When you have a 2FP scope, you have somewhat turned your optic into more of an elcan rather than taking advantage of the entire range of magnification.
There are hundreds of reasons to dial back power, even on long range shots. Mirage from the environment, mirage off a can, your engagement area etc.
If I am set somewhere, and needing magnification, my general rule of thumb is I set the magnification so I can see my largest possible target to target transition within the entire reticle. In competition, that is relatively self explanatory. For field use, that may mean setting the magnification so you can see both sides of a road, or an entire intersection, an entire clump of trees, an entire outer wall on a compound etc.
This isnt a set in stone rule, more of a guideline.
Additionally, I have been in the sun or on a hot can where 2-4x was all I could do before mirage overtook the image. Now if you are using a 2FP, what is your holds.....More brain power going into calculating a hold, on a flash target, that will only present itself for 3-5 seconds...You are stacking the odds against you.
I really feel its a mindset shift. A LPVO isnt just a red dot with magnification. There is so much more capability to it and it requires training and new ways of thinking.
Last edited by vmi-mo; 06-06-2018 at 12:32 PM.
"When the hour of crisis comes, remember that 40 selected men can shake the world." -- Yasotay
^^^Excellent explanation. I completely agree.
It’s harder to design a reticle that works well for all applications in FFP, so that adds a major issue when shopping for a scope. There’s really no good way to tell if a reticle is going to work well unless you: 1. Know what you need, and 2. Look through the scope.
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
Shabbat shalom, motherf***ers! --Mordechai Jefferson Carver
"When the hour of crisis comes, remember that 40 selected men can shake the world." -- Yasotay
I do like the look of the ATACR 1-8's reticle, the only thing I don't like are the big duplexes. I get the idea, it's supposed to focus the eye towards the center, but I think it would be better with some thin lines.
All other things aside, including illumination in any and every shape and form, how does the eyebox and image flatness on the nx8 compare with the mk6 on 1x?
Hi - long time PF lurker (as in years), first time poster. Sorry for the thread necrosis, but the post below was such high quality that I just had to jump in and say thanks to vmi-mo. I'm a simple carbine enthusiast, just now transitioning from red dot to LVPO. As I investigated the pros/cons of various scopes, I've struggled to understand the pragmatic (vs theoretical) benefits of FFP in the middle magnification ranges. I train & shoot a lot, have some fairly experienced/talented guys in my circles, and in last 2 years have taken several upper level carbine/rifle classes from some pretty credible trainers. I've understood that the real benefit of FFP was in the mid ranges (eg. 2-5 zone on a 1-6 optic), but so far no one ever explained to me exactly why or what specific use cases they really help - I could never reconcile how one would not want to be at max power for a fixed, no-fail type of shot in medium ranges. The explanation below was the first & only that I've seen that helped me really grok it.
Personally, I'm very partial to super simple clean reticles that can emulate a red dot in 1x mode as much as possible. Most of FFP's seem to have super busy reticles that I can't stand, and my use case does not realistically comprise any form of multiple threats at meaningful ranges beyond 100m. I very much like the analogy of 1-N to Elcan's "1x/4x switch-mode" - as this is exactly what I find most comfortable & seems to be the best tool for the job - for where I am currently at. My first try at LVPO was Vortex Strike Eagle 1-6x in some cheap 1.5" rings - that setup was basically worthless at any range for me, and I went back to red dot. I'm now taking another stab to get comfy on LVPO, this time with a Steiner P4Xi-1-4x24, which I consider to a poor man's Elcan (IMO same/better glass, perfect reticle, at a fraction of the cost/weight). Also trying 1.93" mount vs traditional 1.5" for the first time... So far, it's nothing short of glorious and it's already hard to imagine going back to T1's. But based on this new information, if/when the time comes for me to explore higher end stuff with more magnification, I'll now consider FFP a bit more seriously than I have been previously.
Anyway, main point was to say thanks to the high quality PF contributors. I've gotten a ton of useful info here on pistol related topics, and this one was super helpful for my rifle/scope education.
Cheers,
P