These are on sale for $164. Not sure what they used to cost but is a sale at the moment. I'm trying one to put on my Evol Mini
Upvote 0
Discovery HD 2-12X24 SFIR FFP. A little experiment.
- Thread starter Airgun-hobbyist
- Start date
Yea, I am really, really tempted. I had it in my cart at 170$, now its down a bit as you said. Do I NEED it...no, do I WANT it, yes...decisions, decisions.
-Matt
Upvote 0
I'm so picky...why, oh why, on 12x, does the reticle NOT take more view of the scope.
Which would result in a less fine reticle at 2x...
Which I consider hardly useable if at all at this magnification. FFP reticles are so essential to get right in sizing imo for this fact. I want to want this scope but right now, this is holding me back.
-Matt
Which would result in a less fine reticle at 2x...
Which I consider hardly useable if at all at this magnification. FFP reticles are so essential to get right in sizing imo for this fact. I want to want this scope but right now, this is holding me back.
-Matt
Upvote 0
I agree and im hoping it's not too bad. I think the ones to nail the reticle on a 2-12x is Athlon with the Helos BTR gen2 2-12x42 in MIL with the AHMR2 reticle.
Upvote 0
Both my Athlon and Westhunter 6-24x FFP's fill the scope around 12x on my 6-24's and then go beyond that as you increase, making 6x semi useful.
I want the reticle to at least take up the entire scope at full mag, if not a bit under and then start losing a mil or two at the bottom at full...but that's just me. I don't need 16 mil drop on a 2-12 at 12x mag, it be nice if it zoomed to where 12 lined up with the bottom at 12x for a bit more reticle picture through its zoom range. I am as I said picky lol.
-Matt
Upvote 0
Exactly! The 2-12 Athlon lives on my Paradigm and is staying there. I have said my piece on this Discovery already but the fact is to get this small, with any scope, you have to give up something. Whatever is worth it to you is what matters.
Upvote 0
Maybe I’m not understanding what it is you want here, but a milliradian is a milliradian regardless of the magnification. Unless you make the ocular window smaller, there’s no way for the 12mil mark to meet the edge of your view at 12x. They can, instead, extend the reticle down to the edge at 12x but then it would have something like 20mil on the vertical line instead of the 16mil it shows. Maybe that’s what you mean?
Upvote 0
I follow what you're saying, but why then at 2x vs 12x magnification the milliradian spacing change on FFP scopes? It's because of how they are calibrated...
What I am saying is how the reticle is calibrated, there are plenty of FFP scopes running 2-12 where the 12x magnification takes up more space with less milliradian....sure the milliradian spacing has to remain the same, but the reticle picture itself doesn't have to be scaled to take only 75% of the scope picture.
Hope this makes sense?
-Matt
Upvote 0
Here is another scope that is ffp, 3-12, at max magnification the reticle takes up the full scope picture. Its MOA, so 25 moa should be 7.2 mil, yes? How does this scope pull it off?
Upvote 0
No, I’m still not following lol.
The spacing doesn’t change, it only looks like it does. For FFP scopes, the reticle is generally etched into a lens so it physically can’t change, but as you increase or decrease magnification the reticle changes with it. Thus it LOOKS like the spacing gets bigger as you zoom in but it actually doesn’t, the reticle is simply being magnified at the same rate as the image.
As for the example you provided, that’s not an actual replication of the true image through the scope. The size of the view through the scope is different in that drawing than it truly is in the scope, as the smaller view is only there to highlight what the reticle looks like while illuminated.
Upvote 0
From one 3-12x scope to the next, the mil spacing and reticle size should appear the same in each at all magnification ranges. If they don’t, then one of them is not using a true 3-12x magnification range and likely magnifies to higher than 12x on the top end. That, or the design of the scope means the view through the ocular is bigger in one than the other. But the subtensions should be exactly the same between them if they’re quality scopes. A milliradian is a constant angular measurement, so if the scopes are made correctly then the distance from one mil to the next in each of them should be exactly the same.
Edit: think of it like a measuring tape. An inch is an inch (or it should be anyway) on every tape measure if it’s made correctly. One tape measure may only read to 12’, but another could read to 100’. The accuracy of an inch on both should be the same. With scopes, the optical design can change the size of the eyebox (your view through the scope), but the mil scale (literal distance between markings on the reticle) should be the same on both.
Edit: think of it like a measuring tape. An inch is an inch (or it should be anyway) on every tape measure if it’s made correctly. One tape measure may only read to 12’, but another could read to 100’. The accuracy of an inch on both should be the same. With scopes, the optical design can change the size of the eyebox (your view through the scope), but the mil scale (literal distance between markings on the reticle) should be the same on both.
Upvote 0
I get that, but then again I don't, because at 12x for my current ffp scopes, I couldn't fit 16 mils + space for another 5 if my life depended on it, in fact it can fit roughly 16 mils into the FULL sight picture? Explain? As I do partially follow what you're saying, just doesn't line up with what I see on other scopes.
Again, the 2nd reticle I show up top is a 3-12, and both the 3x and 12x mag are shown and both are very useful, with 12x taking up the full sight. If the discovery 2-12 had full sight picture at full mag like above, my complaints would be absent.
-Matt
Upvote 0
Just checked my Westhunter 6-24 FFP scope, and at 12x magnification I see 15 mils at the very bottom edge of the sight picture, reticle takes full sight...below at 15x, it shows 12 mils.
-Matt
-Matt
Upvote 0
I think it has to do with Field of View. Narrower FOV it fills up the scope more. Larger FOV it has more space.
Upvote 0
Thank you, I was about to type that next and you beat me to it lol. As my wife would say, I need to “use my words” lol.
The optical and physical design of each scope plays a large factor here. The resultant FOV from the optical design is what causes one reticle to appear larger than another at the same magnification from scope to scope. Optical parameters will give a FOV that may be larger or smaller than another scope, and the ocular lens and housing plays another role to a much smaller extent. The end result is that the image appears larger to your eye, even though the reticle’s subtensions are the same/correct.
But I see what you’re saying, @Stubbers and I think most of what you need is just to find a scope with the optical and reticle design you want. While a mil is a mil is a mil, how the designers laid the scope out and how far out from center the reticle extends are the things you’d need to look at when selecting your next optic. That’s a tricky one unless you can find actual “through the scope” photos. Most FFP reticle designs DO reach the eyebox edge at full magnification, but not always on lower-power scopes as I think the designers generally assume the scope is used for “shorter range” applications and don’t need as much of the reticle for holdovers. The downside is that most smaller, lighter scopes are lower-power, so you’re fighting against the norm here I’m afraid! I wish you luck, you’d think there’s be at least one that fits your needs!
Last edited:
Upvote 0
100%, you guys nailed it, and honestly I couldn't put it into words either, but I knew I was onto something... Lol. There are options that fit my needs, as I posted above some reticles I really like. I'm just picky, and if this particular scope had a fuller sight picture, which would sacrifice some FOV I assume, then it would be SOLD, to me, twice.
-Matt
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I have two Veyron scopes, one 3-12X sfp and one 10X and both are outstanding. I have to admit, I had a Hawke Sidewinder around the same magnification and returned it as it was no where near as nice as either of the Veyron scopes. They just work for me. I wish they had a illuminated reticle, but their illuminated scopes only light the center dot, which makes the crosshairs worthless in dark situations to me.
I have three scope brands I rely on. Athlon, I have a Midas Tac 4-16X, that is one of, if not the, best scopes I've ever used. SWFA SS 12X, also a great scope, and the Veyrons.
Upvote 0
Yupp.
Just like Matt, I find that important, too.
That is why I have searched the interwebs high and low to find videos through the scope, or depictions by the manufacturer indicating the magnification of the diagram.
The links to those videos (with the time stamp at which the reticle appears) are in the footnotes of the Scope Specs Tables I put out once in a while on the forums.
PM me if interested, there are about 250 scopes spread over 3 Tables/ magnification ranges so far.
Matthias
Upvote 0