Originally Posted by MongooseV8
Funny how hunters have been using 3-9x second focal plane scopes for almost 100 years and have taken an uncountable number of game. Yet you are saying anything other than a FFP Swarovski is a horrible scope.
Most hunting situations call for 3-4x and no need to change magnification so sfp or ffp is irrelevant. I have used Nikons and Leupolds and SWFA scopes in very dark conditons literally hundreds of times and they are plenty bright enough to shoot past LEGAL hunting hours.
The BDC can be used at any zoom with any load if you know your drops. I dont need it but id rather have the option than not. True 10x yadda yadda not needed for hunting. Most animals in California are shot inside of 100 yards.
After mulling over your post for about two seconds I've come to the conclusion I agree with it 100%.
I do believe there is a place for FFP scopes. If I shot past 500 yards I'd want one. I'm 58, been hunting since I was a kid and the longest shot I've ever taken was a little over three hundred yards. The vast majority of shots have been well under 200 yards. So I flat out don't need a FFP scope. A FFP scope will cost more money than a SFP scope, everything else being equal. So if I'm going to spend FFP money I'd rather have SFP with better glass.