AREAS OF THE TARGET JUST OUTSIDE THE GRATICULE LINE RATHER THAN THE LINE ITSELF. The Graticule depends a lot on personal preference but I urge you to deliberately beg or borrow some scopes to look through actually aiming them while on a rifle range.

Sensible ticks are there for a purpose and they do no harm. If you see all the outer ticks you are not concentrating on the point of aim ! All right - you do not want a Graticule as busy as a XMAS tree like some of the ranging ones. Totally uncluttered Graticules - perhaps Duplex - with lines of substantial thickness rules on a Dangerous Game Hunting Rifle but not in F rifle.

I believe 24 X is a silly choice for F class. Stretch out and buy the scope that will last you a lifetime. Get a 40X which can be zoomed down in power if you wish. I know quite a few shooters who have regretted buying even a 32X scope and after few years have sold off the scope.

I make no apology for stating these views which may seem out of step with some other advice. BUT the main thing - get some experience behind a scope - while actually aiming - and while on a range - in different atmospheric conditions.

Peter Smith.

Peter l run 3 zeiss fl scopes which are only 24 power and sighting on all ranges is clear with the super centre divided in 1/4s at a 1000 yards. When l use the nightforce or golden eagle the clarty declines in high power, so l run them at 24x also.

[pjifl]

If you are aiming off, you can always divide by interpolation more accurately and more quickly and make fewer errors when the image subtends more than a few cones of the fovea. Rather than explain Fovia see

https://www.google.com/search?q=fovea&r ... e&ie=UTF-8

Also, the eye fatigues more quickly. There was a lot of testing during WW2 of reading scales accurately and quickly which actually evolved recommended standards and everything pointed to this. This is why TR uses relatively large aiming marks and rings. 'Aiming' scientific instruments such as Spectrometers and reading magnified scales for hours really brought this home to me.

If you are happy at 24 X by all means keep using it. BUT I am convinced it is far from the norm and bad advice for a beginner in F class.

Sorry to disagree but these are my honest thoughts.

Peter Smith.

[GSells]

If you are aiming off, you can always divide by interpolation more accurately and more quickly and make fewer errors when the image subtends more than a few cones of the fovea. Rather than explain Fovia see

https://www.google.com/search?q=fovea&r ... e&ie=UTF-8

Also, the eye fatigues more quickly. There was a lot of testing during WW2 of reading scales accurately and quickly which actually evolved recommended standards and everything pointed to this. This is why TR uses relatively large aiming marks and rings. 'Aiming' scientific instruments such as Spectrometers and reading magnified scales for hours really brought this home to me.

If you are happy at 24 X by all means keep using it. BUT I am convinced it is far from the norm and bad advice for a beginner in F class.

Sorry to disagree but these are my honest thoughts.

Peter Smith.

Hi Pete Mate ! I think The king , Rod D said it best with mirage and what power people shoot on . I may have shared this story before . But when Rod shot my rifle a Belmont about 4 yr ago the mirage was so bad when I shot it ( a NF Comp FCR graticule ) on 20 x to help clear up the mirage . Just like I’ve always done at Dalby . I couldn’t make head or tail of the 6 ring on 50 x , it was just a washing machine !
Rod jumped on my behind my rifle and wacked it straight to 50 x . I thought to myself “ Rod is going to come undone here ! “ however he wacked the middle ! Most amazing thing I’ve seen !

Rod later explained ( Rod feel free to chime in if I get the story wrong ?) that everyone’ s brain interprets mirage differently ! Rod’s Mind and other who shoot of full power are able to process the correct info on the “ SnapBack “ .

Where as people like me don’t have that ability to process that washing machine mirage info and have to shoot on 20 to 25 x . So on this one both are correct but both go about it in a different way ?
Nothing wrong just different.
I know I cannot shoot on 50 x and I can’t recall ever shooting a comp on that power . 35 x would be the most for me . But then I started out on a NF 4.5-15 x ( and mils of all things lol!) .

But yes as always I agree with you !

[Steve N]

I consider the NF Bench rest 12-42 x56 with the 2DD reticleto be a good choice for fclsss. It is reliable, has a good range of magnification with a fine aiming dot and lines that are useful for bracketing. They are very popular for a good reason and can be purchased for a reasonable price with lifetime warranty.
A used one would make a very good first fclsss scope.

[pjifl]

I agree - the NF Benchrest 12-42 x 56 is a very good choice for F class. Perhaps a bit heavy which can be a problem in some classes. Mechanically it is very reliable - perhaps the most important attribute of a riflescope. I do not like the 2DD Graticule but whatever turns you on.

Going back almost 10 years I wrote a program to aid in designing and making different Graticule Patterns for trial. It will produce a huge range of patterns. Although it is of little practical use, if you find you have time on your hands and would like another 'Computer Game' to keep you sane, you can download it and play with it at

https://sites.google.com/site/pjoptical/graticule

Peter Smith.

[wsftr]

If you are aiming off, you can always divide by interpolation more accurately and more quickly and make fewer errors when the image subtends more than a few cones of the fovea. Rather than explain Fovia see

https://www.google.com/search?q=fovea&r ... e&ie=UTF-8

Also, the eye fatigues more quickly. There was a lot of testing during WW2 of reading scales accurately and quickly which actually evolved recommended standards and everything pointed to this. This is why TR uses relatively large aiming marks and rings. 'Aiming' scientific instruments such as Spectrometers and reading magnified scales for hours really brought this home to me.

If you are happy at 24 X by all means keep using it. BUT I am convinced it is far from the norm and bad advice for a beginner in F class.

Sorry to disagree but these are my honest thoughts.

Peter Smith.

Hi Pete Mate ! I think The king , Rod D said it best with mirage and what power people shoot on . I may have shared this story before . But when Rod shot my rifle a Belmont about 4 yr ago the mirage was so bad when I shot it ( a NF Comp FCR graticule ) on 20 x to help clear up the mirage . Just like I’ve always done at Dalby . I couldn’t make head or tail of the 6 ring on 50 x , it was just a washing machine !
Rod jumped on my behind my rifle and wacked it straight to 50 x . I thought to myself “ Rod is going to come undone here ! “ however he wacked the middle ! Most amazing thing I’ve seen !

Rod later explained ( Rod feel free to chime in if I get the story wrong ?) that everyone’ s brain interprets mirage differently ! Rod’s Mind and other who shoot of full power are able to process the correct info on the “ SnapBack “ .

Where as people like me don’t have that ability to process that washing machine mirage info and have to shoot on 20 to 25 x . So on this one both are correct but both go about it in a different way ?
Nothing wrong just different.
I know I cannot shoot on 50 x and I can’t recall ever shooting a comp on that power . 35 x would be the most for me . But then I started out on a NF 4.5-15 x ( and mils of all things lol!) .

But yes as always I agree with you !

Thats interesting I don't turn the scope down either - shot some of my best scores in that soup..partly cause when it changes you know to be very careful
TBH I think there are a few mantras out there that need to be challenged by individuals to see what works for them...never shoot in a boil...I say never say never.

[DannyS]

Sometimes, it’s a matter of what suits the shooter. At the Port Campbell PM this year, I Shot a 60.5 at 600 yards, which was the only possible at that range, and that includes FO and FTR .
I had my March 5-50 set on 8x and used the hash marks to frame the target.

Cheers
DannyS

[pjifl]

FWIW, many years ago I asked many people - most who had never shot with peep sights - to repeated align a dummy rifle using a peep sight on a target. THE RIFLE WAS EFFECTIVELY ON A MACHINE REST WITH MECHANICAL ADJUSTMENTS. THUS THE TEST WAS ONE OF CONSISTENT SIGHTING RATHER THAN RIFLE HOLD AND LETOFF. This resulted in an estimate of the eye precision attainable.

In effect, this was a 1 X magnification situation.

Result was that, unless someone had a major eye problem, everyone could achieve 1/5 minute consistently. Remember most had never even used a peep sight in their lives. Truly Remarkable.

Experienced shooters (TR) could usually achieve about 1/7 or 1/8 minute consistently. Best was about 1/10 minute.

Boxing the aiming mark is very powerful. It uses an area aim technique that tends to average out nasty target scintillation.

In the light of the above, it is not surprising that boxing at 8X can be very successful. Boxing can be very successful at high X as well. Magnification tends to reduce eye fatigue. Of course this rules out aiming off.

Peter Smith.