i do love my z6i and have a lot of rounds under it, but i bought mine long before they had any decent reticles.
i guess the real question is (not being any sort of optical engineer), if swaro were to turn the z6i EE into a FFP with a decent reticle, would it force them to make changes to the giant eye box which is the real reason everyone loves that optic.
i’ve never cared enough to study and understand why a FFP scope costs $500+ more than most SFP scopes. i just assume if it were trivial to convert a SFP to a FFP that the mfgs would have already done so.
AOCake nailed it on the reticle/shooter combination being key. SFP necessitates a compromise on reticle design, because a fine reticle being really usable at the top end doesn’t usually mean it’s easy to pick up on the low end. This is why things like the duplex reticle are so popular on low end scopes, since it does both fairly well in an affordable package as long as one POA is all you really need. FFP should improve this slightly, but any reticle design that relies on lots of small etching when brough to the low end you’re liable to lose that reticle entirely - I’ve seen some really awful FFP optics that might as well be SFP, since you lose effectiveness on the low end, and they really only shine with the ability to keep angular references when shifting around among the higher magnification range of that optic.
I find the opposite to also be true with the big thick reticles in SFP units. TR24T’s are brilliant up close units, but beyond worthless at higher magnification as soon as you need to see objects that take up less than 5MOA apparent size from the objective. Making them FFP wouldn’t be bad, but still wouldn’t improve enough - that reticle is great and awful both because of the illumination system - fantastic up close with a bit bright triangle, and awful and distance because of the big dumb triangle on a thick pair of posts.
I really feel that any optic that starts at above 2.5x zoom on the low end should be FFP - any modern optics of this type are for longer range work where range estimation is important, but are clearly designed to be used on rifles with some closer range capability I think the FFP makes more sense.
Optics that come down to 1.1x or 1x, especially if they wander above 4x on the top end, SFP is certainly viable, and usually the limitation with these optics is how well illuminated elements of the reticle perform when used at the low end - therefore SFP can be superiour optic despite all the inherent advantages of FFP in most applications.
The new reticle designs and dual focal plane technology are, and will continue to make this argument pointless.
I’m not a huge fan of super sniper optics due to the ridiculous name, and the companies complete lack of class… but, their SS 1-4 HD has a reticle with a thick circle and a mil crosshair. It is one of the scopes that I talk about when I say that FFP can be done right in a 1-4. There is no denying it. The large ring makes fast up-close shots easy work, and the mil reticle makes precise long range shots very doable.
This is just one of the great low-power FFP optics that are available at great prices. I know that there are more models from other companies in development right now that will fit the role very nicely.
I think its a matter of application. For precision rifle I agree that FFP is great. For low power variables in three gun and patrol rifle use I think SFP has a more going for it. I am excited about the dual focal plane scopes however.
At the end of the day its about user preferance.
Yet it’s amazing what a user can prefer when he doesn’t know of anything else.
I don’t know how your rifle is setup, but I’ll tell you how mine is setup for multi-gun. I’ve got a horus talon that sits on 3x and doesn’t leave 3x except for rare occasions when a long range shot (300yd+) is required. Then I’ve got a trijicon RMR at 1 O’Clock. If I had a SFP scope, I could just leave it on 4x and not notice anything… however, I like the additional FOV that 3x gives me. So in the capacity of how I use my optic on a multi-gun AR… I could not use a SFP on 3x and still have my hold-overs be correct. I would be FORCED to run it on max magnification. This is where FFP is of benefit to me.
So for close up stuff, it takes too damn long to run the magnification ring… even with a switch-view. So, I simply chicken-wing a bit and switch to the RMR.
So yes, it is user preference, but FFP is paramount to how I run a rifle. It frees me from concerning myself with what setting the magnification ring is on. This is important to me on all rifles, 3-gun or not.
Here is my set up.
I am interested in the Leupold 1.1-8 scope so I will have another FFP when I can afford it.
I find myself using pretty much ever power range depending on the stage. I personally find the Horus reticle too busy for my liking. It seems to be a common critisim over at Enos. For precision rifle however I think it would be great.
Pat
We can agree on this 100%. I hate the horus. The reticle and the scope. The turrets are jap garbage, and the glass isn’t any better. It leaks sealant from various joints. Junk scope. It was the only FFP available at the time. The reticle has a large circle around it, which on low power is very easy to center. On 3x, it’s just functional enough to get it done. The newer FFP options are way more better.
Good luck with that leupold. I hate them.
Nice rifles. I see the larue mount and realize you and I will NEVER agree on equipment choice. lol
The Leupy 1-8 is not a good close range optic. It is a decent mid-range optic with the ability to do closer work if you have to. The Z6i is better overall.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
Why do you hate the Leupold. This particular scope. The reason I ask is there have been some good reviews on this site regarding it. If I spend that kind of money I want it tobe an informed decision. I am also considering just getting another Z6i for my SCAR.
I love Larue they have worked well for me. I have mounted them and re mounted them with no zero loss. I take my optics off my rifles every time I clean them.
Pat
I was going to put it on my patrol rifle. I may just have to get another SWARO. The reason I was considering the Leupold is the 8x magnifaciton on the top end may come in handy on a patrol rifle in a few rare situations.
Pat
Overpriced. Turrets blow dick. Reticle is mediocre.
The USO 1-8 blows it away in every respect. I handled both at SHOT extensively. Granted I’ve not actually used either. After comparing both at SHOT… I have no need to try the leupold.
If you don’t mind me throwing in my two cents here, I’ve written about mounts pretty extensively here. Here’s a snippet of a past post of mine on this subject:
A while ago I tested RTZ (return to zero) for quite a few mounts including ADM, Larue, Bobro, and GG&G. There’s a surprising amount of emotion out there regarding this equipment so I wanted to make my own determinations. For me, Bobro was the only mount that showed no observable shift. At the risk of sounding like a prick, I’ll say that I’m an honest 1/2 minute shooter and so was the gun (this way the driver and race car can’t get blamed). The race car was a particularly accurate KAC 7.62 w/ a NF F1.
I don’t have the hard data (I’ll see if I can find my old range book), but ADM and Larue were also very good as far as RTZ goes (less than 1 minute, with the ADM being closer to 1/2). The Bobro did not move though.
NOTE: I’ve not had a great deal of experience with GDI mounts, but shooters that I trust more than anyone on this subject tell me they’re just as good as Bobro in this respect. Can’t comment first hand though.
Honestly, where the Bobro wins me over is the auto-indexing feature. I routinely move optics around from rifle to rifle. With the Larue, this would often require re-tensioning of the locking mechanism and certainly induce zero problems. The Bobro, however, RTZ’s not just on one rifle, but from gun to gun (obviously after I adjust the optic to a predetermined point), each with slightly varying rail slot dimensions. No adjustment required.
Bottom line: forget all the emotional hyperbole over these mounts (how many people recommending a mount have tested it against others objectively?). I use what works and don’t care what’s inscribed on it. My testing lead me to Bobro. If Mark comes out with a new system that outperforms the Bobro in some respect, I’ll gladly switch over.
I really had high hopes for the MK6 line due to the huge MIL / LEO discount also. But IMO the reticle selections for the 3-18’s are mind-bogglingly stupid. Maybe I’m turning into one of those dudes who become too set in their ways that we’re always talking about, but the H-58 / H-59 / TREMOR 2 reticles have absolutely no appeal to me. And don’t get me started on the friggen CMR-W. A BDC for a precision 18x optic? Really, Leupold?
I even told them exactly what we were looking for (a simple christmas tree with consistent 1/2 MIL horizontal marks, not some range dependent variation voodoo shit), and they said they were satisfied with their reticle selections. I guess somebody’s got their ear and filling it with reticle designs that look like Picasso paintings. Oh well.
Still holding out hope that the 1-6 w/ TMR will be usable on 1X, but I’m not expecting much.
Thanks a0cake. I’m not emotionally invested in this and am looking for insights. I have very limited experience in the world of optics, mounts, and precision shooting. I’m hoping to start next year and am looking to make as few equipment mistakes as possible.
For example, my most accurate AR is a FF’d BCM BFH 16" Mid with a Nikon M223 3-12x SF (not my choice of scope, a gift). This set up regularly turns out 1.5" 10 shot groups at 100 yards with Hornady 75 grain .223 TAP and Prvi Match 69 grain. I don’t even own a bolt gun.
I had a couple different larue mounts that wouldn’t hold better than 3moa on any rifle I put them on. Called larue. “Your rail is out of spec.” I hung up. (it wasn’t out of spec btw)
Notice the date on it. I still run those same ADM mounts and many others. THOUSANDS of rounds and they continue to perform and they don’t give a shit what rifle they are on or if the rail is in spec or not. They hold zero and repeat.
1/2 moa, like a0cake says. Now its been a long time, and I haven’t revisited it. There are more mounts that work to choose from now. a0cake knows his shit, and USES his shit… so if he says they work, they probably work. However, larue mounts are the same thing they always were, and everywhere I go I see people having the same problems with them that I did. They are inferior, plain and simple.
Now lets have all the rabid larue minions rip this post apart with mouths frothing and keyboards on fire. I can’t wait.
I can’t say that I’ve had enough experience with Larue mounts to see a shift in zero. My guns stay in the safe and come out to go to the range. Aside from a few carbine classes, they don’t see hard use.
Of the two I owned, a T1/H1 mount I still have and a Eotech mount that I’ve sold, neither one was repeatedly removed to check the repeatability of the mount. I followed the directions for installation and felt that the mounts don’t lock up very tight unless you go a little further out than the 45 degrees they recommend for the first sign of tension. I found exactly what you noticed in your review which is that the mounting system dimples the underside of the rail. It stands to reason that repeated mounting/un-mounting of the Larue mounts could potentially change the size and depth of this dimple, creating an inconsistency in the repeatability of the zero. This factored into my reasoning not to overuse the mount’s QD feature. Now obviously, I am an N=1 so I made my own decisions and stuck with them, but it’s apparent that I’m not the only one to have come to that conclusion. Many of the negative reviews of the Larue mounts were focused on the Larue mounting system.
The two ADM mounts I have, a cantilevered Aimpoint mount and the ReconX have both been great and reasonably return to zero (100 yards).
