That is impressive. I wish the video was a little more professional but it proved the point that the Razor can take some abuse. Is it up to nightforce’s level? Unknown at this time, NF is more proven, but I do think vortex is doing good things and ultimately time will tell.
Vortex is a great company. I own several of their scopes including razor 5-20’s. They are not at the same level as a nightforce, reliability wise.
Vortex scopes are still plagued with problems. Just had another razor in the shop yesterday with shit stuck to the reticle lens. Sure, vortex will take care of it… but I’ve never EVER had a nightforce screw up on me. You hear about it happening… but it’s very very infrequent.
I talked to a NF rep for about an hour today and learned quite alot about NF. He was saying including their military contracts they have had less than 1% return rate over the last 5 years. Also the BR and NXS series are partially assembled in Japan and are finished and QC’d in their Idaho plant. The Compact NXS and F1’s are US manufactered. All NF scopes are individualy inspected, they do not believe in batch or lot testing. As you were saying Vortex does make a good scope for the price point, but NF is king in reliabilty.
For precision rifles I agree. For patrol rifle optics and three gun scopes no way. (ie low magnificaiton scopes) Put it simply first focal plane scopes suck on low power. You can’t see the reticle and they are slow. On a 1-4 or 1-6x scope on the first focal plane you need to have one hell of a bright illuminated dot for 1x shooting or a huge reticle that will get bigger when you crank it up. Not a fan of low power FFP scopes. Now for precision rifles where your shooting on higher power most of the time their fine and have a lot of obvious advantages. But to get rid of SFP scopes across the board is silly.
I love my Swarovski Z6i. On 1x I have a 9moa aimpoint that is brightly lit for maximum speed. On 6x its 1.5 moa and more than adiquate for precision work that you would use a scope of this type for.
As to the original topic. Leupold has fallen in recent years but they have some exciting new products like their 1.1-8 and 1-6 line. (also a 2-12 scope) I am of the lets wait and see what else they come out with. Otherwise I love my Nightforce, Trijicon and Swarovski scopes.
Bullshit.
Based on your statements, I KNOW you don’t have experience with very many of them. My junk ass horus talon is anything but slow, and the reticle is quite easy to see on 1x. The USO 1-8 is a fucking work of art.
Blanket statements like yours is what keeps the technology from being pushed.
a0cake is absolutely right. There is nothing a SFP can do that a properly configured FFP can’t.
USO’s dual focal plane (DFP) scope seems the right compromise for low power variables.
the only thing i prefer SFP for is target dot reticles in benchrest or f-class where the match only has a single, known distance target. the NF benchrest 12-42x is a good example.
Yup. … and the DFP was what I was talking about. thanks. 
However, the FFP reticle in that optic can be used WITHOUT the dot on 1x just fine.
Bullshit yourself.
I happen to own a Vortex PST 4-16 FFP. In a high power a scope FFP is fine. In a lower power scope no thanks. There is a reason why most three gunners prefer SPF scopes. You get more speed on 1x and when you need the precision and the ranging ability your on max power any way. FFP scopes suck in lower power formats for the reasons I explained before. Stick to what you know which seems to be higher magnification precision optics. There is a reason why most three gunners prefer SFP scopes like the Swarovski Z6i.
By the way the Horus Talon is not that great for the fast shooting we do in the game and is not popular at all. For precision work its fine but not for speed.
Pat
Reticle design is everything when it comes to low power variables. Not every FFP or every SFP 1-4/6/8/10 sucks. But I do agree with Orkan that SFP low power variables are unnecessary IF the FFP alternative has a good reticle. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the FFP - the issue is if the reticle is well executed. But there IS something inherently wrong with a SFP. So while either can be effective if well executed, the FFP is in fact inherently better, but harder to successfully design and execute.
I agree with this.
Both can work, highly dependent on matching the reticle with the shooter.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
What the fuck? Because you own one FFP scope… you are going to tell ME how shit works huh?
Wow.
… and for your information, the reason 3gunners use SFP more than anything else is because until like the last year… no one made a really good low power FFP.
Like a0cake said… it has FUCKALL to do with SFP vs FFP… and everything to do with reticle design. There just happens to be about 10 extremely good FFP or DFP low power scopes on the market right now that offer NONE of the negatives of SFP scopes and ALL of the positives of FFP scopes.
… but I’m sure you know everything… and ALL of the top manufacturers coming out with brand new low power FFP or DFP scopes don’t know shit and are just making them for their health.
Why don’t you get back to me when you own more than 1 FFP. Wait, scratch that… why don’t you get back to me when you have 5 or more. Wait… on second thought… don’t get back to me. I used to run nothing but SFP optics. Now, I run nothing but FFP and when time allows I’ll be calling USO to send a 1-8 DFP for review.
There is NOTHING that a properly built FFP/DFP can’t do that a SFP can. When you’ve got a bit more experience with different scopes, you’ll understand.
Having designed a couple FFP reticles and seen them through from design to completion and competed with them, I have to agree with this.
My solution on the line width issue is to just taper the line thickness.
Thinner at the middle and thicker at the outside edge of the scope.
Your eye will fill in the line through the middle that gets very thin at lower powers.
Then to solve the very small target obscuration problem at max power, I just open up the center of the reticle by 2/10 of a mil.
Yea thats right I own just one FFP scope and have never ever ever looked through or shot other FFP scopes at matches. :rolleyes:
Pat
I think people need to take a breath and look at what they want out of a scope rather than trying to force a one size fits all approach. If you want to have a large zoom range scope that is capable of precision shooting at every magnification them FFP may not be it. You will either have a very coarse reticle at the high end or an invisible one on the low end. Physics is physics and there is only so much that reticle design can compensate for. However, if you are content with knowing that absolute precision will be attainable at say the upper half of your zoom range and feel that consistent hold overs are more important then the FFP is your friend. I have a 2.5-10 FFP on my AR. At 2.5 the reticle is nothing more than a thin cross hair. In an absolute pinch I could hit with it, but in all honesty I’ve never shot it below 5 when I wanted any semblance of accuracy. I find it far more important to not have to math my wind holds based on the power I’m on. FOR ME that has lead to far more misses.
For the 1-x range I see the 1x as a red dot replacement. For ME that equates to putting the red blob where it needs to be and pulling the trigger. Same as a red dot. I wouldn’t try to shoot the eye out of a bad guy holding my son hostage at 100yds with a red dot, so I don’t see that being required with the 1-x. If I need to make such a shot even if I had a SFP reticle I wouldn’t do it at 1x I’d be cranking that baby up as far as she went.
Ok then. Lets talk specifics.
I want you to describe the EXACT situation you think a SFP trumps a FFP. I want SPECIFICS. Exact setups and exact scope models.
Dollars to peso’s says I will prove that FFP scopes can do it just as well if not better than SFP. I don’t care if I need to spend the next 3 days taking through-the-scope pictures. This type of naive outlook on ffp scopes needs done away with. It is just as archaic as the bolt gunners hatred of ar15’s or any other situation where a person refuses to accept positive progress in equipment.
Some 3guns run targets out to 500-600yds. If you can convince me that a FFP or DFP optic wouldn’t be welcomed in that situation… I’ll eat my own face.
Close in your face shooting 0 to 100 yards. My Swarovski has a 9 moa lit center aimpoint when on 1x that is faster than anything I have seen on a FFP scope. Then when I turn it up to 6x I have a simple yet effective 1.5 moa center dot that is at least equal to the best FFP scopes for precision shooting as are the hash marks 1 mil apart. FFP scopes generally have to have busy reticles that are huge so you can even see them on 1x. Then they are harder to light and tend to be dimmer. Sorry but I have not seen a low power FFP scope I would want to use. As for shooting out to 500 and 600 yards I have done that and you generally do that on your max power setting making the FFP advantages moot. FFP scopes have obvious advantages in the precision rifle world where your shooting from the middle to upper range of your magnificaiton spectrum on high magnificaiton scopes. On low power scopes I see FFP scopes as having a lot of negatives with very vew positives of very limited use.
Pat
THIS statement is NOTHING to be sorry for. You haven’t seen one you would want to use. I won’t eat your lunch for a statement like that. It’s a statement of your opinion based on your experience. Instead, I would suggest models that you could look at which you probably would want to use.
What you said first, talking about FFP sucking and all that… THAT is wrong plain and simple. That is what I took exception to. You defined a bunch of specifics about FFP low power scopes that are completely untrue and then proclaim how shitty they are.
If you haven’t seen low power FFP scopes that you would be happy with, then you haven’t seen many. That is the sad truth of it. I would encourage you to get more exposure on something before you start claiming that “they suck.” As for close, in your face shooting… my horus talon 1-4 FFP handles business. You would not want to run against me with it… I promise you. It was the only FFP 1-4 available anywhere when I bought it… but there are much better options now for less money.
The scope you really need to look at is USO’s 1-8 DFP. No SFP or FFP can even come close to the functionality and usability.
Your missing the advantage of SPF where the reticle is larger in relation to the target at low power. This gives you a larger aiming referance which makes shooting faster. Its the reason why most pistol shooters in Open like myself pick 8 moa dots over 4 or 2 moa dots.
Now the dual focal plane scopes do appear to show some promise. However the most popular scopes in three gun are SFP and the Swarovski Z6i BRT being one the most used by the pro’s. I looked hard at the Blackbird 1.5-8 when I was in Texas at the Multigun nationals in April. Nice scope for a DMR type weapon but I found the reticle much too busy. To each his own. I have not seen the new USO but I hope they have their illumination better than previous models or I won’t buy one. In the past their illumination was not daylight visible when I looked through them on a bright day.
Pat
I can shoot just as well with a 1-4 SWFA, 1-4 DFP USO, and a 1.1-4 ShortDot as I can a 4 MOA T1, 2 MOA T1, 2 MOA M4S, or an EXPS, from 3 to 100 (all at 1x).
I can shoot any of those 1-4 variables at 4x at 100 to 300 as well or better than I can a TA31 RCO, TA11, or TA01 NSN. I have not put enough rounds through the Elcans to rank them.
I also shoot the Swaro Z6i pretty well, but I shoot BRT reticle better than their other reticle options by a decent margin, but that is without a side by side comparison.
I have shot them many conditions, and with varying degrees of expected performance.
Interestingly, there are others that prefer the optics that I dislike and they have the opposite experience, unless I design tests specifically designed to highlight flaws in the optics.
In the end, the user is the only one that really knows what they prefer. Unless they are completely open to what is truly the best, which to me is a high quality 1-4 FFP or DFP, or the Swaro Z6i.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
I agree it comes down to preferance. I took exception to the remark that 2nd focal plane scopes should go away. The dual focal plane option does interest me however. If i could have a reticle where I had a simple red dot to aim with on 1x and then a good yet simple ACOG style reticle on higher powers I would go for it. I just don’t want a small almost impossible to see reticle on 1x or a huge busy reticle on max magnification.
Pat