FFP reticles are not too small.
orkan last edited by
I took this picture as a counter-argument to uninformed people proclaiming that FFP reticles are only usable up toward max magnification.
Just a moment ago I went outside with a TT525P which is a 5-25x56 optic with the GenIIXR reticle. I snapped this picture at 8X magnification while targeting my 300yd berm. In the foreground you can see the 100yd berm. The image looks 10x better in person on this dark overcast day than my camera is able to capture.
To put it plainly, the concept that you can not use FFP optics at low magnifications is a myth. The 8X magnification this picture was shot at is not anywhere near max magnification, but rather very slightly over minimum magnification. It is plain to see that the reticle is still quite useful.
The fish eye effect, blury reticle as well as image, and the out of focus 100yd berm are all effects generated by my camera. None are present during actual use of the rifle scope. I can not over-state just how poor the image above looks compared to the actual experience when behind the rifle scope. Yet despite this fact, it is plain to see that even on a very dark overcast day, against a very cluttered background, the reticle is still very functional at low magnification.
rhyno last edited by
The debate is contradictory.
It's to small on the low end
It's to thick on the high end
Anyone that can think logically know that it's the same size at all magnications in relation to the target.
dddoo7 last edited by
I shot my deer this year at about 75 yards and about 110 yards. Both were shot at 5x's magnification with the same as above scope. I didn't have any problems seeing the reticle or dropping the two deer.