Why no compact nightforce FFP?

[Sandstrom]

I have one of the 3-15 NXS in FFP and I’ll never get rid of it even though I don’t love the reticle. Still a stellar optic

What reticle do you have?

 

[sierracharlie338]

What reticle do you have?

It’s the old MLR reticle I believe. Similar to mildot but lines instead of dots. Is it usable sure, could it be better yep.

 

[Beetroot]

I don't really care if its 3x, 4x, 5x erector, as long as its the compact size body/weight in FFP.

I was going to say I don't think 3x scopes would sell these days. But then I remembered the 3-9 SWFA is permanently on back order...

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

I was going to say I don't think 3x scopes would sell these days. But then I remembered the 3-9 SWFA is permanently on back order...

NXS is all 4x I believe, so while 2.5-10 is absolutely usable it could easily be 3-12, 4-16, etc I would assume. There may be limitations on image quality at higher magnification in the scope size? But as a baseline 2.5-10 is perfectly acceptable imho.

 

[Beetroot]

NXS is all 4x I believe, so while 2.5-10 is absolutely usable it could easily be 3-12, 4-16, etc I would assume. There may be limitations on image quality at higher magnification in the scope size? But as a baseline 2.5-10 is perfectly acceptable imho.

I agree 2.5-10 is a good spot to be, realistically 3-9 is barely any less capable but a 3x mag range just seems antiquated in 2023.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

I agree 2.5-10 is a good spot to be, realistically 3-9 is barely any less capable but a 3x mag range just seems antiquated in 2023.

And yet folks want them swfa’s cause no one else makes a robust compact ffp scope. If only another brand with all the knowledge, skills, product ability, etc. stepped up…

 

[FLS]

No need to reinvent the wheel. Just put a decent reticle in the NXS 2-10 and 3 -15 And 4-16 ATACR.
The FFP NXSs were discontinued when their more expensive lines came out. Planned obsolescence.

 

[BAKPAKR]

No need to reinvent the wheel. Just put a decent reticle in the NXS 2-10 and 3 -15 And 4-16 ATACR.

I would be perfectly happy with an NXS Compact 2.5-10 that had a decent hunting reticle AND a low profile capped windage dial.* I suspect a lot of other hunters would be, too.

* I am a lefty and the windage dial on the SWFA digs into my side when in the gunbearer.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

A good SFP reticle seems prone to screw ups cause its different measurements at every magnification, hence not a big draw in my mind (and others). No one is saying ditch the SFP options, just show ffp sonnet love.

Yeah the current swfa is clunky! Hopefully the revamp polishes those aspects a bit.

 

[Shortschaf]

No one is saying ditch the SFP options, just show ffp sonnet love.

Ditch em! Any perceived shortcomings about FFP are remedied by good reticle design IMO.

Good to remember that scopes have come a long way. Right now you can pick up 5 or 6 decent options in every budget range that are all FFP, MIL ret, & with MIL turrets that track pretty well. 15 years ago there seemed to be 5 options across the board.

Looking at all the serious optics that get released as of late, the FFP appear to outnumber the SFP greatly (or am I just ignoring the SFP?). I think in another 10-15 years FFP will continue to dominate even more. With that, hopefully comes this NF 2.5-10 as well as better reticles/more options by other brands.

 

[JCMCUBIC]

The only FFP NXS scopes that I'm aware of were all 3.5-15x50. One I use is my favorite scope for shooting and is workable for hunting, the reticle is one of NF's better designs, the MLR2.0...but it's a large, heavy scope, and I've never shot a game animal with it over 10x. I'd love a FFP 2.5-10 but I'm doubtful it will happen. Without changing the reticles in the current 2.5-10 options, FFP would be unusable on the lower powers.

If NF would make an NX4, 3-12x42 line with a THLR reticle, ~22 oz or less, built to the NXS standard, I'd be leaving puddles like an excited puppy.

 

[Alex Genereux]

I do understand the need/want for a ffp scope and it definitely would me wind holds easier. One thing that is nice about sfp scopes is nice reticle on low power and you can still hold for wind at less than full power. For instance on my 2.5-10 at 5 power just double the wind hold and at 2.5 just 4x it.

 

[Mike D Texas]

For those wanting a NF 2.5-10 in FFP, Trijicon makes something close - https://www.trijicon.com/products/details/cr1036-c-2900038
It's got a mil tree that's quite busy though.

I was leaning toward one of these for an upcoming Tikka 223 compact I have coming but after handling one last weekend, the turrets are horribly mushy, so much so that it’s no longer a consideration for me.

Yes it’s a sample of one but……


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Macintosh]

I think a LOT fewer people would be looking for 2nd focal plane scopes if there were good reticle options for FFP scopes. The reasons people are adamant about 2fp scopes really isnt based on anything inherent about 2fp versus ffp, but it has everything to do with the design choices of scope companies to almost completely ignore mainstream hunters in their FFP reticle options.
Also, regarding a 9 or 10x 2fp scope with a hashed reticle--I personally find them much easier to use in a scope with no more magnification than 10x becasue at max power--the only definitive "stop" on the mag ring that is possible without looking and carefully putting it in place--it is still wide-enough a field of view to be useful at any kind of range where you need to use the reticle. It's an acceptable compromise when you are forced to settle for a 2fp scope, not some sort of ideal.
Yes, it is possible to use one at half-power, etc, but that will NEVER, ever be as good for ANYONE because you have to come off the gun to check exactly where you are on the mag ring, instead of staying in the scope and letting the field of view and image dictate what magnification you use. People use max power for this becasue its the only option to use the reticle while staying in the gun.

The one thing 2FP scopes seem to do better is cost less money--2fp almost universally costs significantly less when I look at prices. I dont know if thats an artificial construct or inherent, but it seems pretty universal. Looks to me like scope companies are making what sells in higher volume, i.e. cheap scopes.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Just because there is demand is not reason enough for a company to make a product. It has to have enough demand to sell BETTER than what they are already making. Companies that just add more product on top of existing offerings virtually always go out of business, suffer decreasing quality, become less profitable, or some combination of those things.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

I think a LOT fewer people would be looking for 2nd focal plane scopes if there were good reticle options for FFP scopes. The reasons people are adamant about 2fp scopes really isnt based on anything inherent about 2fp versus ffp, but it has everything to do with the design choices of scope companies to almost completely ignore mainstream hunters in their FFP reticle options.

The one thing 2FP scopes seem to do better is cost less money--scope companies are making what sells in higher volume.
I'll say it again. Just because there is demand is not reason enough for a company to make a product. It has to have enough demand to sell BETTER than what they are already making. Companies that just add more product on top of existing offerings virtually always go out of business, suffer decreasing quality, become less profitable, or some combination of those things.

Easier for some folks to see the reticle on a SFP over a FFP. Stupid to have to use a band aid, illumination, to address a short coming that makes FFP unusable for some people on lower magnification especially against darker backgrounds.

 

[Formidilosus]

Easier for some folks to see the reticle on a SFP over a FFP. Stupid to have to use a band aid, illumination, to address a short coming that makes FFP unusable for some people on lower magnification especially against darker backgrounds.

Specifically what he addressed is it is very simple to make a FFP be as visible on low power as you want- there is no constraint on reticle thickness. Simply what companies are doing with reticles.

 

[Macintosh]

like I said--that is not inherent in it being 2fp, that is only because scope companies have chosen to not use FFP reticles that address the needs of folks who need a bolder reticle. You are asking for a bolder reticle, that has nothing inherently to do with whether it is 2fp or ffp. What youa re seeing is that bold reticles are correlated with 2fp scopes, ie scope companies chose to put all of the bold reticles in 2fp scopes, and they chose NOT to put bold reticles in FFP scopes.

 

[Formidilosus]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Just because there is demand is not reason enough for a company to make a product. It has to have enough demand to sell BETTER than what they are already making. Companies that just add more product on top of existing offerings virtually always go out of business, suffer decreasing quality, become less profitable, or some combination of those things.

That’s exactly what most scope companies do- come out with new, or added products every year. Not always do they replace existing products.

 

[Macintosh]

I've been involved in those conversations for over 20 years--not in scopes but in other technical outdoor consumer goods. It's always a tension, but it virtually always comes down to a market analysis and comparing the numbers between adding option A or Option B, and finally a assortment footprint, I.E they are keeping total sku count at X, and they adding sku's to segment Y, and reducing sku's in segment Q. Both A and B might be viable, but the one with higher sales potential almost always wins. And if one option is in a segment that is being reduced, it may be perennially back-burnered. It can look like a lot of different things, but it's just the reality that there is more context to those decisions than simply the opportunity to sell 500 or 1000 or 5000 units of a new sku.

 

[Formidilosus]

I've been involved in those conversations for over 20 years--not in scopes but in other technical outdoor consumer goods. It's always a tension, but it virtually always comes down to a market analysis and comparing the numbers between adding option A or Option B, and finally a assortment footprint, I.E they are keeping total sku count at X, and they adding sku's to segment Y, and reducing sku's in segment Q. Both A and B might be viable, but the one with higher sales potential almost always wins. And if one option is in a segment that is being reduced, it may be perennially back-burnered. It can look like a lot of different things, but it's just the reality that there is more context to those decisions than simply the opportunity to sell 500 or 1000 or 5000 units of a new sku.

I can tell you with most scope companies…. It’s not nearly that complicated or thought out.