The Gun Thread

[asshanson]

Originally Posted by blackawdtsi

It does cost that much more to manufacture.

Ever shopped around for camera glass? Same thing with firearm glass, but high end scopes have to sustain recoil, drops on the ground, being banged around HMMVs all day, etc. What you pay for in a high end scope is ruggedness, clarity and in-spec turrets. A lot of the low end scopes turrets are actually way off. 1/4 Moa advertised might actually be 1/3. First focal plane vs second also has a huge effect on cost. Same with etched glass.

The Viper PST line is by far the best bang for the buck IMO.

Those look pretty nice, I like the 6-24x50 model. What is the difference between the first and second focal plane? It is about in the price range I was looking for, I might check out Bushnell too because I can get a discount on trade in for my broken one.

Originally Posted by blackawdtsi

Also, when you say "just different casings and powder" makes it sound like not a big deal.

I didn't mean to say those things aren't important, I just thought it was interesting they used the same bullet.

[blackawdtsi]

Originally Posted by asshanson

Those look pretty nice, I like the 6-24x50 model. What is the difference between the first and second focal plane? It is about in the price range I was looking for, I might check out Bushnell too because I can get a discount on trade in for my broken one.



I didn't mean to say those things aren't important, I just thought it was interesting they used the same bullet.

First focal plane reticles zoom in and out with the magnification. This is useful for ranging targets with hash marks and math. It's also useful because no matter what magnification you're at, the hold overs are the same value for wind and elevation.

Second focal plane is most useful for 600yds+ target shooting. The reticle always stays crisp and doesn't change. This is the type of scope most people are familiar with.

Rifle intention dictates what you should use. If you may be going after moving targets (varmit, deer, etc.) I like the FFP. If all you're doing is bench shooting I prefer the SFP.

You can do both with either type but one is easier for different things. I like to use hold overs instead of dialing turrets, so I tend to gravitate towards FFP.

[asshanson]

Originally Posted by blackawdtsi

First focal plane reticles zoom in and out with the magnification. This is useful for ranging targets with hash marks and math. It's also useful because no matter what magnification you're at, the hold overs are the same value for wind and elevation.

Thanks, that is cool. I've never had a nice scope before, so I'm not used to high end features or good glass. Having the MOA marks always be accurate will be nice for ranging targets more quickly.

I'm actually thinking about the 4-16x now instead of the 6-24x. I'm not going to be shooting over 400yds very often, and even at 1000yds the 16x zoom would be like shooting at 60yds with no zoom which isn't bad at all.

I was home this weekend and was talking with my dad about scopes, The Vortex Viper FFP was his second choice, he ended up going with an IOR Valdada FFP because he could get one in 42mm instead of the 50mm. He wanted a lower center because he doesn't have an adjustable cheekrest and thought the 50mm would be a little too high up. The only problem is it's in MRAD instead of MOA. Not a big deal but not second nature to think in metric.