Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Nononsense

ChetStafford
I sent you an email about a week ago. Did you get it? Should I resend it?
0

Comments

8 comments

Date Votes
  • ChetStafford
    Nononsense,

    What is the rifle in the second picture of you signature line? What is it chambered in? Did you build it? I really like it and would like more info on it.

    Thanks
    Chet
    0
  • nononsense
    csjs1194,

    Those notes are at the shop. I'll post a little later.

    Best.

    O.K., I ordered the Razor HD 5-20x, the Viper PST 6-24x (FFP) and the Viper TMCQ 1-4x to work with for awhile. Mostly I'm using Mil/Mil for ranging work during competitions where rangefinders aren't allowed.

    All 3 were made in Japan and very high quality in my opinion. They don't quite reach the peak of the S&B, Swaro or Leitz but they are darn good for the money, especially the Viper. I found them to be easy on the eyes after looking through them for hours at a time during competitions. Nothing takes the fun out of shooting faster than eye strain or the resulting headache...

    Adjustments were repeatable and accurate as long as the wind cooperated.

    I think the Viper is a great choice for most shooters, reserving the higher price and specialty of the Razor for the advanced competitiors or those willing to spend the money. I will add a couple more Vipers to my hunting rifles later this year.

    Best.
    0
  • joshmb1982
    how would you say these compare to the Leupold VXII and Burris fullfield II lines? i have rifles topped with one of each of these.
    0
  • nononsense
    joshmb1982,

    Better by a good deal.

    Let me stress that there is nothing inherently wrong with either of these scopes but they are strictly third tier as far as glass and quality. They are fine for general hunting as this is the market share they are contending for. There is also the price point to keep in consideration. Other than that they are simply ho-hum.

    If you own those scopes already and are comfortable with them, I don't see a reason to change them out. Save your money for the next purchase and take some time to compare with the Vortex Viper or the more expensive Razor scopes.

    Best.
    0
  • givette
    Nononsense:

    I hope this is on subject, as I assume the OP may wish to know this, also.

    You mentioned two Vipers. One FFP, and one not.

    Would you kindly elaborate somewhat on when the FFP is beneficial, and when that type of scope would be at a disadvantage? Thanks, Joe

    EDIT
    Thanks, TSR, and NN. I looked up the FFP Viper (like NN's) on one of the optics websites (darn if I can't remember which one), but the eye-opener was NN's endorsement, coupled with the company claim that the scope falls into the 'high-end' category, and the price was somewhere North of six-hundred dollars!! (Again, I can't remember the exact price, but it struck me as being considerably less than what I'd expect to pay for a high-end optic).

    As I've just said, and if you all will excuse the pun, it was a real 'eye opener'!! Best, Joe
    0
  • tsr1965
    Hi Joe,

    I am not Nononsense, but I will give it my spin.

    The FFP(first focal plane) reticle for ranging scopes is the best deal in town...to guys who have not been used to second focal plane reticles. This is because the reticle sub tensions do not change with magnification. You can use them to range on any magnification. With the second focal plane reticles, the sub tensions for the reticle, hold true, for only one magnification setting.

    So if you have a scope with the SFP reticle that tops out at 25 power, and are trying to range something that is 427 yards out, you also have to fiddle with your parallax adjustment, instead of just turning your magnification to where it is comfortable and clear, when using a FFP reticle. It can, and does also reduce your FOV, because you are on high power.

    The only down side to the FFP's that I can see, other than a few dollars more, would be that thos of us that have been using second focal plane ranging reticles for years, have troubles making the transistions.

    I am sure if I got it wrong, Nononsense will correct it.

    Best

    EDIT 1

    Joe,

    A precious lot of great scope makers, started out like that. A great deal to get their product on the market, and get good reviews. The price will slowly catch up, I am sure.

    You are also correct about NN's endorsement. If he runs it, and is willing to put his stamp on it, it says something.
    0
  • nononsense
    givette,

    A perfectly good addition to the discussion.

    tsr1965 has it down properly but here is another slightly more detailed explanation:

    "The reticle of a variable-power riflescope may be located in the first focal plane, associated with the objective lens; or it may be in the second focal plane, associated with the ocular lens. The practical consequences of the design choice are immediately evident when using the scope. A first-image-plane reticle changes size in lock-step with the target image as you change the magnification setting. Increase the power, and the target and reticle grow simultaneously. Decrease the power, and they both shrink. Either way, the reticle always covers, or subtends, the same amount of the target.

    When the reticle is in the second focal plane, changing power setting increases or decreases the size of the target image, but the reticle remains a constant size to your eye. As the target image is enlarged, the reticle covers less of the target. As the target image is reduced, the reticle subtends more of it, possibly obscuring areas you might prefer to keep in view."

    As pointed out, I don't see a drawback to FFP except for the price increase added to the SFP scopes. Most of the competitions I'm in this year require that the ranging be done with the scope and not an additional rangefinder of the laser type. The FFP's are more convenient for me and I perceive a little more accuracy when using scopes with MIL/MIL. This transition was harder for me coming from MOA/MOA than FFP from SFP.

    The unfortunate part of all of these discussions involving glass, will be useless when we get the filter down from the military advancements...

    Best.
    0
  • sandwarrior
    Joe,

    Pretty much with any ranging style reticle such as a mil-dot, moa or mil grid (i.e. CQB), or Horus type, FFP is simply best as no matter what power the scope is on it is properly calibrated (sub-tended).

    The only time a SFP beats a FFP for ranging is when all you have is a duplex type reticle or a simple ranging type such as what the ART I & II scopes use. Your Burris Fullfield and Leupold probably have the duplex reticle. You can actually use the power setting to range your target.
    The ART I scope has a second crosshair that you dial up to size something vertical on the target. Again it's size vs. power and divide. The ART II uses wide crosshairs like the mil-dot...except no mil-dots in the smaller lines of the reticle. Edit: I should add, not that it pertains to this question, that the ART scopes also adjusted elevation with power.


    As noted the FFP and a ranging reticle is a lot simpler.

    edited: my directions for ranging were backward
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity