Meopta MeoPro Optika6 4.5-27x50 FFP

[Overthehill]

Just wondering your thoughts on the Meopta MeoPro Optika6 4.5-27x50 FFP. It would be mounted on a Tikka t3x 6.5 CM S/S. Its main use will be for deer stalking, but also for a bit of long range target practice. Your experience of the scope, (the pros and cons), would be greatly appreciated. Also considering the Zeiss Conquest V4 6-24x50 .. however my understanding is FFP is more suited to long range than SFP. Thanks in advance to those who comment!

 

[TringSaint]

I use SFP on all my scopes and shoot out to 600 at bisley with all and get solid results for non match ammo.
Delta 5-30x50
Rudolph 6-24x50
Rudolph 3.5-18x50

 

[hybridfiat]

Why is First Focal Plane "better for long range"?
The crosshair enlarges to obscure more of the target. How is that better?
Yes, I know that FFP means that range estimation is possible using the Mil Dot or Mil Radian method, I was trained to use it.
But that's it.
In SFP the crosshair stays in proportion to the target.

 

[Overthehill]

I'm new to all this, so am looking for your opinions to be honest...so either focal plane scopes are suitable. Point taken . I've a second hand Schmidt and Bender Zenith 3-12x50 that's ideal for deer stalking but limited for precision shots further than 300m and I would like to try a bit of long range target shooting in the future... Hence the thread!

 

[Jamesy13]

In my opinion it’s easier to make adjustments with FFP. Take a shot and see where the hit is, measure with the crosshair and put the adjustment straight into the turrets. I just found it way easier and quicker.
In terms of the Optika 6, decent glass but very small field of view. Also fussy at full mag.
I went from Zeiss v6 SFP to a Delta Stryker FFP, difference is night and day, delta being better. Also the V4 doesn’t have very nice turrets (v6 are lovely).
I would say FOV would be important when stalking. I don’t stalk so not an expert but do a lot of fox shooting and long range.
In your price range maybe look at the Vortex viper PST gen 2. They have a sfp and FFP 3-15 and 5-25. Wide FOV, nice turrets and decent glass.

 

[ApexOrdnance]

Why is First Focal Plane "better for long range"?
The crosshair enlarges to obscure more of the target. How is that better?
Yes, I know that FFP means that range estimation is possible using the Mil Dot or Mil Radian method, I was trained to use it.
But that's it.
In SFP the crosshair stays in proportion to the target.

WIth FFP your reticule graduations are true at any magnification. This means your calculated holdovers, elevation and leads don't require further calculation. Ranging with scope reticules is a guestimate at best. To be competitive you need to know your range before your eye get's to the scope. I'd say that's pretty useful unless you dial every time the wind shifts or changes velocity or your switching quickly between targets at slightly different ranges. If you need a 1 minute lead on a target moving left to right at 100yrds then the next target is right to left at 150yrds you would have no chance at dialing. An SFP is only tru at a set magnification in which case you may aswel get a fixed mag scope.

 

[hybridfiat]

I'm new to all this, so am looking for your opinions to be honest...so either focal plane scopes are suitable. Point taken . I've a second hand Schmidt and Bender Zenith 3-12x50 that's ideal for deer stalking but limited for precision shots further than 300m and I would like to try a bit of long range target shooting in the future... Hence the thread!

Once upon a daffodil, I shot Field Rifle competitively (Custom built 6mm BR) and used a 10x fixed scope to shoot possibles at 600m and down. That's groups of 50mm or less at that range.
The new Zeiss 6.5-20x50 I finally bought, made it easier; but didn't improve the scores in proportion to the expenditure.
To make a major difference was going to mean going all "benchrest" and that was going to suck the joy out of the shooting.
Yes indeed Jamesey, you are correct, the Zeiss was only correct for the mil radians at 12x so if I wanted to adjust I had to wind back to 12x and dial in the adjustments.
Things have moved on a bit I admit, but if it isn't possible to hit a target at 300m+ with a 12x then I'm not sure a new scope is going to help.
A really good trigger, along with a rifle stock that is a good fit I think be more influential, but these are my opinions not the Gospel.

 

[Milk no sugar please]

To the op. I recently purchased a 3-18x50mm optika 6 in sfp and I think that it’s bloody brilliant stalking scope and I’m very impressed. The glass is extremely good for the money and I particularly like the bdc reticule. I can’t comment on the ffp ret but I don’t think you would be disappointed with it

 

[Andy RV]

My simple advice;

If the reticle has subtensions = FFP

If the reticle doesn’t have subtensions = SFP

 

[Overthehill]

I've mpbr zeroed out to around 240 & do hit within moa, but basically I'm centering on the A4 page, I can't make out the finer target on that page. So fine for deer stalking but I'd like to try more precise long range shooting...

 

[Utectok]

I dunno but I hear…if you shoot fixed distances I hear SFP is better as you have a fine reticle. I think a lot of f class boys and girls shoot SFP. However if you shoot mixed distances ffp might be better ie PRS as you can use the reticle for holdovers and windage. Personally I’m more of a hunter with a touch of longer range stuff and I shoot ffp and find it easier

 

[K.H - Tikka]

I have the Optika 6 4.5-27x50SFP. For me, it does what I want it to - it’s atop my .22LR to shoot at paper and gongs normally from a pretty stable position.

The glass clarity is good, really good for the money. Turrets seem capable although it has been mentioned to me that they can be slightly off when dialling longer distances. That said I kind of expect the margin of error to be greater than say the X5i I had on beforehand!

For stalking, you may find the eye box fussy. Especially on higher mag - I think if my shooting was anything other than a bench/prone where I have plenty of time, it wouldn’t be the scope for me.

I paid £600 new for mine so I won’t be changing it.

I would say maybe look at Arken optics, similar price and really good reviews also.

K.H

 

[20-250]

Does the enormous looking zoom ring foul the bolt for anyone?

 

[Milk no sugar please]

Does the enormous looking zoom ring foul the bolt for anyone?

No

 

[ejg]

I always thought Meopta had good glass. For longer ranges only FFP for me. Big part of long range is practicing at different ranges and different terrains. With FFP one can measure the miss and learn quicker than with trying to walk over to a target/rock etc. PMII FFP P4LF crosshair 5cm wide at 1000m / 1100yds is ok, smaller than a rabbit head. Head shots at rabbits 1000m anyone?
edi

 

[Overthehill]

Thanks for all the replies...

 

[Overthehill]

I shoot over rough ground, on foot, often for long periods... I'm guessing the 50mm lens is more suitable, than the 56mm...?

 

[User00038]

Ask about the weights. My 3-18x56 FFP is pushing 1200g, whereas the catalogue shows it as the same as SFP of 865g.

 

[User00038]

I always thought Meopta had good glass. For longer ranges only FFP for me. Big part of long range is practicing at different ranges and different terrains. With FFP one can measure the miss and learn quicker than with trying to walk over to a target/rock etc. PMII FFP P4LF crosshair 5cm wide at 1000m / 1100yds is ok, smaller than a rabbit head. Head shots at rabbits 1000m anyone?
edi

Presumably as a FFP scope, if the crosshair is 5cm wide at 1000m, it also 5cm wide at 50m?

 

[ejg]

Presumably as a FFP scope, if the crosshair is 5cm wide at 1000m, it also 5cm wide at 50m?

Crosshair is always the same width no matter what the magnification on the scope (at one range.)
The picture of the crosshair changes with magnification. FFP crosshair is very light at lower magnification, covers 5mm at 100m or 2.5mm at 50m, no matter at what magnification.

file:///C:/Users/pseco/Dropbox/PC/Downloads/Schmidt-Bender-Datasheet-P4FL-FFP-3-20x50-PMII%20(2).pdf

edi