New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - IOR 35mm FFP or Iluminated reticle
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

IOR 35mm FFP or Iluminated reticle

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/10/2007 at 21:09
Countryscape View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/08/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 46

Hello, once again

 

After sleeping soundly over my optic choice ( IOR 3x16x42 35mm ), I was already to pull the trigger on this deal today.

Well, seems like a have another subjective choice to make between a reticle with the first focal plain or the lighted reticle

in what I'm assuming has the second focal plain.

 

After a search through your forum archieves, I found a great description from Tbone1 about the difference in the two. The FFP

made typically by Europe companies, allows the reticle to magnify with increased power. The scopes built with the SFP

like what I'm used to, stays the same size with increased magnification, used for estimating yardage, correct?

 

Would the FFP give me an advantage in most cases, as a big game hunter experiencing low light or long range shooting situations?

The photo shows both scopes looking identical except for the mp8 reticles being Iluminated or not. Unclear on this. I always use

a rangefinder for yardage.

 

I'm real close on this, just never had a scope with so many features. Thanks, Doug

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/12/2007 at 01:23
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10977
This is really a personal choice and it depends on what you want to be doing with the scope.  In the case of this particular IOR, it is the first I see a FFP reticle in a 6x erector scope, so I do not know how visible the reticle is going to be at low magnification and in low light.  However, it will give you an ability to comfortably use the rangefinding and holdover features of the reticle at any magnification.

Keep in mind also that the FFP scope you are referring does not have reticle illumination, while the SFP one does.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/12/2007 at 15:04
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 13882
My thought on this it if you were using the reticle to mill (find the distance) FFP would be superior, but if you ALWAYS use a laser rangefinder I would think that the illuminated reticle was more desirable and where I find it most helpful is red against black targets in lower light. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/12/2007 at 20:06
Countryscape View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/08/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 46

Thanks for responding.... I'm leaning towards the FFP,  just a hunch that it will be better overall. The sendero I'm trying to assemble is geared towards a long range elk rifle that hopefully will always be more gun than I'm capable of mastering. There is always a chance, especially close to dark, of bumping an animal close in. Hopefully the wide field at low power and bright optics,  will be enough without relying on ILLuminated reticles.

 

The advantages of a bigger reticle when magnified (If it dosen't cover the target), could really be something you might get used to having. Thanks again, my rifle is having a muzzle brake installed and I have some time to ponder. My next task is understanding how to properly mount the optic on this rifle. Lapping the rings, new things for me to try and digest.

 

Again, I want to thank all of you for giving up you time to answer questions. I'm sure most of these questions are ho hum for most of you but at least we are trying to learn!

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/12/2007 at 20:29
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10977
The problem with FFP reticles is that at low magnification they can get sufficiently thin to not be easily visible in low light (that is where illumination could have been useful).  With the particular scope in question, I should be among the first few people to receive, so we'll see how it goes.

ILya 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/16/2007 at 17:39
Wvladimire View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/25/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 72
Hmmm. personally I own 4 IOR scopes, all have the MP-8 range estimating reticle, except for the 4x32.
I am used to the Mil-dot system and find the MP-8 to be better for range estimation as it has hatch
marks for 1/2. 5. and 10 mil increments. Easier and faster to figure yardage. As for the Illuminated
reticle, Ihad a scope about a year or two ago which had one, I found that even on the dimmest setting, it
was still too bright for the 1/2 hour before dawn or dusk hunting, as when I turned it on, the deer
would see and flee. I sold it mid season and purchased just a plain reticle scope from IOR. IMHO pay
for quality glass rather than the IR.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/17/2007 at 03:27
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313

Hello and welcome, Countryscape!  You are faced with the same dilemma that many shooters face when deciding between FFP and SFP reticles, because both have advantages and disadvantages.

 

For big game hunting, I prefer the FFP reticle because as you mentioned, the reticle appears bolder and shows up better in low light as you dial up the magnification.  The reticle's apparent size changes in direct proportion to the target at all magnifications.  However, I've never seen it in a 6X erector scope, so I don't know how thin it would appear on the lowest magnification and/or how thick at the highest magnification with your chosen scope.  I personally think you will have way more magnification than you need on the upper end for elk hunting, long range rifle or not.  Even though you have all hunting situations pretty much covered with 6X zoom, you're getting the extra zoom range at the expense of much more weight and cost of the 35mm tube scope -- additional weight and bulk you'll have to carry around for many miles in steep elk country, where every additional ounce eventually starts feeling like pounds. 

 

For varmint and target shooting, I prefer a SFP reticle, because the reticle remains as thin as possible at higher magnifications, which provides greater aiming precision.  However, when ranging with a ballistic compensating reticle in the SFP, the reticle is calibrated at only 1 magification, so the hash mark values must be converted at other magnifications, which is not a huge deal once you get used to it.

 

I do like illuminated reticles a lot ... IF the illumination system and illuminated reticle itself is well-designed.  I believe quality glass and IR are not mutually exclusive.  You can have both.  A common problem with some lit reticle systems is over-illumination, where the brightness of the reticle produces too much flare and overpowers the target and your eye receives too much light.  A well-designed IR system will illuminate a very small portion of the reticle and give you a wide range of intensity settings so you can make the reticle just bright enough to be visible, but no brighter.  I have an IOR scope with IR, and although I found it to be usable, I would prefer the #1 setting to be a little dimmer, and I think all settings above #1 are too bright for very low light conditions.  In the IOR, I'd probably go with non-IR, but Zeiss, S&B, Swaro, and probably Kahles have some excellent IR systems!

 

As great as the MP8 reticle is for long range shooting and ranging, I think it would be a poor choice for a big game rifle.  For a big game rifle at typical big game shooting distances, I believe a simpler reticle is better, and would opt for the 4a, plex, or similar reticle.  When the bull/buck of a lifetime steps out, I don't want a cluttered sight picture or be confronted with ranging and holdover, risking the chance of a marginal shot and wounding an animal under the less than ideal shooting positions and rests encountered in the field.  On top of that, during the excitement of the moment, your heart will probably be racing, you'll probably be breathing hard, and you may not be thinking too clearly.  Factor in the unpredictable winds and the fact the animal may move before the bullet impacts along with the heightened excitement and poor rifle rest, and you have the recipe for a marginal hit and crippled animal that may run off and die a lingering death.  I would strongly encourage you to carefully evaluate what you mean by "long range" and make sure you're realistic about you and your rifle's true long range abilities out of respect for the animal.  Basically, if you can't consistently hit a pie plate at a given range 100% of the time under field conditions, ethically, you shouldn't attempt a shot at that distance, period.  For most shooters and most factory rifles, this means no more than about 400 yards at best, in which case, you really don't need the BDC reticle, given a 200 yd zero and a flat shooting caliber.  If I'm having to use a BDC style reticle on an elk, I believe I'm attempting too far a shot and should just get closer.  Not trying to lecture you, just giving you food for thought, which could save you some $ and frustration later.  I believe not bringing up these points when you seek advice would be doing you a great disservice.  The scope you've chosen is undoubtedly a fine scope, just not an ideal elk hunting scope IMO. 



Edited by RifleDude
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/17/2007 at 09:34
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5087

FFP or at least most of them have incredible tunneling problems in the first range of the low end. I find them almost useless. The Gen 3 Springfields had a clever advertising gimmick to take advantage of this, in that the grid and numbers are not observable on the lower powers and as the ad goes "this enhances the shooters ability to see the target without the field being to busy" (the grid is so damn fuzzed out it cannot be focused, by the way were is focus).  I use the Zeiss Z as a beater on several guns as the 2.5 has serious corner distortion and fisheye effect until at about 5x which is were it is used most of the time. You might look at the Swaro Z6 which is rumored to remedy. high powers and (10) is plenty lfor even "long" range elk hunting. Hitting a single elk at 400 yds is a completely different shot than hitting a selected elk out of a group.

forgot #8 reticle in zeiss

 

 



Edited by Dale Clifford
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/17/2007 at 09:43
Wvladimire View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/25/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 72
Okay, I know alot of hunters feel the Mil-dot and MP-8 reticles are crowded, but in actuality they are not. Once you have your rifle
zeroed in at 200 yards the mil-dot/MP-8 is used to check your range and possibly any holdover. Using one, DOES TAKE PRACTICE. But
no more than you would use to go to the range and practice with a regular reticle for shots at over 200 yards. I was taught on a mil-dot
reticle and have ALWAYS used them, even for varmint hunting. I have also NEVER had a problem with ranging groundhogs, yotes,
racoons, and whitetail deer with it. It's a tool to be used with your rifle that does take some getting used to. Once you learn it, you will
find it of immeasuarble help. Also pics of mil-dots & MP-8's do not do them justice. any pic of one does seem crowded, but when you
view one in real life through a good quality scope you will find that they are finer than you might think.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/17/2007 at 15:36
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313

I have the MP8 reticle and yes, it is a fantastic reticle -- for tactical or varmint use.  No, it isn't as crowded as the pics of it would seem to indicate.  It is a wonderful tool and the IOR scope is a great optic.  However, I stand by my assessment that it is unnecessarily complex for a big game hunting reticle and it is too fine in extremely low light (unless you have IR option), not to mention the fact that at the point where it is really useful, you are skirting the fringes of ethical shooting distance without a specialized rifle capable of making super long shots on big game animals.  If you and your rifle are capable of making super long shots at game, more power to you, but few riflemen and factory rifles are truly capable of making such shots.  Maybe you and Countryscape are among those people who can consistently place your shots inside an 8" circle under field conditions beyond 500 yards, and if so, this advice doesn't apply to you.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/17/2007 at 15:56
Wvladimire View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/25/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 72
Dear Rifledude,

You are trying to put words into my mouth. I use a mil-dot and or MP-8 reticle for hunting. I DO NOT
USE IT TO TAKE 500-600 YARD
SHOTS AT THE ANIMALS I AM HUNTING. I do use it to make 300 yard or longer shots for target
shooting, but I wouldn't dream of using
it for hunting animals at 400 yards or beyond. Any GOOD sportsman or hunter KNOWS this and
SHOULDN'T have to explain this for
anyone. You are splitting hairs here my friend. I am simply stating that the mil-dot or MP-8 reticle can
be used for a varity of shooting
needs. Ranging from tactical, varmint, hunting, and long range precision shooting. Fact #1 the
crosshairs are not so fine that you cannot
see them 1/2 hour before sunrise or a 1/2 hour after sunset ambient light. Which is the legal time to
hunt. #2 The crosshairs are fine
enough that you can use it for varmint hunting because it does not cover most of your target or sight
picture at long distances. #3
Everyone knows that a whitetail has an average height of 36 inches from hooves to top of back. You can
use the range finding
capabilities of the reticle to make sure that the deer is within the limits of ethical shooting. Which is
what any GOOD hunter would do. And it is a handy tool to have to check range when nothing else is
available. What are you gonna do when you see that big buck, slowly set your rifle down, take out your
laser range finder, check range on the buck to see if it's within 300-400 yards, put the range finder
down, and pick your rifle back up to shoot? Give me a break, by that time the buck is long gone.   And
in my years of shooting, I have found that it is EASIER to range distances from me to the target with the
mil-dot or MP-8 reticle then it is to judge by purely sight alone.
What is your problem besides that it is a tactical or sniper style of reticle?

I have met so called sportsman who have this theory of my rifle is ok but not yours, because you have a
sniper stock, barrel, or scope on
yours. While mine is just a plain Jane straight from the factory. These same people are also one of the
first to say that there is no need
for so called black rifles to varmint hunt with. You need to realize, that WE ALL, MEANING ALL OF US
SPORTSMANS AND HUNTERS, need
to stick together. Or this new government, Democratic House & Senate, will succeed in taking away our
rights to keep and bear arms.

That is all Ihave to say.



Edited by Wvladimire
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/17/2007 at 16:07
Wvladimire View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/25/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 72
I will say one more thing, the Illuminated reticles Ihave used to kill yotes and such. Have been too
bright even on the lowest settings. I prefer the firefly reticle, although I do not own one, I have used my
buddy's.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/17/2007 at 19:53
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10977
Now, gentlemen, there is no reason to start a heated argument here.

In a way you are both right.

Do you have to have MP-8 to hunt successfully? certainly not.  For non-illuminated scopes, IMO, #4 is probably the best allround reticle, but that is a personal choice, really.

Is MP-8 going to be a hindrance to a hunter?  certainly not.  It is not particularly busy and it is easier to see to see in low light than some thin duplex reticles I've seen.  Range estimation is an additional benefit for those longer shots, but it is not a necessity.  MP-8 is, however, very useful if you intend  to use the rifle for multiple purposes one of which includes longer range shooting (coyotes for example).

As for the democrats controlling the legislature (for the time being), we are probably all on the same side here.  No need to fight among ourselves.

ILya


Edited by koshkin
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/17/2007 at 20:07
Wvladimire View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/25/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 72
LOL You are right Koshkin. I was annoyed by the insinuation that I would take an unethical shot at an
animal I was hunting with my mil-dot or MP-8 reticle. I do use my rifles for variuos types of shooting,
that is why I use these styles, and that was what I was trying to convey.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/17/2007 at 23:11
Countryscape View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/08/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 46

Hello, everyone

 

 I'm glad to know that people differ in thoughts and opinions and sometimes there is no clear choice of what's right or wrong. You all have more experience with optics and the shooting sports than I, but hunting is something I do know a something about. At forty seven, I've spent my whole adult life guiding, running hounds and having to make quick actions with clients when they crippled a bear or cougar or even one bayed on the ground. I've always tried to learn, practice and put everything I could into a project and do it right, that's why I'm asking for ALL your advise. Not all people and their shooting skills can be lumped into one group or scenereo when it come to big game hunting or hunting in general.

 

I took a whites system .50 caliber muzzleloader with a custom slide peep site to New Mexico about ten years ago and took a top five pronghorn SCI 88 at 239 yards using the six o'clock post system. I was able to to this because I practiced so much, used the modern rangefinder  and knew where my site needed to be at all distances. Clear, calm sunny conditions. Up here in Oregon where I hunt blacktail deer, I couldn't use the peep because it was always dark and rainy. My shooting range is about one hundred yards here.

 

Having said that, I'm trying to put together a Rem. sendero .300 ultra mag that in my opinion, has enough energy to kill an Elk on the breaks of the Wenaha at six huindred yard.... Okay, do I have the ability to make this shot today with a 10 mph wind drift? Wouldn't think about trying it. But hopefully I can shoot this rifle this next year and make up my mind about what I could do as an ethical hunter. These breaks are where the big bulls go after the rut and because it is so steep, you really can't get close like one normally might. They are huge bulls, many are non typical and score in the 400 class. This is a limited entry hunt in which only twenty tags are given. Next year my chance is 100 precent draw. I still would like to shoot gongs and targets out to as far as possible and why not? Again, I would like a gun capable of more than I can master.

 

My opinion, anyone that cannot carry a eleven pound rifle/scope on his back has no business on this particular hunt to begin with. Not to be disrespectful but  how could you expect to pack an animal out if you were dying over the weight of your rifle?. It would not be wise walking  up and down these mountians without purpose, you'd be wore out the first couple of days.. Its mostly a spot, stalk and wait and If an animal is hit a little off, it has no where to go but down hill. A good hit and these big bulls will lay down and let you get on them. Open country and snow doesn't give a wounded anything much chance to be wasted. Hopefully this would never be a issue but there is never any sure kills, even at close range. If this is wrong than what about all the archery hunters that wound, track and locate their game?...Many are never recovered. Such is life and such is hunting. You make wise choices and need to know when condition are not right for a long shot. If you can make that shot all year then you can make it in a hunting situation but not without developing marksmanship skills with your weapon.

 

The IOR seems to be one of the best scope choices for the money with almost twice as much field of view in the 35mmm main tube. That is a huge feature in a optic that doesn't cost any more than say a leupold mark 4. The higher power is most likley to much for hunting, trying to craddle your rifle in your pack and bi pod is less than ideal to begin with, but magnification could be handy when confirming your target before a shot, especially with lots of different bulls standing in the breaks.

 

I will think about everything you have all brought to my attention, maybe even wait for Koshkin to give his opinion first hand? Don't know what the perfect scope might be, all situations can vary so much, even how far we can shoot can vary. Thanks for all the imput...

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/17/2007 at 23:48
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313

Wvladimire,

I wasn't making any insinuation toward you whatsoever or putting words into your mouth, and I regret that I wasn't able to express my thoughts into words well enough to make that point clearer.  I did not at all mean my post to spark division among fellow sportsmen or to convey a "my way is the only right way" attitude.  What I was trying to say is that I didn't think an enourmous 35mm 3-18X scope with a mil based reticle is a good choice for an elk rifle that you must lug around in elk country, and secondly that at the point where one needs a BDC reticle, one should start to evaluate whether the shot is on the far side of ones' field shooting abilities and capabilities of the rifle.  Not that the scope in question wouldn't work, not that it didn't have some practical utility in a hunting rifle, and not that the mil based reticle was difficult to learn and use.  I was trying to give the originator of the thread something to think about in order to possibly save him some money and frustration of potentially selecting equipment that might not be well suited to the stated application.

 

I have several mil dot based reticle scopes and love them.  I wasn't at all criticizing tactical scopes or tactical rifles.  I own both.  I was just presenting an alternative point of view because the casual reader of these threads should hear the pros and cons and ethical considerations of long range shooting at live game animals, the stated purpose of the scope/rifle in this thread.  Admittedly, I'm not a big fan of these reticles in a big game hunting rifle, because I personally won't attempt shots at a deer/elk further than about 350 yards, and have never been faced with a further shot where I was unable to get closer.  But, that's just me.  I do believe that a SFP version of the MP8, which I have, is too fine for low light shooting without illumination, but the same reticle in the FFP would probably work fine. 

 

I think these points are important for anyone to be aware of before embarking on long range shooting at game and spending their hard earned money on equipment that they may never really utilize.  My only reply to you was that I'm well aware of the merits of the MP8 reticle, being the owner of a scope so equipped and still personally think it is a poor choice for most big game hunting situations, based on the reasons given.  You have a different opinion, and yours is just as valid as mine, based on your own experiences.  At the point where ANY rangefinding device, whether it be a laser rangefinder or ranging reticle, becomes necessary to take a shot at an elk, I'm simply not going to take the shot and will attempt to get closer.  It's not at all a matter of the time or relative ease required for determining distance, it's a matter of my belief that at the point evaluating distace becomes necessary, it's not a good shot to take at a game animal, out of my respect for the animal.  There are just too many other variables beyond my control outside of raw ballistics that can turn a good shot into a marginal one for me to consider super long range shots under less than ideal shooting conditions.  As for the ethics of long range hunting being a given to every hunter, I know several people who do in fact believe that by just purchasing a long range scope and rifle that they're automatically properly equipped to make hyper distance shots at game animals, without any understanding of the limitations of their shooting skills or their rifle's capabilities. 

 

I sincerely apologize for failing to choose a better way of expressing my points and mean no hard feelings toward you, friend.



Edited by RifleDude
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/18/2007 at 00:20
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313

Hey, Countryscape, you posted at the same time as I did. 

 

It sounds like you are taking a sensible approach and have considered your options carefully.  Please understand that not knowing you or your level of experience, my comments were out of necessity general in nature.  You make some excellent points.

 

As for equipment weight, I agree that if one can't tote an 11 pound rifle around, then they will definitely have serious problems with the physical demands of the hunt itself.  However, why add weight if you don't have to, and why add to the already considerable work required when hauling out elk quarters along with everything else you've been carrying all day?  When you've been humping it for many miles in the steep high country, carrying rifle, backpack, extra clothes, food, water, binoculars, and possibly quartered meat at the end of the day, every ounce in your equipment adds up and eventually starts feeling like pounds.  Regardless of your physical condition, I don't know a soul who would prefer their equipment to weigh more rather than less when they're packing an elk out of a deep canyon during a snow squall after walking 15 miles up and down hills all day.  I experienced this several times on previous elk hunts and vowed that I would bring a lighter, handier rifle next time.  If extra rifle weight comes with a measurable improvement in performance in some way, then it may very well be worth the tradeoff, but all the elk hunts I've been on have been physical enough that shaving weight anywhere in my equipment would be a blessing.  The 35mm IOR indeed offers some compelling performance advantages that may be worth the extra weight and bulk in your situation.  IOR scopes do indeed offer excellent optics for the money.  I just have never encountered a hunting situation where a good 3-9X or 2.5-10X scope wouldn't do the job perfectly.

 

Good luck on your upcoming hunts!



Edited by RifleDude
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/18/2007 at 00:20
Countryscape View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/08/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 46

Rifledude,

 

You put a great deal of time and effort into giving me your opinion on my original question. I just wanted to personally thank you and feel extremely lucky that members such as yourself is willing to share valuable information. Without help from folks like yourself, many of us would be making poor choices. I have listened to advice about the SFP reticle pehaps being two fine in low light and I will keep that in mind...thanks again. smiles!

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/18/2007 at 13:26
Wvladimire View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: June/25/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 72
My apologies to you rifledude, I believe I overreacted a bit, because of a bad personal experience with
someone who admonished the ownership of a black rifle or sniper/tactical style scopes for hunters. My
deepest apologies.

The reason a mil-dot or MP-8 works for me, for hunting, is that is what I was trained on. For me there
is no math to do, I pretty much know by know what the holdover is for yardage or windage. As with all
shooting, practice, practice, practice makes for a good shot.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/18/2007 at 13:37
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313
No problem; just a case of miscommunication!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/18/2007 at 19:23
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5087
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "IOR 35mm FFP or Iluminated reticle"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
IOR 3-18x42 35mm, FFP, initial thoughts Rancid Coolaid Tactical Scopes 12 9/18/2007 9:13:37 PM
IOR 35mm Magnum lock support reticle sys Countryscape Tactical Scopes 5 6/10/2007 1:49:34 AM
SWFA 3x15x42 ffp Moa quad reticle . Greenhorn#1 Rifle Scopes 7
IOR Valdada 3-18x50 MP-8 X1 reticle Thefieldster1 Tactical Scopes 11
Any Experience with the IOR FFP 2.5-10x42 Idaho Scot Tactical Scopes 5
Considering the IOR 3-18x42 Tactical 35mm senewell Rifle Scopes 8 3/18/2007 11:18:26 AM
IOR 6-24x50 Tactical 35mm or Not styer308 Tactical Scopes 2 3/16/2007 12:57:43 AM
IOR 30mm v.s 35mm Ghost Rider Tactical Scopes 3 5/25/2007 9:07:21 AM
IOR Valdada 3-18x42 35mm TwoGun Tactical Scopes 6 1/18/2006 5:14:27 PM
New 35mm IOR 6x24 50mm: WOW! ceylonc Rifle Scopes 2 7/28/2006 1:03:19 PM


This page was generated in 0.266 seconds.