First Focal Plane or Second Focal Plane

[Trubkir17]

I am just getting into some higher end optics. A discussion around the watercooler this morning degraded quickly when this topic was brought up. I believe I am using SFP scopes right now but what is the big deal with FFP scopes. Hopefully we won't have near fist fights about this topic.

 

[OutdoorEdventure]

Preference. Usually breaks down to
hunting vs target range estimating?

FFP generally used for target range estimating.
SFP generally used for hunting.

But really comes down to preference. Shooting zoomed out seeing crosshairs with FFP can be challenging but bonus is holdovers are static.

SFP cross hairs adjust easier to see across zoom range but negative hold overs will need to be modified depending on zoom magnification.

Dialing per target won’t matter since most dialed shots are zoomed in.

Engaging multiple targets on one string FFP has its bonus.

 

[hand skills]

Consider a theoretical - 2 scopes - identical in every way, except for the position of reticle:

The SFP scope can do EVERYTHING the FFP scope can,

EXCEPT the reticle is only 'correct' at a specific magnification. (Sometimes at max magnification, sometimes at 10x depending on the scope).

Lots of hunters like this because the reticle stays the same size when they change magnification.

The only advantage the FFP scope has is that the reticle is correct throughout the magnification range. Lots of shooters like this because the reticle's angular subtentions can be used at ANY magnification. The downside is that the reticle appears to shrink or grow with changes in magnification.

I own and use both. SFPs are often lighter and more portable, but 'all things equal' my preference leans toward the FFPs

 

[gltaylor]

Well stated.
For me, I've got both and FFP is worthless if you don't run your scope at at least 2/3 or more of it's power range. Can't see the cross hairs or stadia lines at lower (half or less) power. At last light and lower power (or in woods) similarly worthless to me for hunting.
If target (or varmint) shooting, in good light, at nearly max power, they're great for the reasons stated above.

 

[Koda]

Preference. Whichever you pick learn to use it as its designed and their will be no advantages to the other.

I grew up with SFP so its all i know. On my higher end scopes with a CDS dial i use that so theres no advantage with the ffp alternative. On my lower end SFP scope with out a cds dial (old school) i just zero for my calibers MPBR and stalk within that range or less. On this scope, if I need the zoom i just crank it all the way to max and memorize what the holdover is at max zoom.

The thing to remember with SFP is your zero distance does not change with the zoom. If your SFP crosshair has holdover subtensions then only use them at max zoom.

 

[HARPERC]

I've got one FFP, bought to see what all the controversy was about (fist fights other places), and found SFP works best for me. My eyes prefer a little better view of reticle.

Scopes compared both Nightforce ATACR with same reticle.

One application I found FFP most useful was glassing hillsides for whitetail. They tend to pop into holes in brush. When these holes are pre ranged one can be ready a bit faster using the reticle. Of course this was with a bit of range so magnification can be up.

 

[RichCoyle]

Consider a theoretical - 2 scopes - identical in every way, except for the position of reticle:

The SFP scope can do EVERYTHING the FFP scope can,

EXCEPT the reticle is only 'correct' at a specific magnification. (Sometimes at max magnification, sometimes at 10x depending on the scope).

Lots of hunters like this because the reticle stays the same size when they change magnification.

The only advantage the FFP scope has is that the reticle is correct throughout the magnification range. Lots of shooters like this because the reticle's angular subtentions can be used at ANY magnification. The downside is that the reticle appears to shrink or grow with changes in magnification.

I own and use both. SFPs are often lighter and more portable, but 'all things equal' my preference leans toward the FFPs

What do you mean by "correct" at one magnification? Mine seems to increase smoothly from 2 1/2-25X just fine.

 

[Trubkir17]

Thanks for all the viewpoints (unintended pun). I think I will stick with SFP for this time at least. I am looking at both Leupold and Vortex offerings. I have had good experiences with each of their entry level to mid-range products. I read Ryan Cleckner's book on long range shooting and going with his advice by spending more of the entire rifle budget on optics than in the gun. Now, to paraphrase Kim Mitchell, "Onto the range I stumble, I have decisions to be made between MOA and MRAD."

 

[gltaylor]

Rich

What do you mean by "correct" at one magnification? Mine seems to increase smoothly from 2 1/2-25X just fine.

@Rich,

2nd focal plane scopes with stadia lines for holdover are calibrated at only one power of magnification.
Say you have a 6.5-24x scope.
The owners manual will tell you that the stadia lines are accurate at 24X. 2moa of holdover is only 2 moa in value at 24X.
If you don't want to shoot at 24X, you can "fool" the scope by going to exactly 1/2 or 12 power. Now your stadia lines are worth double! At 12 power, hold 1moa for a 2 moa value and impact where you want it. The crosshairs do not change in width or clarity.

1st FP scopes are correct at all magnification powers. They do this by having the reticle enlarge at higher powers, or diminish at lower powers. The problem is, at lower powers, the crosshairs get to so small you can't see them well and the stadia lines, not at all!

I hoped I could beat this problem by going to a lower power range scope (4-14). No dice. Still have the same problem. Invisible crosshairs and stadia at lower range power.
At least it's an illuminated scope. I can see the red center dot (only) at 4-6 power.
Oh well......

 

[hand skills]

What do you mean by "correct" at one magnification? Mine seems to increase smoothly from 2 1/2-25X just fine.

That's a good question Rich.

Take a standard mildot reticle for example. In the SFP, the dots are only 1 mil apart at one particular magnification. To assume the measurement between two dots is 1mil would be 'incorrect' at any other magnification.

Or take a BDC reticle for example. If you know that your first hash down is 350yd, and second hash is 450yd - well that is only true when the scope is at the 'correct' magnification. That's what I mean by 'correct'.

I would have a hard time going back to SFP on my coyote gun, for example. Sometimes those critters pop up in the weirdest locations. Often in pairs. I've definitely missed in the past because my scope wasnt at the magnification I thought it was. With SFP scopes, this throws off the holdover values, and usually results in sending shots high.

I've also had a situation where I was at max power for the correct holdovers, but then had trouble acquiring the second target because I had little Field Of View to work with.

With FFP, I can bring the gun up and know that holdovers and wind holds are accurate regardless of magnification.

I can dial back magnification to open up the field of view when tracking multiple animals. This has been helpful to me when hunting herd animals too.

More FOV can also be helpful for watching trace and spotting impacts through the scope. With too much magnification, recoil can be disorienting, mirage can be UGLY in some conditions too.

All of my FFP scopes are perfectly functional at minimum magnification. While it's true that some FFP reticles are useless at low mag, if one is careful to choose reticles with thick outer stadia. At low magnification, they look just like a fine duplex.

I think part of my preference comes from growing up with fixed power scopes that didn't really dial. Holding over was as natural as leading a moving target. As I became acquainted with drop at distance, it didn't take long to learn that using the thick bottom post of the duplex would get my 30-06 out to 450yd.

Today I'm lucky to own a couple of scopes that dial reliably, and while I do prefer to dial for shots over 600yd, for movers and groups in that 300-400-500yd range holdovers work great, especially when time is limited.

I still have a few variable power SFP scopes, with no plans to replace. Where size, weight and cost are a concern, they are hard to beat.

Like many, I look for any advantage I can get, but [BOLD]if I'm honest with myself, going back to a fixed 6x would probably not hurt my success rate much![/BOLD]

(Edited to add;.George, you beat me to it. Accurate and eloquent, succinct and concise... I am taking notes )

 

[gltaylor]

Well there you have it! 2 different opinions

 

[Trubkir17]

@hand skills and @gltaylor thank you for explaining that. There is a shot at a really nice muley buck that I missed. It still bugs me to this day. It was with my muzzle loader, and that gun has a scope with a BDC reticle. I spent plenty of time at the range and had that gun dialed and felt good to a max of 200m. All that range work was done on 9x. I was hunting later that year and a buck popped out on a hillside. That buck gave me all the time in the world to set up my sticks, range him (166m I recall), cock the hammer, set the correct reticle on him, and shoot over his back. I know that scope was on 3x so I now know I had 3 times the holdover I needed. I will let you know that I have never read an owner's manual for any optics I have ever owned, but I'm going to start.
My hunting partner still lets me know about how I didn't even really scare that deer.

 

[gltaylor]

@Trubkir17 ,
Don't feel bad. All of us have done that. That's why I recently tried the FFP scope. I was trying to beat my stupidity and Murphy.
Didn't work.
I spine shot a deer last year, facing me shot, head down drinking water from my pond. Easy 200 yd shot, rested rifle. Forgot to check my power setting. Instead of low chest I hit spine at top of neck and plowed out 3" of spine.
At least she didn't run

 

[aratliff]

…his advice by spending more of the entire rifle budget on optics than in the gun.

I had heard/read this, too, but only recently got a higher end scope. My younger eyes might not have been impressed, but my getting-older eyes certainly are! Plan to get serval more VX-5HDs moving forward.

Like @HARPERC, I got a couple inexpensive FFP scopes at the suggestion of a friend who shoots rimfire competitions…and to also see what the fuss was about. (Arkens, fwiw, and I’ll add that the EP line is MUCH better glass than the SH line). I’ll still tinkering with them for target shooting. Haven’t spent the time to learn to range in them. I’ll add that to my list of other things I’ll never get around to doing! Haha!
For hunting, I will stick with SFP.

 

[Koda]

Now, to paraphrase Kim Mitchell, "Onto the range I stumble, I have decisions to be made between MOA and MRAD."

probably another heated debate...
I prefer MOA. MOA seems to pair well with SFP scopes. MRAD pairs well with FFP scopes because the subtensions work at any zoom and can be used to range for drops for any caliber without a custom dial adjustment (if I understand that right...)

 

[jrebel]

To anyone looking to get a FFP for hunting....I would plead that they go and look through one before purchasing. I have always shot SFP and I almost fell victim to the hype. What saved me a "LOT" of money was actually looking through one at the store. On it's lowest power 4, the reticle was so fine I could barely see it. It didn't start to become usable till 6-7 power, which in my mind took away any advantage that it would provide at longer ranges. Being I use turrets on all hunting scopes, I just can't find the advantage in a hunting scenario.

I imagine shooting matches / competitions and military uses would really be benefitted by FFP scopes. Having to get off follow up shots quickly would be the only benefit I could find.

 

[Trubkir17]

probably another heated debate...
I prefer MOA. MOA seems to pair well with SFP scopes. MRAD pairs well with FFP scopes because the subtensions work at any zoom and can be used to range for drops for any caliber without a custom dial adjustment (if I understand that right...)

I understand how both systems work. I don't understand why anyone would argue against either system. It is just two different ways of looking at the same thing. I have had to work with metric and sae/imperial side by side for years. I can't say one system is better than the other.

 

[Koda]

I understand how both systems work. I don't understand why anyone would argue against either system. It is just two different ways of looking at the same thing. I have had to work with metric and sae/imperial side by side for years. I can't say one system is better than the other.

I only prefer MOA because its what Im used to, either system is fine and just a preference. Even though im used to MOA (and SAE) I find the metric system easier to calculate.

 

[Trubkir17]

FWIW I wasn't saying you were arguing against either system. That was more a comment to your "heated debate" statement earlier .
Hijacking my own thread @Koda, did you get that bull in your avatar? @jrebel that is a damn fine swamp donkey.

 

[Koda]

Hijacking my own thread @Koda, did you get that bull in your avatar?

Nope. I actually, intentionally let him go. He stood there for me like that exactly 200yds for like 15 minutes.
I only drew a spike only tag that year. He was the only bull I saw that year, 2 more times that trip I actually got tired of seeing him.