With all the interest in first focal plane scopes...

[condor22]

Yep, I know that full well.

FFP...Take a reticle thickness of .025 mil and put a FFP scope on 3x mag. It's going to be hard to make out isn't it?. Take a reticle with .1 mil thickness at 3x and it's still usable because you can still see it. These are examples but you and everyone else gets the point.

I'm estimating the reticle thickness on the BSA 4-14 is .07 mil, so it's still usable/ seeable at 4x but not to thick to obscure at 14x.

Yep, sorry bout that, I 'm on the same page now, but for clarity 'If the reticle just happens to cover tooo much at 14x, it'll still cover toooo much at 4x also.

 I have a 3-12x44 elite 4200 tactical, and can see all the mil-dots @ 3x (more like a fine duplex) and on 12x the reticle appears (big as a telephone pole, most will tell you from first time ever using FFP) big as does everything else inside the sight picture, all the while still only covering exactly the same as @ 3x. I have come to the conclusion it's got to be an optical delusion.

 Now this is bugging me, what would you be shooting that any reticle would cover up the target?  I know it erks most, but I happen to like the super fine reticle @ 3x and the 'appearance' of a thicker reticle @ 12x..........Yea!

[steve123]

Yep, I know that full well.

FFP...Take a reticle thickness of .025 mil and put a FFP scope on 3x mag. It's going to be hard to make out isn't it?. Take a reticle with .1 mil thickness at 3x and it's still usable because you can still see it. These are examples but you and everyone else gets the point.

I'm estimating the reticle thickness on the BSA 4-14 is .07 mil, so it's still usable/ seeable at 4x but not to thick to obscure at 14x.

Yep, sorry bout that, I 'm on the same page now, but for clarity 'If the reticle just happens to cover tooo much at 14x, it'll still cover toooo much at 4x also.

 I have a 3-12x44 elite 4200 tactical, and can see all the mil-dots @ 3x (more like a fine duplex) and on 12x the reticle appears (big as a telephone pole, most will tell you from first time ever using FFP) big as does everything else inside the sight picture, all the while still only covering exactly the same as @ 3x. I have come to the conclusion it's got to be an optical delusion.

 Now this is bugging me, what would you be shooting that any reticle would cover up the target?  I know it erks most, but I happen to like the super fine reticle @ 3x and the 'appearance' of a thicker reticle @ 12x..........Yea!

I used to have that same scope. They're pretty good.

My favorite FFP reticle is the Horus H-59. The thickest part of the reticle is .05 mil. I like to holdover and holdoff a lot with it.

Here's some picks of the reticle on a IOR 6x24x56 FFP scope on different magnifications. The reticle is .1 mil thick. For hunting it's not a bad reticle but for target shooting it wouldn't be my first choice. Say I was benchrest shooter, using this scope and aiming at a little 1/8th dot, the .1 mil thick dot covers .36" at 100Y so it would obscure what I'd be trying to aim at. Conversely the .1 mil dot would be good for big game hunting because it's thick and stands out more than most FFP reticles.

6x


10x


24x

[mista meener]

Yep, I know that full well.

FFP...Take a reticle thickness of .025 mil and put a FFP scope on 3x mag. It's going to be hard to make out isn't it?. Take a reticle with .1 mil thickness at 3x and it's still usable because you can still see it. These are examples but you and everyone else gets the point.

I'm estimating the reticle thickness on the BSA 4-14 is .07 mil, so it's still usable/ seeable at 4x but not to thick to obscure at 14x.

Yep, sorry bout that, I 'm on the same page now, but for clarity 'If the reticle just happens to cover tooo much at 14x, it'll still cover toooo much at 4x also.

 I have a 3-12x44 elite 4200 tactical, and can see all the mil-dots @ 3x (more like a fine duplex) and on 12x the reticle appears (big as a telephone pole, most will tell you from first time ever using FFP) big as does everything else inside the sight picture, all the while still only covering exactly the same as @ 3x. I have come to the conclusion it's got to be an optical delusion.

 Now this is bugging me, what would you be shooting that any reticle would cover up the target?  I know it erks most, but I happen to like the super fine reticle @ 3x and the 'appearance' of a thicker reticle @ 12x..........Yea!

I used to have that same scope. They're pretty good.

My favorite FFP reticle is the Horus H-59. The thickest part of the reticle is .05 mil. I like to holdover and holdoff a lot with it.

Here's some picks of the reticle on a IOR 6x24x56 FFP scope on different magnifications. The reticle is .1 mil thick. For hunting it's not a bad reticle but for target shooting it wouldn't be my first choice. Say I was benchrest shooter, using this scope and aiming at a little 1/8th dot, the .1 mil thick dot covers .36" at 100Y so it would obscure what I'd be trying to aim at. Conversely the .1 mil dot would be good for big game hunting because it's thick and stands out more than most FFP reticles.

6x


10x


24x

Its is a little confusing but what you have to understand the target and reticle size ratio remains the same on FFP as the power goes up or down. Look at your vertical post as it compares to the deers mid leg. the post and deer leg is the same width at all 3 pics you have. It has to be that way.

[steve123]

Yes that reticle will still be .1 mil thick no matter what mag the scope is on.

Now imagine if that reticle were 10 times smaller or .01 mil thick, the lighting conditions were dim, you were aiming into a shadow at a dark object and the scope was on 3 power. Said .01 thick mil reticle would be impossible to see right?

On the other extreme as a example you take that same .01 mil thick reticle with a FFP scope set at 50x in bright light and on a contrasting background. It is not only usable but is a very fine aiming point for a game such as benchrest.

The best compromise in reticle thickness for me is .05 mil, this on a 3-20 FFP and a 5-25 FFP. Getting a little hard to see on 3x, 4x no problem but just fine on 25x, well half as thick as in the pics in fact.

I sold a friend one of my BSA 4-14's just a few hours ago. We sighted it in and shot a 22rf tactical match together the rest of the day. It was fun because I showed him how to do a 2 shot sight in aiming at a rock on the berm 105Y away. First shot hit 4 mils right and 3 mils low as measured with the reticle. He dialed 4 mils left and 3 mils up for a hit on the 2cnd shot. He wanted his zero to be set at 50Y though. The ballistic program called for a 2.1 mil correction so we dialed down 2.1 mils which worked except for some windage correction which he measured and also adjusted for. Fun fun, easy peasy.



 

[supertech77]

i see what you mean, but at 3x, on the A.I.M scope, the dots and lines are super thin, and to see it better, i just turn on the illumination, and only the center dot at cross lights up.you still see the very fine lines but the aim point is all that's lit up and that helps us old farts with so so vision see the target better or i will zoom from there,i see you started at 6x, which really brings all into view ,all i know for sure is the scope i purchased cheap'' for a ffp scope works great,and i always lock the adjusters down,i use the dots to set up at different ranges,bottom line is its up to the poster of this thread to choose from which scope and at what cost they settle on, i wish you the best out come with what ever ffp scope you buy, 

[condor22]

I  am new to FFP scopes.but I know what i see ,the etched mil-dot/cross are very fine at 3x and as i zoom up all seems to get larger,but your right about the poi not changing,least that is how it works with this ffp etched 30mm 3x12x50mm scope,next time i go to a sport shop i will be looking at one of these expensive ffp scopes and see if it works different than this one..

 Well what did you find out, everything gets larger, the reticle remains to scale, so never covers more or less of the sight picture!