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.