>>63183167
>NTA
Some very expensive LPVOs have great flat 1xs, but ultimately the design itself is a compromise from glass element size.

LPVOs are cool but will always have tradeoffs, for me either Acog of some variety + RMR, elcan, or going big glass if you want the best optical clarity, even then some stupid expensive glass can get chroma ab from shifting your cheekweld or on a off angle(looking at you nightforce).
>>63183177
>NTA
but most cheap telphotos with drastic objective changes are pretty damn ass, the cheaper you go lens wise the shorter the range should be. I do love my RF100-400 though, still trying to decide between the rf100-500 or rf200-800, or gamble with the sigma 150-600mm.
>pic rel with my rf100-400 on my r6mkii
>>63184310
It's a 3-9x, SFP isn't a major issue at that range and is actually a bonus here as you get better optical performance for the price, the bigger issue is the reticle choice, it's awful.
>inb4 but my zero won't work at other zoom ranges1!11
How often are you shooting 3x past 300 yards? Especially against a target you're trying to identify or track hits on?
How often are you adjusting zero within 300 yards?
FFP really makes sense when you have larger zoom ranges and higher mag cause sometimes you might want to sit at 12x instead of 18x.
I only own FFP scopes but the:
>REEE I NEED FFP
Is a bit ridiculous, it's also why most FFP LPVOs are shit compared to SFP. Even more so when the cheaper 1-6x sfp lpvos blow a dramatically more expensive ffp one out of the water for clarity, light transmission, and eye relief.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/k/

Thread:

ACOGbros... VCOGsisters... its over...