Rifle Scopes A rant about poor focal plane, dial limit and reticle data on scope brand websites

[SageRatSafaris]

Lately, I've been collecting data from manufacturer (and reseller) websites about scope specs, and I want to rant about my frustrations.

* Focal plane is an essential specification. Most brands simply say nothing about focal plane on many of their scopes, and by the absence of information, readers are to infer the reticle is in the second focal plane. I really like how March provides a page of FFP scopes to pick from - everyone should do it that way!

* Dial limits should be disclosed. The Leupold VX3i LRP FFP 4.5-14X50 has 110 MOA of elevation adjustment, but the elevation dial only spins to 75 MOA. If you put a 30 MOA base under it, you can only dial up 75 MOA of the "available" 85 MOA of up travel. Likewise, the Vortex Razor HD Gen II 3-18X50 has 120 MOA of elevation travel, but the Razor HD Gen 2 dials are limited to 71 MOA up. Even with just a standard 20 MOA base, the dial will be the limit.

* Where are the reticle subtension diagrams? Leupold has a neat looking CCH FFP mrad reticle, but the best they have on their website is a thumbnail. SIG's DEV-L reticles look cool, but the Tango 4 4-14X44 page only has a itty bitty thumbnail. Would you buy a car without seeing the interior? I want subtension documentation!

/rant

 

[SubOptimal]

Everything you seek is probably in the user manual for any particular scope. Naturally the manual may be more comprehensive for the tactical scopes one the hunting scope.
Now, if we could only get the various scope manufacturers to make their user manuals available on their web sites.

 

[SageRatSafaris]

Now, if we could only get the various scope manufacturers to make their user manuals available on their web sites.

I found many user manuals; they never say “This scope is second focal plane” unless website already did, nor ever disclose dial limits, but they often have some sort of reticle diagram...but not always. Leupold for example has a TMR-series reticle manual, but omits the CCH FFP mil-tree reticle.

 

[SubOptimal]

Maybe a little interpretation of the manual will help. Usually, on a second focal plane scope, they will specify a magnification setting at which the reticle will read accurately.

 

[patriot07]

I agree that some brands do a really poor job of providing subtension info. I assume those guys aren't really catering to people who are interested in that info, so I move on to brands that do provide that info readily.

 

[SageRatSafaris]

Funny thing is Leupold has released the CCH FFP subtensions (I found it here on the hide), but somehow doesn't think it's worth putting on their website.

Link to Leupold CCH FFP subtensions:


What you can actually find on Leupold.com:
https://www.leupold.com/reticles/reticle-ffp-cch-177

 

[snarkscarbine]

Lately, I've been collecting data from manufacturer (and reseller) websites about scope specs, and I want to rant about my frustrations.

* Focal plane is an essential specification. Most brands simply say nothing about focal plane on many of their scopes, and by the absence of information, readers are to infer the reticle is in the second focal plane. I really like how March provides a page of FFP scopes to pick from - everyone should do it that way!

* Dial limits should be disclosed. The Leupold VX3i LRP FFP 4.5-14X50 has 110 MOA of elevation adjustment, but the elevation dial only spins to 75 MOA. If you put a 30 MOA base under it, you can only dial up 75 MOA of the "available" 85 MOA of up travel. Likewise, the Vortex Razor HD Gen II 3-18X50 has 120 MOA of elevation travel, but the Razor HD Gen 2 dials are limited to 71 MOA up. Even with just a standard 20 MOA base, the dial will be the limit.

* Where are the reticle subtension diagrams? Leupold has a neat looking CCH FFP mrad reticle, but the best they have on their website is a thumbnail. SIG's DEV-L reticles look cool, but the Tango 4 4-14X44 page only has a itty bitty thumbnail. Would you buy a car without seeing the interior? I want subtension documentation!

/rant

Leupold and Sig Optics are two of the worst offenders. Utterly useless websites. Sig can't even seem to figure out what specs go with what scope. See below.

 

[SageRatSafaris]

Mixing MOA reticle with MRAD dial, or FFP reticle with SFP scope? Or both? The last two are discontinued, wonder why?

 

[PinesAndProjectiles]

Leupold's website has to be one of the worst.

 

[jakelly]

Funny thing is Leupold has released the CCH FFP subtensions (I found it here on the hide), but somehow doesn't think it's worth putting on their website.

Well in Leupold’s defense, they don’t usually incorporate technical data or mechanical specs into their marketing.

 

[hypno02]

Asking Leupold to publish subtension data is like asking Trump if he colluded with Russia.

 

[flyer]

I guess that means Leupold will honestly tell you that they don't publish reticle information...

 

[WShirah]

Everything you seek is probably in the user manual for any particular scope. Naturally the manual may be more comprehensive for the tactical scopes one the hunting scope.
Now, if we could only get the various scope manufacturers to make their user manuals available on their web sites.

I'm running a VX3I LRP 4.5-14x50mm w/ the CCH (on one of my Mk12's). I can verify that there is no reticle info to be had on the Leupold website or in the single page manual that came with the scope.

 

[shoobe01]

Not just scope makers by a wide margin. Almost everything I shop for (and a lot of places I work) they make some cool product, which is related to other products, fits a niche, etc. and... they won't tell anyone about it.

They clearly spent months or years specifying it, getting approval from executives to make it, doing R&D, setting up manufacturing, etc. etc. And then cannot get a photo on the website. Won't tell anyone the most basic specs. Half the time I say I just want the stupid Marketing department Powerpoint explaining how their products are organized, because the website is crap, and I'll be damned if I can figure out what to buy from this list of 130 seemingly-identical (say) scope rings.

I might give them a pass if sales and marketing were poor, underfunded departments, but everywhere I have ever worked there are 2 marketing or product management weenies for every engineer. I work for them. I do their work sometimes (on contract) and I still don't know what they do all day because it's not the job we want from them, dammit.

 

[plidenbrock]

Preach it, brother.

I agree completely. When you contact some of these scope companies for some of this missing info (for example turret vs internal travel limits) the people who work there that are supposed to know the answers are often times more clueless than their customers!

 

[ZG47A]

Leupold are also capable of providing completely false information when you make a direct query. I have one of their Euro scopes, failed to download reticle data at the time, asked later, was supplied with obvious false info and eventually sussed it out myself. Just like Hornady, they obviously employ idle morons to answer some customer queries. Family companies are only as good as the family’s commitment to standards across the organisation!

And yes, I agree that too many companies still believe that pretty website pages are more important than quality information that satisfies customers AND saves tens of thousands of dollars spent on helpdesk personnel.

 

[308pirate]

Something like 99% of their customers don't care about any of that stuff you guys are ranting about.

Sorry.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Yep, you need to contact them and ask for the diagram.

 

[Baron23]

Forgive me for raising a dead thread, but in case anyone else googles CCH reticle and comes across this thread, I wanted to add that they may not have had it up in 2018, but is certainly on their site now. But, I don't disagree that their site leaves much to be desired....e.g. look for a torque spec on Mark IV rings....the ring screws, not the pic attachment. Yeah...its in the doc with the rings but nowhere on their site to this day.

https://cdnp.leupold.com/content/documents/88956_ffp_cch_reticle_spec_sheet_190422_070639.pdf?mtime=20191118070836

 

[ofelas]

1-900-KOSHKIN & done.

 

[erwos]

It's funny that you guys are bagging on Leupy, because I think the king of "great scopes, terrible website" is Sig. Like half their information up there is from their gen 1 scopes, and I don't even remember seeing a subtension document for the gen2 or 6T scopes.

 

[LeftyJason]

It's funny that you guys are bagging on Leupy, because I think the king of "great scopes, terrible website" is Sig. Like half their information up there is from their gen 1 scopes, and I don't even remember seeing a subtension document for the gen2 or 6T scopes.

Thread is 2 years old.