I’m going to start by quoting form the OP…
“I'm primarily a hunter but I like to target shoot at longer range for the challenge and to become more proficient. While I personally wouldn't shoot at game farther than 500 yards, being able to hit targets at 1000 yards builds confidence. Below are my requirements for what I feel is the perfect hunting scope but I can't seem to find it.
Ok, lets break that down.
Hunter, got it.
Shots out of 500 yards on game possible, got it.
Target shooter, got it.
Make hits out to 1000 yards on targets.
Practice, presumably at intermediate distances, add in some pressure, maybe? A timer? Targets at multiple distances? Hmm, sounds eerily familiar…
I like how you managed too argue both sides of the toss in a single post, yet offer no reason why FFP is better in a hunting scope.
As you said your self, most hunting is done between 50 and 200 yards, in which case you don't need to touch the turrets or hold wind "just point and shoot". So SFP is at no disadvantage, but has a big advantage at low light and set to the lowest magnification.
Anything after 200yards you will likely have the scope set to the highest setting, maybe not if you have a 5-25 scope but as the OP is wanting 10-15 on the high end, the chances are highly likely.
When target shooting 500-1000yards, unless mirage is so bad you could cut it with a knife, you will be shooting on max magnification if that is between 10x and 15x.
As the OP said;
A, this is predominately a hunting scope and long range shooting is a secondary requirement, and
B, he hasn't found a FFP reticle he likes for a hunting scope
Then despite what shooting you do, the OP is more likely to find a SFP scope to fit his requirements than a FFP scope, especially considering the price range he is looking at.
Out of interest which FFP scope would you recommend he buy under $1000 for a hunting rifle?
Yes, from 50-200 yards a
SFP is not at a disadvantage because you are within the max point blank range for any reasonable hunting cartridege. “Not at a disadvantage at close range” is not the same thing as superior. And, please look at the requirements of the OP again. 500 yards on game and out to 1000 on static targets- or maybe movers too- we don’t know.
As to low light, light gathering is a function of magnification, glass, and objective diameter. And, as I said in my post… “Maybe it's just my 40 year old eyes, but I've also found that
if it's too dark to see the reticle it's beyond legal shooting light- except for pigs and such. And if
I'm hunting that early or late, I'm taking different gear.”All of the serious pig hunters that I have ever encountered have specialized night hunting rigs- primarily night vision and/or thermal. These also operate within that window of less than 200 yards, so whether they are SFP or FFP is of less concern than whether they can pick out the target at night. If you are a serious pig hunter you will likely have a dedicated night rig.
For sub-$1000, I would go with the Vortex viper PST 4-16 MOA with ERB-1 Reticle. In fact, that is what I did. Illuminated. Exposed elevation turret, zero stop, Adjustable parallax, ranging hash marks in both elevation and windage, MSRP is less than $1000 and I found mine in the Cabela’s bargain cave for $679.
If I were to do it again, I would get the ERB-2C reticle in MRAD, because I prefer the Christmas tree reticle and the MRAD adjustments.
hlee, hunting is about putting meat in the freezer is it not? Not a single shot I've taken at Pronghorn here in WY has been less than 300 yards. Technology affords us the ability to harvest animals at longer distances while making it an ethical kill. But I guess punching my tag every year and having meat in the freezer isn't "real hunting".
In 2019, putting meat in the freezer is substantially easier and cheaper by going down to the local grocery store and picking up a package wrapped in Styrofoam and cellophane… Hell, I can buy “wild game” for less than I can shoot it. No, today, hunting is about recreation. Plenty of people stick pronghorns with arrows every year. An exceptional shooter can hit his/her target from a specified range. An exceptional hunter can get within “halitosis range.” Shooting is hitting a target. Hunting is getting close to that target.
So you end your argument with this:
They're just inferior to FFP scopes
After saying this:
"Outside of a "DMR"..."
"...except for pigs and such..."
"The vast majority (all?) of my hunting shots have come between 50 and 200 yards. At those ranges pretty much any scope will do."
"LPVOs excepted"
"I'd consider a SFP scope for point blank to 200..."
I dont think we should debate anymore.
No, I ended by saying...
Outside of a "DMR" with a necessity for shots at what Peter Capstick called "halitosis range" I have found FFP scopes to be superior to SFP scopes- especially as the OP specified shooting out to 1000 yards, and up to 500 on game.
After saying...
"The vast majority (all?) of my hunting shots have come between 50 and 200 yards. At those ranges pretty much any scope will do, because I'm well within the max point blank range for the caliber- just point and shoot, so to speak. I got along well for quite a while with a 3-9x Leupold VariXii. But,
if I'm taking a hurried shot, I don't want to think about magnification. Just pull the gun up, hold the elevation and wind, and put one on target."
The OP specified shooting game out to 500 and targets out to 1000 yards. The part about 50-200 is merely a nod to the fact that a SFP scope can get the job done if it must- but it is not ideal for the OPs specified use.
I also said...
"but my experience has been that
"if you're holding for elevation you will be at max power anyway" doesn't hold water most of the time (LPVOs excepted)."
The OP is not looking for a LPVO, and I guess I just assumed everyone knows that they major advantage of a FFP scope is that the ranging reticle is valid at any magnification. In a hunting situation, where game is moving at variable distances, worrying about whether I'm at the right magnification
Yeah, you’re right we should not debate anymore. You can't quote and I'm not sure you're sufficiently literate to understand a complex argument.
