Been behind rifles for 55 years and think we've gone gadget crazy. A FFP like the snipers uses makes sense but a SFP..... well ?
Bought a rifle with a 4.5-14 Conquest, Z 600 on it. Played with the Zeiss calculator website and quickly realized that with a given cartridge and load, you had to set the "X" at one setting for the range bars to work. Tried a bunch of cartridges and it varied from 8 to 13.9X. So if my 300 H&H is set up as the calculator says (13.9X) and I jump an elk at 40 yards in a dead fall I am SOL.
By contrast with my FFP 4-16 Schmidt & Bender, I just set it at 4 and go hunt. Any elk I would ever shoot at could be killed with 4X but should I see a Yote at 400, I can crank it up and my ranging reticle is dead on regardless of the "X" setting. Guess the USMC has it figured out.
Notice that the new top of the line Vortex ($2000) is a FFP scope.

I have a couple of scopes of this type. For me the answer is simple: the rifle is zeroed for maybe 200 yards (depending on the calibre, but I think this would apply to your .300), and for anything between a few yards and something close to 300 (again depending on the ballistics of the particular load) I just hold dead on, regardless of magnification.

In my own case this actually covers the vast majority of shots I actually take in the field.

I hunt with the scope on its bottom magnification for best FOV for a quick shot, and it is only when an opportunity is there for a long shot that I'd wind it up. If it is a long way away, I'll usually have time to do this, and use the stadia marks for the right holdover according to the distance. At less than about 250 yards however, this just isn't necessary. YMMV.

quote:

Been behind rifles for 55 years and think we've gone gadget crazy. A FFP like the snipers uses makes sense but a SFP..... well ?
Bought a rifle with a 4.5-14 Conquest, Z 600 on it. Played with the Zeiss calculator website and quickly realized that with a given cartridge and load, you had to set the "X" at one setting for the range bars to work. Tried a bunch of cartridges and it varied from 8 to 13.9X. So if my 300 H&H is set up as the calculator says (13.9X) and I jump an elk at 40 yards in a dead fall I am SOL.
By contrast with my FFP 4-16 Schmidt & Bender, I just set it at 4 and go hunt. Any elk I would ever shoot at could be killed with 4X but should I see a Yote at 400, I can crank it up and my ranging reticle is dead on regardless of the "X" setting. Guess the USMC has it figured out.
Notice that the new top of the line Vortex ($2000) is a FFP scope.

I've wondered the same myself quite a few times. For a hunting scope with, say, a German No. 4, I find the FFP distracting. But for precision shooting with a mil dot or any similar reticle making it SFP seems just, well, silly.

LWD

I've been a fan of the old reticle-movement (first plane) scopes for several reasons, the least of which was the range-finding aspect - until recently.

That's when I bought a Nikon Monarch 4-16 with the BDC reticle. The trouble is, because it's image moving (second reticle plane), I have to wind it up to 16 to use the BDC effectively.

On four power, the first ring is just right for hitting warships on the horizon!

Yeah, I bought one of those Nikon Coyote models nice to look at but about useless for dealing with Yotes as they are not stapled to a target frame.
Was up at the range this AM checking out the 25-06 as I drew an great speed goat tag. Scope is a Leupold 3-9 VX III with a plex and the dots under the crosshair intersection. When sigghted in at 100 the first dot is 7" high at 200 (@ 9X). In other words useless unless you just like to shoot at Antelope. It's coming off and the simple 3-9 Conquest with a basic plex is going on.
With the 80 TTSX at +-4000 fps (28" bbl") holdover in a non event within my ethical hunting envelope of 400 yards max. While Antelope are not huge, there are a lot bigger than a gopher. That where a FFP scope with a ranging reticle earns its keep.

Something else I don't want to get into are those scopes where you are expected to crank the adjustments for different ranges. First, it takes time and then I'd forget to crank them back afterwards. In the long run I reckon they'd get tired, too, like claw mounts that are ripped off every time a coup de grace is needed.

Yup, that is the beauty of the Schmidt & Bender #8 reticle. While the dots are calibrated for the 22-250, a little test shooting at various ranges will allow its use with many cartridges.
Being a FFP reticle, the "X" setting is immaterial. If it's on at 4X, it's on at 8, 10,12 and so on. Sad to say it is only available on the Klassik 4-16x50 Varmint although there are other FFP scopes with slightly more busy reticles.

So you are comparing a ffp scope whose price is in the $2000 to $2500 dollar range, to a sfp scope whose price is in the $400 to $700 range?

The $1400 to $2000 dollar differnce is why folks will learn how to use a sfp with a ranging reticle with its limitations.

quote:

Originally posted by 45-70 shooter:
Been behind rifles for 55 years and think we've gone gadget crazy. A FFP like the snipers uses makes sense but a SFP..... well ?
Bought a rifle with a 4.5-14 Conquest, Z 600 on it. Played with the Zeiss calculator website and quickly realized that with a given cartridge and load, you had to set the "X" at one setting for the range bars to work. Tried a bunch of cartridges and it varied from 8 to 13.9X. So if my 300 H&H is set up as the calculator says (13.9X) and I jump an elk at 40 yards in a dead fall I am SOL.
By contrast with my FFP 4-16 Schmidt & Bender, I just set it at 4 and go hunt. Any elk I would ever shoot at could be killed with 4X but should I see a Yote at 400, I can crank it up and my ranging reticle is dead on regardless of the "X" setting. Guess the USMC has it figured out.
Notice that the new top of the line Vortex ($2000) is a FFP scope.

Why would you be walking through dark timber with your scope cranked up, regardless of ranging reticle or not? You can set your Zeiss to 4.5 when in close situations. If you see something far enough away that requires that much calculation on bullet drop, you have plenty of time to crank the mag up to where it needs to be.

I guess the disabling limitations on our $700 vs $2000 scopes are just a first world cross to bear.

There is no particular reason 'FFP' scopes need to cost that much. In the early days Weavers used to have reticle movement (and they make one model with it even now for about $600).

The reason the American and Japanese makers all went to image-movement ('SFP') was because any drongo could whack one on a rifle without obsessing about getting the crosswires centred. It was a fool's paradise, of course, but the marketers won the day.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
There is no particular reason 'FFP' scopes need to cost that much. In the early days Weavers used to have reticle movement (and they make one model with it even now for about $600).

The reason the American and Japanese makers all went to image-movement ('SFP') was because any drongo could whack one on a rifle without obsessing about getting the crosswires centred. It was a fool's paradise, of course, but the marketers won the day.

Actually the consumer won. The non-centered reticles are a joke unless you like reticles the size of a cross tie.

Though image movement scopes have been improved a lot over the years, SR4759, the integrity of the reticle-movement scopes went beyond rangefinding.

Not needing a field stop, they gave greater field of view/eye-relief (depending on what the maker wanted most) and superior field blending (lack of 'tunnel vision'), so important in dangerous/wary-game hunting. The system is thought by some to be more robust, too, but this might be to do with the heroic stiffness of some Teutonic adjustments (e.g. Khales). The reticle could even be user-alternated in Pecar scopes, but I never took mine apart for fear of letting in damp air.

The fat crosswires could be a bit disconcerting but reminded your friends you were of the cognoscenti who had forked out the big bucks

The purest concept of all was the old Bausch & Lomb with the cradle mount, meaning your reticle was always in the centre, really, not just apparently. They solved the growing-reticle problem by having a tapered crosswire that looked the same at all powers even though it did enlarge.

I really don't care which multi-stadia reticle i'm using, 1st or 2nd focal plane. I have a number of both and love them all really. In actuality i kind of prefer the 2nd FP since i like to play around a bit with subtension vs. magnification.