FFP optic weight

Discussion in 'Long Gun Accessories and Optics' started by rbernie, Feb 4, 2021.

  1. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    23,379
    Location:
    Norra Texas
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2021
    Demi-human, Peakbagger46 and taliv like this.
  2. gotboostvr

    gotboostvr Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    3,949
    You could always go with SFP and figure out the subtensions at various magnification levels and add it to your dope chart.

    It's a work around, sure, but it may be your best bet.

    Some manufacturers will even list that in their manuals.
     
    rbernie likes this.
  3. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    23,379
    Location:
    Norra Texas
    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.
     
  4. army_eod

    army_eod Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    Just gonna say it. Work out harder so you can carry more. This from an Army guy who had to suck it up and hump.
     
  5. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    23,379
    Location:
    Norra Texas
    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. :)
     
    horsey300, gotboostvr and Walkalong like this.
  6. dranrab

    dranrab Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Messages:
    420
    Location:
    Metairie LA
    There's a lot of ignorance in that post.
     
  7. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    23,379
    Location:
    Norra Texas
    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.
     
  8. army_eod

    army_eod Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    Ignorance?
    I come from a military background. That is how it goes.
    Also I come from a military project management background in acquisition.
    We are concerned with cost, schedule, performance.
    We deal with requirements. Sometimes we deal with "trade offs" in our process. If something is causing a schedule delay, maybe there is something we can
    adjust to fix that; perhaps accepting less performance.
    In this case, weight is a requirement. So is cost. So is performance. You can accept one or two ounces more weight to get the performance you want.
    Get it?
    Prolly not.
    Thanks for playing.
     
  9. dranrab

    dranrab Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Messages:
    420
    Location:
    Metairie LA
    I am 58 years old with a bad back, bad knees, and a bad shoulder. I weigh exactly what I did in college at 175. I can hop on a bicycle and spin off 50 miles with no difficulty. I am certain our resident Army Ranger couldn't hang with me. I still appreciate a rifle that weighs as little as is practicable. Minimizing stress on my joints matters. Interestingly, If I fish all day, I appreciate my lighter rods and reels. I can feel the difference. Loosing weight isn't always a viable option and even for those that are at an ideal weight, minimizing weight can add value, especially if that weight is in your hands most of the time.

    His post was poorly thought out and of no value.
     
    gotboostvr likes this.
  10. army_eod

    army_eod Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    741
    I get it. I am 69 and have similar issues. But I don't appreciate somebody calling me ignorant for using logic.
    Frankly, I agree with you regarding weights of rifles. I am the same. I have some fairly light hunting rifles. I will always prefer my 7 pound rifle vs my 9 pounder for the same mission.
     
  11. taliv

    taliv Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    27,628
    let's knock off the bickering.
     
    horsey300 likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice