Looking for advice on a ffp hunting scope. Will be on a 300wm. Just curious what everyone is running. Looking at an ATACR 4-16x42 in Mil-C. Open to any suggestions. Thanks Brent
Rifle Scopes FFP Lightweight hunting scope options/opinions
- Thread starter brentwinkey
- Start date
Leupold Mk5’s are pretty nice too, not too heavy either.
Curious... why set on FFP vs. SFF?
I was originally set on the FFP until i tried a Swarovski hunting scopes (Z8i).
I was originally set on the FFP until i tried a Swarovski hunting scopes (Z8i).
For hunting, I've been using a Bushnell LRHS 4.5-18. It weighs 26 oz. I think that's comparable to the other scopes named.
I guess I'm so use to ffp now I've pretty much eliminated all my sfp scopes besides for a few plinking guns. I just sold both of my Leupold vx-6's so I'm just hunting around for glass for my 300wm hunting rifle. I'll definitely take a look at that Swarovski. I did have a kahles for a little while so I can appreciate there glass.
I just sold my nx8...I like it but I couldn't get the eye box to work for me...seems like everything I tried I couldn't get use to it. Idk maybe it was just me. Maybe the 2.5-20 is better?
Last edited:
I have no issues with the eye box on magnifications I use for anything not paper. It’s actually pretty good below 24 or so.
I'll definitely agree with you on the parallax. Had my 4-32 on my vudoo and I was always fighting/adjusting it.
The best is probably between Tangent Theta 3-15x50 H or M and March 3-24x42 or 3-24x52. I have the 52mm March and TT315M and like them a lot. 52mm March is a couple of ounces heavier than the 42mm, but I am OK with it. It is still lighter that just about every other crossover scope out there and I like the improvement in low light performance.
None of these are cheap though.
The best bang for the buck is probably either one of the LRHS scopes from Doug or SWFA SS 3-9x42. I have a couple of these and like them a lot.
ILya
None of these are cheap though.
The best bang for the buck is probably either one of the LRHS scopes from Doug or SWFA SS 3-9x42. I have a couple of these and like them a lot.
ILya
Another benefit with the XTR III is the huge FOV, if you like the reticles and don’t mind not having illumination you’d be hard pressed to find a better FFP scope in its class. If you need more magnification then the Vortex AMG is stellar. Don’t let the 6x fool you as it has very generous FOV.
I went with the Eotech vudu 5x25x50. I put this on a PH2 in 300 pr 28oz very very short length.. Eye box is stupid good. Reticle is illuminated and very clean. I wanted a simple reticle as I can dial with easy to 1k to shoot an animal. I run minox zp5, Burris xtr2 and this is a very small in size, light and pretty decent glass.
I had a 4-16x42. Good scope but I ended up swapping it out for a 3-20x ultrashort, just wanted a little more magnification
I love the 3-20 Ultra Shorts, and the MSR/MSR2 reticles make great crossover long range/hunting reticles, and even better option (optically IMO) is the ZCO ZC420 with MPCT1 reticle. I have heard nothing but great things about the Nightforce ATACR 4-16x42, my only thought with that is if you plan to do low light hunting the 42mm objective may become a limitation, NF also makes the 4-16x50 but some don't like the turrets as much as the 42mm locking version. If you're looking to save a little money the Steiner P4Xi 4-16x56 has a large 56mm objective and the SCR reticle is going to be similar to MSR and MPCT1 in that at low magnification it looks like a duplex. Yes the P4Xi is not going to be at the same level as the Schmidt and ZCO and not even the XTR III most likely but it's also considerably cheaper, contact Doug at Cameralandny as he's the only one selling them I believe.
My .300 WM is already so heavy the scope choice won’t make a difference (I carry it with a biathlon sling),...so I run a Razor HD II.
For general hunting I much prefer a 2nd focal plane so the reticle isn’t stupid small on the lowest power, but this .300WM is purpose built for LR hunting from a blind.
For general hunting I much prefer a 2nd focal plane so the reticle isn’t stupid small on the lowest power, but this .300WM is purpose built for LR hunting from a blind.
The Leupold MK5. Its super light for what it is, has great glass, and the turrets work great.
I have just recently bought a 3-12 LRTS FDE and a 4.5-18 LRTS FDE specifically for hunting
I agree that Leupold could work on their reticent options, but the CCH isn't bad at all for hunting.
Another vote for Mk5. I put one on a sheep rig I built for a buddy of mine. He’s very happy with it.
Holy crap, I totally missed that! For some reason I thought I remembered them being ffp
I know I suggested Leupold MK5 above but I just snagged a Bushnell LRTS 4.5-18x44, couldn’t pass up the price. This will be going on my Hells Canyon Armory 6.5PRC when I get it back from the Smith.
March 3-24-42, excellent scope for this purpose. Probably one of the best for a hunting rifle taht sees range use. clean uncluttered reticle thats plenty thick at low mags but not too bad at full mag. Light weight, excellent glass, clean turrets with great zero stop. They're very short and slim, so no extra bulk on the top of your rig. I use one on my 300WM carbon barreled SAKO TRG-S and it's everything I could want in a hunting scope.
Thank you sir...I was concerned about the reticle at low power...I'm definitely leaning towards a March the more looking/research I do. Thanks Brent
The way they make it with the thicker sides helps a lot, really leads your eye in to the center if you were shooting quickly at low power. I don't feel like I'm missing anything at 3x, and it has a great FOV.
The March 3-24x52 is a very impressive scope for how lightweight it is. The FML-1 is usable at 3x even and the tapered outer stadia really direct your eye to center.
Please do NOT use the below images as an example of IQ, these through the scope images were taken with my DSLR only to show reticle, the image was much better than these pics show, the 3-24x52 has very impressive glass.
Awesome thank you sir. Definitely helps my decision making. I'm looking more to the 42mm objective to keep it as low/compact of a package as possible. What's ur view on the 42vs 52? Thanks
I've had both and I much prefer the 52mm version, the main reason is that it is more forgiving with regard to eyebox and provides a much "brighter" view throughout which I prefer. Just my 2 cents though.
I agree...now I'm just hoping I can find a good used one possibly on the for sale forums.
About the 3-24x42 March scopes...I have heard the parallax is a bit touchy. Has that been any one elses experience? How does that compare to the 52? I had decided to save for one until I heard that and it shifted me back in to research mode.
Almost all the high magnification short body scopes suffer from finicky parallax. My experience between the 42mm and 52mm is that the 52mm is a better but still a bit finicky. The new Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50 is even more so, very touchy with parallax and even worse (than March) with eyebox. It's not until you get into the S&B Ultra Short 3-20 for a high magnification optic that you see an improvement. If you keep the erector to 6x or below and don't try to make the scope super short then you tend to have more forgiveness in the DOF, eyebox and parallax area. Don't get me wrong, the March is an incredible scope for an 8x FFP design, but there are some compromises to get all that. The NF ATACR 4-16 is going to be more forgiving in this area, but it is also a 4x scope.
Final thought, March is coming out with a new 4.5-28x52 scope later this year, this is a 6.22x erector in a short body but with a wide angle eyepiece that offers greater FOV at 4.5x than the NF ATACR 4-16 does at 4x. This scope was designed specifically to alleviate some of the finickyness of the 8x erector designs March as been known for. If March really nails the design on this one, I can see it replacing some of my ultra shorts and my long scopes.
Mach 3-24x52 that I have is a crossover scope. What that means to me is that I use it below 15x most of the time. I only dial up when I have a nice stable position and for that, the slightly finicky eye position does not matter. At lower magnifications, as exit pupil gets bigger and depth of field greater, it is reasonably forgiving. That's the price to pay for the magnification range.
ILya
ILya
That's an excellent way of looking at it.
We shoot KYL targets to know our limits within the confines of our rifles' (and our own) capabilities, we also ought to know our limits on the scopes we choose. If you are expecting an 8x erector scope to compete against a 4x erector scope at the same price point you're probably going to be disappointed. Will a March 3-24 perform as well at 24x as a high end 6-24, probably not, and will the March 3-24 perform as well at 3x as a high end 3-12, again, probably not, but the March fulfills both magnification ranges in one scope and that is something neither of the 4x high end scopes can do (or even the 5x), that has to be considered.
Thats is great information. How then do you feel the new March 5x-42x56mm places in the line up in the mix with an 8.4 mag erector of all the previously mentioned scopes for the OP? Same principles I would think? But where does it shine other than having the really good glass? Does it also suffer from touchy parallax?
It is a new design, so it is more forgiving than older ones, but it is still shakier depth of field than high quality scopes with lower erector ratios.
The outstanding features of the 5-42x56 are as follows: freakishly good optical performance especially at the center across the whole mag range, very wide FOV, exceptional new turrets, very compact for what it does.
ILya
Sorry I dont want to seem like im hijaking your thread. ILya- better or worse parallax than the 3-24x52?
Guys,
Great info.
But I believe we need to stop focusing on minimum magnification numbers, as this is where I see almost all reviews falling down when discussing light FFP with good subtensions, as crossover scopes.
I do not care if the scope is 3X or 5X at the low end; if and when I am, and I am sure others are looking for a relatively low bottom power, we are actually looking for increased FOV.
For instance, I really want to love the MK 5HD, but when I am using low power, I am usually at a very close range, close enough that holdovers aren't in play, but if an animal starts to move, I want enough FOV to easily deal with it.
Here is an example of a couple of my scopes:
Vortex PST GenII 3-15 28.0oz Field of View 41.2-8.6 ft/100 yds
ZCO 4-27 38.0oz Field of View 21.0-4.5 ft/100 yds (example of how at almost the same mag level only 1/2 the FOV is provided)
PMII Ulta 3-12 32.0oz Field of View 39.0-6.1 ft/100 yds (sold this)
Mark 5HD 3.6-18x44 26.0oz Field of View 28.4-5.6 ft/100 yds (sold this)
Mach 3-24x52 23.5oz Field of View 35.0-4.3 ft/100 yds
Obviously, I am comparing a $900 scope to a $2,600 scope; but knowing what the FOV is and how important it is not only to quickly find and animal in the scope at close range under time pressure but also to track a walking animal is key in determining the best scope. I am in no way saying the PST is better; just wish the reviewers and MFGs paid more attention to low-end FOV.
The take away for me with a FFP, if you're ok with a low power setting either vignetting or otherwise not providing a great FOV, maybe you're better off looking at a higher low-end magnification scope that provides the same FOV. If scope A has a 35' FOV at 3x, but another has 35' FOV at 5 or 6x, what are you really gaining by dropping to 3x? The S&B PMII 5-25 had this issue for years. 5x gave no better FOV than about 8x, it just vignetted.
Here is a representative example I drew. The grey represents the FOV angle based on the example with the largest FOV ~ I hope this makes sense.
Last edited:
Better. It is, however, heavier and more expensive.
Both are very good scopes. I spent some time looking at them side-by-side.
ILya
I think I know what you meant, but there are a few issues with what you are postulating here so it is quite misleading.
Generally, both FOV and low end magnification are important. For example, on the 3-24x52 March, I almost only use 3x when I am shooting offhand. For that, lower magnification is important because it looks steadier and helps me see and shoot better.
In your specific examples, there are a few errors. For example, ZCO is a 5-27x, not 4-27x, so in your example of how it is half the FOV of the PST Gen2 at "almost the same magnification". 3x and 5x are not close to the same magnification level (and neither are 3x and 4x for that matter). Magnification is multiplicative, so there difference between 3x and 5x is the same as between 6x and 10x or 12x and 20x, i.e, ~66.67%.
Then there is your example of a 3x scope with 21 ft at 100 yds FOV. That's just nonsense. I am not aware of any high quality scope with FOV that narrow. Maybe there is some very long eyerelief design that is like that, but I can't recall one offhand.
Same strawman argument with your example of a 6x scope with 35 ft at 100yard FOV. I am not aware of any conventional riflescope designs with FOV like that. To get that kind of FOV with typical eye relief of around 3.5", you would have to have an eyepiece of around 3 inches in diameter.
The concept you seem to be trying to convey is something called Apparent FOV, which is simply real FOV multiplied by magnification.
When people talk about eyepiece having certain FOV, like the March 5-42x mentioned earlier having 26 degree FOV, that is what they mean. 26 degree is pretty much the highest I have seen yet with conventional scopes and to go higher you will either end up having a larger eyepiece or short eye relief. There is no free lunch.
I posted a video on this subject a few days ago:
ILya
Similar threads
