FFP optic weight

taliv said:

So are you going to ease up on the weight restriction or what?

Click to expand...

Actually, at the moment I’m curled up on the floor in a fetal position, rocking back and forth and sobbing.



In all seriousness, the rifles for which I have a hard weight requirement are wearing SFP optics at the moment (e.g. Z3) because that is what I can find in a lightweight format. I was hoping to replace those optics with something FFP, but it is not looking likely.

----

ETA : It occurred to me that I really didn't answer the question well, so here's mo' words. The topic that I'm trying to address (outside of this thread, but the catalyst for the thread) is whether a FFP optic is worth the weight penalty for those rifles that I use in a true carryabout role. It *seems* a worthy goal to have all of my rifle optics behave the same / have similar enough reticles such that I can move from a target-oriented rifle to a walkabout rifle and have the same relative experience using both platforms.

Since I do carry the rifle in the hand a fair bit when I'm in the field, I tend to prefer carryabout rifles that weigh less than nine (9) lbs all-in. When the optic and mounting add 30oz or more to the package, that doesn't leave a lot of weight budget for the rifle (and rifles built to a 6lb weight budget tend to have awful balance if pressed into duty for offhand shooting due to the light barrel). So far, I've rationalized the difference between my carryabout optics and my target-oriented optics by asserting that most field shooting that sees me walking about on foot doesn't occur at long enough ranges to need the benefits of the FFP design and I can always use hold-overs if I'm diligent enough in creating the necessary dope. And yet it still seems kinda swoopy to have a carryabout package that provides the potential that a FFP reticle offers.

I just don't know yet how to get there.

Looks like the Nightforce NX8 1-8x24mm may pass the weight test. They left off the side focus, given its intended role, but it technically *does* meet the weight requirement.

Yeah - but I'm now at the stage of life where degenerative hips and knees just don't respond to PT the way that they used to.

dranrab said:

There's a lot of ignorance in that post.

Click to expand...

But, in fairness, there's a lot of truth as well. I didn't take it as anything other than honest advice. Getting in better shape rather than fixating on saving ounces is probably not bad general advice for most of us flatlanders - it's cheaper, healthier, and if the crowd at my FLGS is any example, well, we all could use some extra PT.

In my specific case, not only am I already struggling with my lower body breaking down from overuse as a younger man but I am also at a point where I *can* set aside a modest amount of budget to upgrade my kit and make my ability to spend the day on foot in the north / central Texas scrub a little easier.

All good.