-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
why are all Swarovski scopes SFP if FFP is supposedly better?
- Thread starter pvc37
- Start date
Swarovski, as a high end European optics company, (in my opinion) creates their scopes for the elite hunting community. They do not consider the tactical market.
But kahles glass is junk compared to top of line swaro, why is this? I don't quite get it. If a k525i dlr had Z8i glass, it'd be a badass scope.
I can't say that I have looked through a Z8i so can't comment on how it compares. What do you find bad about Khales glass?
Last edited:
Those tactical scopes are for hooligans and have no place in civilized society.
Allegedly.
Allegedly.
Resolution isn't great, CA, image sharpness, colors arent that vibrant. There's nothing about their glass that stands out. I do love their turrets, LSW, ambi parallax, all the tension to their controls is perfect. But, put a kahles next to a mk5hd 5-25x56. 2k dollar scope looks noticeably better than a 3.8k scope. I have a few gen3 k624i for hunting as I love the excellent fov and depth of field, but the glass is bested by many.
Just get a minox / ZCO / TT if you want good glass
Don’t wonder about what idiocy corporate people like Leupold do , just find the correct solution and use it.
Fudds and their Swavorski. Smh.
Don’t wonder about what idiocy corporate people like Leupold do , just find the correct solution and use it.
Fudds and their Swavorski. Smh.
I mean I get that, but have you looked through a set of NL Pure binos? It's an amazing experience. Why can't they get something near that level of glass quality to Kahles for their scopes. I'd buy nothing else.
I've had a few swaros and they hold up better than most scopes. Swaros glass is hands down better than even SB, but what I am trying to understand is the SFP vs FFP. Wouldn't the glass clarity help with PID tactically. low light performance of the swaros is unparalleled.
I don't see the benefit for having a FFP scope vs better light transmission and optical clarity if that makes sense at all.
I don't see the benefit for having a FFP scope vs better light transmission and optical clarity if that makes sense at all.
Last edited:
Someone at Swarovski figures if they give Khales God tier glass then no one would buy, you know, a Swarovski.
Swaro is the pinnacle of binos and spotters. Their riflescopes while not terrible leave a lot to be desired.
Can you see a benefit to having a scope with variable magnification combined with a reticle that includes subtensions for wind and elevation?
Because the decision to go with a FFP vs SFP rifle scope has nothing at all to do with glass quality.
"Better" is a mighty subjective word. The context of why it is "better" for some might be the more important.
The answer is likely as simple as most hunters around the globe prefer SFP optics. Whether or not FFP or SFP is "better" is a topic that will never die and doesn't really matter.
Companies like Swaro and Leupold cater to what sells the most.
Mcdonald's knows their type of food is horrible for you. But millions (billions?) of people each year insist on buying it. So that's what they make.
Companies like Swaro and Leupold cater to what sells the most.
Mcdonald's knows their type of food is horrible for you. But millions (billions?) of people each year insist on buying it. So that's what they make.
ffp is "better" if you have to quickly engage multiple targets at various distances and magnification levels quickly without dialing the turrets,
sfp is simpler and less expensive.
sfp is simpler and less expensive.
I realize this in not a direct answer for the models that you guys are discussing, but for what it's worth in terms of glass quality, this is my experience with lots of hours in various weather conditions: Swaro EL binoculars are fantastic. IMO you can not buy better glass. But I've used some previous generation Swaro Habicht scopes and they were crap. Very poor light gathering, not sharp in daylight, no comparison to the better Zeiss lines like the good diavaris and V8s. I also have a few Kahles Helia C scopes, and compared to Zeiss they are not the brightest for light gathering at dusk, but their daylight performance is second to none. They are amazingly sharp and clear, and are very good quality glass, just not the best coatings. The S&B T96 and Klassik lines are on par with the better Zeiss, maybe a notch below, and the coatings on the T96 make the image wash out in bright daylight, and even dusk seems artificially hazy-bright compared to the sharp, clear image in a zeiss. Meopta is not alpha glass; even their R1 and R2 optics are not as good or even as bright as the 20-yr old Kahles Helia line.
I'd like to compare them; the problem is that you can't get a sense of comparison in a store or parking lot. I've looked through some Leupolds that seemed good in those conditions, but were absolute shit garbage under natural hunting conditions.
Swarovski owns Kahles, but Kahles is a separate division that doesn't necessarily share optical designs with Swaro.
I have EL Swarovisions and NL Pures, there’s zero difference in the glass. NL’s have a lot of advancements over the EL’s but glass quality isn’t one of them. A swaro rep even told me they get the same glass on both models.
When exactly did Swaro purchase Kahles? For years Swaro would not mention anything about Kahles and then a few years ago suddenly they are talking about warranty support and all that, but I do not remember a specific announcement ever made by Swaro (maybe because "tactical" is taboo amongst Europeans or rather European elites). If the actual acquisition wasn't until recent then it's possible Kahles designed the K525i and K318i before Swaro bought them, and it won't be until the next generation that we actually see more Swarovski influence in the design?
Get out the microfilm and go back to the 70s
I love it, I remember microfish
Brilliant, well then scratch my whole theory. So what changed with Swaro a few years ago finally admitting their relationship with Kahles, or am I delusional in remembering that as well.
I bought my Khales in 2014 or 15 and I remember the MHS Sales guy telling me that
Most hunting distances in Europe are usually within 200m so there was and is no need for FFP or mildot reticles in hunting scopes.
Last edited:
American LR shooters think the world be like it is, but it don't
Just ask Western Australia who now wants to ban rifles and cartridges that can be effective at long ranges... why, because of the potential to be used for criminal activity, even though there's not one case of a long range rifle used in a crime in that manner.
Pastoralists 'blindsided' by firearms act re-write after weapons cache discovery
The WA government and police say the discovery of a suburban weapons cache highlights the need for reform, but pastoralists and farmers are sceptical.
www.abc.net.au
Just ask Western Australia who now wants to ban rifles and cartridges that can be effective at long ranges... why, because of the potential to be used for criminal activity, even though there's not one case of a long range rifle used in a crime in that manner.
Pastoralists 'blindsided' by firearms act re-write after weapons cache discovery
The WA government and police say the discovery of a suburban weapons cache highlights the need for reform, but pastoralists and farmers are sceptical.
What in the actual FUCK?!!?
Do you even need a scope for 2-400 yards? I may have zero idea the benefit from a FFP scope in some situations. I find that I often crank up a magnification to PID (animal in my case - pig not a cow) and shoot.
You don't currently use a FFP optic do you?
Most think it's silly until they use one. Then they rarely buy a SFP ever again.
You can have optical clarity and light transmission with either reticle system. The only reason FFP is different than SFP is where they put the reticle in the scope design.
In a match setting, there's no reason to ever use a SFP. It'll just create errors, or force you to dial every shot. You may as well use a fixed power since your sub-tensions will change with the magnification. (I know, as I tried exactly 1 match with a vortex hst with the SFP mil reticle, and promptly sold it.)
I will run some stages on 5x, some on 12-16x, and some on 25x. Because of this a SFP would make a very poor choice.
I have 1 hunting rifle left with an old Sightron SII 3-12 SFP mil-dot. It's only accurate at 12x. It may as well have a switch rather than a progressive selection as I only use it on 3x for walking, or 12x for anything past the 200 yard zero.
I used that scope to take a doe last year on a cloudy, rainy day 5 minutes before the end of shooting light. She was 180 yards and I couldn't see her with my eyes, but easily could through that 20 year old optic. So no, irons are not going to cut it on my hunting rifles.
They will come for ours eventually too you know. It WILL happen.Just ask Western Australia who now wants to ban rifles and cartridges that can be effective at long ranges... why, because of the potential to be used for criminal activity, even though there's not one case of a long range rifle used in a crime in that manner.
Pastoralists 'blindsided' by firearms act re-write after weapons cache discovery
The WA government and police say the discovery of a suburban weapons cache highlights the need for reform, but pastoralists and farmers are sceptical.
Would be afraid if I was a buttfucking quitter....
They will "try", and I think some of the stupid stuff we see happening (like the pistol brace issue) is testing the waters. But I think they played their hand too early with 2020 and it's woken up (awake but not woke) a lot of people who were asleep politically.
Oh I do not live in fear. Death comes for us all, we do not know our time, so live life accordingly!
yes. bc i use my eotech EXPS 3-0 (unmagnified) on my 5.56 using a 14.5 P&W with JP flash hider and make consistent hits on a full size IDPA steel target out to 400 yrds. and I have used my 2nd open leaf sights on my Sako L85 Bavarian 7mm mag to make hits past 400 yards. I do like the field of view that is not sucked into the tube. you just need to know your PBZ and your drops. obviously you have PID the target before your finger gets near the trigger.
Sounds like a frame of reference thing, both in terms of what you're doing (shooting rather large targets) and the fact that not all of us have young eyes anymore.
How about shooting at something significantly smaller than a full sized IPSC silhouette? Can you consistently hit a 8" plate at 400 with the 5.56 + unmagnified EOTech, or open sighted Sako 7 mag?
And if you're talking about ethical hunting, the vitals on many game animals are going to be closer in size to an 8-10 inch round plate than to an 18"x30" IPSC target.
Last edited:
I've always thought this was a good field test of my first shot cold bore skills, can I consistently hit a plate the diameter of the kill zone of the game I intend to shoot at varying distances and conditions, this lets me know what I'm capable of with a given setup. When you first get to the range, setup your plate at a distance you think will be a challenge, very first shot get setup like you would in the field, get your solution and take the shot. Was it a hit, if so do this a couple more times (making sure bore is cold), if I am consistent then move the plate out further and repeat.
Not me. I went to FFP because everyone says it’s so much better, but I hate it and went back to SFP. I also do not care about competition match shooting. FFP may indeed be better for that but it in my opinion I hate a reticle that shrinks into a blob when dialing down and then gets so large on full power will be a distraction.
So you never hold elevation for anything?
I hunt with mainly ffp because it's a lot harder to make a mistake on a hold just because power doesn't change it.
Which ffp reticle did you try? There are some horrible ones out there. (For instance I really hate all the Athlon ones, but a mill-xt is awesome.)
I do hold for elevation and windage with SFP. I just am either dialed all the up or at half power and double my hold.
If my 20X SFP scope is accurate at 20x then at 10x my subtensions are doubled.
1 mil at 20x is 2mil at 10x
I know it does take thinking and double checking which in stress and in a hurry becomes a hindrance as you don’t want any extra thinking to have to do, but it works for me. In competition this would never fly but I don’t compete.
I will say I agree that I do like the mil-xt reticle as will as the Mil-C
I have a mark5HD in PR1-Mil and it’s great on mid to high power but no good on low with my eyes
If my 20X SFP scope is accurate at 20x then at 10x my subtensions are doubled.
1 mil at 20x is 2mil at 10x
I know it does take thinking and double checking which in stress and in a hurry becomes a hindrance as you don’t want any extra thinking to have to do, but it works for me. In competition this would never fly but I don’t compete.
I will say I agree that I do like the mil-xt reticle as will as the Mil-C
I have a mark5HD in PR1-Mil and it’s great on mid to high power but no good on low with my eyes
Not everyone's vision can do that
Not every environmental condition will let you do that
Smacking steel anywhere on the plate isn't even remotely the same as delivering a humane, ethical kill shot on a sentient animal.
Similar threads
