Is a scope with the reticle in the FFP worth the extra money? I'm sure it's a matter of opinion like everything, but I'm just trying to see what the consensus is.
Rifle Scopes First and second focal plane
- Thread starter SWThomas
- Start date
Re: First and second focal plane
For bench shooting at known distance, no. For dynamic shooting at changing distances, yes.
For bench shooting at known distance, no. For dynamic shooting at changing distances, yes.
Re: First and second focal plane
I have a nightforce f1. My use for it is hunting and shooting at variable ranges. I also didn't like having to be at max power to do range estimations, or have to find the true half way point and half the calculation, which you would do with a sfp.
I have a nightforce f1. My use for it is hunting and shooting at variable ranges. I also didn't like having to be at max power to do range estimations, or have to find the true half way point and half the calculation, which you would do with a sfp.
Re: First and second focal plane
Ok. So for hunting and the occasional paper punching session, it's not worth the extra loot for a FFP scope? Are there any cons to going with a FFP?
Ok. So for hunting and the occasional paper punching session, it's not worth the extra loot for a FFP scope? Are there any cons to going with a FFP?
Re: First and second focal plane
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SWThomas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok. So for hunting and the occasional paper punching session, it's not worth the extra loot for a FFP scope? Are there any cons to going with a FFP? </div></div>
In FFP the reticle magnifies as you increase the power. At longer ranges, that can cover your target, but it hasn't bothered me as I haven't shot it so far that it has mattered. It's a hobby of mine that I like to use for hunting.
I just wanted a FFP to range distances quickly and at any power I want when hunting and eliminate the calculations required for SFP. Its a bit faster and was worth it to me. Whether or not that is worth it to you, is your decision. I'm sure some other more well versed and experienced member will chime in, as I'm still learning as well.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SWThomas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok. So for hunting and the occasional paper punching session, it's not worth the extra loot for a FFP scope? Are there any cons to going with a FFP? </div></div>
In FFP the reticle magnifies as you increase the power. At longer ranges, that can cover your target, but it hasn't bothered me as I haven't shot it so far that it has mattered. It's a hobby of mine that I like to use for hunting.
I just wanted a FFP to range distances quickly and at any power I want when hunting and eliminate the calculations required for SFP. Its a bit faster and was worth it to me. Whether or not that is worth it to you, is your decision. I'm sure some other more well versed and experienced member will chime in, as I'm still learning as well.
Re: First and second focal plane
Increased cost of FFP models, lack of availability of models/features (like any Nightforce above 15x) in FFP, and the potential for the magnified reticle covering too much of the target are the cons I can thing of. In theory an SFP variant of a particular scope model has fewer lenses and so should have superior light transmission and clarity but I don't hear this being discussed so maybe it is so small a difference as to be imperceptible.
I have several FFP scopes with properly designed reticles like the G2DMR and P4F where the stadia lines are thinned in the center to eliminate the "reticle obscuring target" effect and they seem effective even at great distance and max mag.
I can say that I have been way off using calculated holdovers because I forgot to do the math when mirage prevented me from using the max (and SFP reference) magnification on the scopes I was using at the the time.
Based on what I call the "potential fluidity" of the situations where one might have to use a any rifle and the availability of many FFP scopes that have overcome all of the cons I see except for price,, I have only purchased FFP scopes since.
Joe
Increased cost of FFP models, lack of availability of models/features (like any Nightforce above 15x) in FFP, and the potential for the magnified reticle covering too much of the target are the cons I can thing of. In theory an SFP variant of a particular scope model has fewer lenses and so should have superior light transmission and clarity but I don't hear this being discussed so maybe it is so small a difference as to be imperceptible.
I have several FFP scopes with properly designed reticles like the G2DMR and P4F where the stadia lines are thinned in the center to eliminate the "reticle obscuring target" effect and they seem effective even at great distance and max mag.
I can say that I have been way off using calculated holdovers because I forgot to do the math when mirage prevented me from using the max (and SFP reference) magnification on the scopes I was using at the the time.
Based on what I call the "potential fluidity" of the situations where one might have to use a any rifle and the availability of many FFP scopes that have overcome all of the cons I see except for price,, I have only purchased FFP scopes since.
Joe
Re: First and second focal plane
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: scudzuki</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In theory an SFP variant of a particular scope model has fewer lenses...</div></div>
Tell me more about that theory, never heard about it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: scudzuki</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In theory an SFP variant of a particular scope model has fewer lenses...</div></div>
Tell me more about that theory, never heard about it.
Re: First and second focal plane
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6h-lOZ4vxk0?list=UUwHsnyWOaQNtrGjJKsTgegg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6h-lOZ4vxk0?list=UUwHsnyWOaQNtrGjJKsTgegg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Re: First and second focal plane
The reticle in a FFP scope DOES NOT EVER cover any more of the target at ANY magnification. The size of the target and the size of the reticle increase with magnification at a ratio of 1:1 so at ALL MAGNIFICATIONS the reticle covers the exact same amount of the target(which is not true with SFP scopes)
I can't think of a hunting situation where you will always be shooting at a known distance unless you're sitting in a spot where you know from experience what the ranges are to everything in your view. OR you're using a laser range finder with inclination adjustment.
Even then, with SFP scope you have to either 1) dial in the dope or 2) adjust to max magnification in order to accurately use the correct holdovers.
Alternatively with FFP you can 1)dial your dope or 2) holdover accurately at any magnification.
It's worth it for me but you will have to decide for yourself.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gunslinger07</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SWThomas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok. So for hunting and the occasional paper punching session, it's not worth the extra loot for a FFP scope? Are there any cons to going with a FFP? </div></div>
In FFP the reticle magnifies as you increase the power. At longer ranges, that can cover your target, but it hasn't bothered me as I haven't shot it so far that it has mattered. It's a hobby of mine that I like to use for hunting.
I just wanted a FFP to range distances quickly and at any power I want when hunting and eliminate the calculations required for SFP. Its a bit faster and was worth it to me. Whether or not that is worth it to you, is your decision. I'm sure some other more well versed and experienced member will chime in, as I'm still learning as well. </div></div>
The reticle in a FFP scope DOES NOT EVER cover any more of the target at ANY magnification. The size of the target and the size of the reticle increase with magnification at a ratio of 1:1 so at ALL MAGNIFICATIONS the reticle covers the exact same amount of the target(which is not true with SFP scopes)
I can't think of a hunting situation where you will always be shooting at a known distance unless you're sitting in a spot where you know from experience what the ranges are to everything in your view. OR you're using a laser range finder with inclination adjustment.
Even then, with SFP scope you have to either 1) dial in the dope or 2) adjust to max magnification in order to accurately use the correct holdovers.
Alternatively with FFP you can 1)dial your dope or 2) holdover accurately at any magnification.
It's worth it for me but you will have to decide for yourself.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gunslinger07</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SWThomas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok. So for hunting and the occasional paper punching session, it's not worth the extra loot for a FFP scope? Are there any cons to going with a FFP? </div></div>
In FFP the reticle magnifies as you increase the power. At longer ranges, that can cover your target, but it hasn't bothered me as I haven't shot it so far that it has mattered. It's a hobby of mine that I like to use for hunting.
I just wanted a FFP to range distances quickly and at any power I want when hunting and eliminate the calculations required for SFP. Its a bit faster and was worth it to me. Whether or not that is worth it to you, is your decision. I'm sure some other more well versed and experienced member will chime in, as I'm still learning as well. </div></div>
Re: First and second focal plane
They don't cover more when you adjust but many of them cover more from the start so you can see & use the adjustments at lower powers. Other than specific reticles designed to be thinner in a FFP scope, most are of a thicker subtension than their SFP equivalent, which is why most Benchrest and F Class Shooter use SFP because the reticles cover less of the target from the start.
In a FFP, it's always the same, but it depends on what reticle you get, some can be very thick to start like a P4, or even P3 type reticle. Many people find, the thinner FFP reticles are useless below 8X because you can no longer see the dots or hash marks in order to use your holds at say, 6x... at that point they just look like a duplex.
They don't cover more when you adjust but many of them cover more from the start so you can see & use the adjustments at lower powers. Other than specific reticles designed to be thinner in a FFP scope, most are of a thicker subtension than their SFP equivalent, which is why most Benchrest and F Class Shooter use SFP because the reticles cover less of the target from the start.
In a FFP, it's always the same, but it depends on what reticle you get, some can be very thick to start like a P4, or even P3 type reticle. Many people find, the thinner FFP reticles are useless below 8X because you can no longer see the dots or hash marks in order to use your holds at say, 6x... at that point they just look like a duplex.
Re: First and second focal plane
Thanks for the info fellas!
Thanks for the info fellas!
Re: First and second focal plane
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jdr724</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reticle in a FFP scope DOES NOT EVER cover any more of the target at ANY magnification. The size of the target and the size of the reticle increase with magnification at a ratio of 1:1 so at ALL MAGNIFICATIONS the reticle covers the exact same amount of the target(which is not true with SFP scopes)
I can't think of a hunting situation where you will always be shooting at a known distance unless you're sitting in a spot where you know from experience what the ranges are to everything in your view. OR you're using a laser range finder with inclination adjustment.
Even then, with SFP scope you have to either 1) dial in the dope or 2) adjust to max magnification in order to accurately use the correct holdovers.
Alternatively with FFP you can 1)dial your dope or 2) holdover accurately at any magnification.
It's worth it for me but you will have to decide for yourself.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gunslinger07</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SWThomas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok. So for hunting and the occasional paper punching session, it's not worth the extra loot for a FFP scope? Are there any cons to going with a FFP? </div></div>
In FFP the reticle magnifies as you increase the power. At longer ranges, that can cover your target, but it hasn't bothered me as I haven't shot it so far that it has mattered. It's a hobby of mine that I like to use for hunting.
I just wanted a FFP to range distances quickly and at any power I want when hunting and eliminate the calculations required for SFP. Its a bit faster and was worth it to me. Whether or not that is worth it to you, is your decision. I'm sure some other more well versed and experienced member will chime in, as I'm still learning as well. </div></div> </div></div>
Thanks for clearing that up for me. That's what I read in the past but failed to understand. I'm learning, thanks for schooling me.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jdr724</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reticle in a FFP scope DOES NOT EVER cover any more of the target at ANY magnification. The size of the target and the size of the reticle increase with magnification at a ratio of 1:1 so at ALL MAGNIFICATIONS the reticle covers the exact same amount of the target(which is not true with SFP scopes)
I can't think of a hunting situation where you will always be shooting at a known distance unless you're sitting in a spot where you know from experience what the ranges are to everything in your view. OR you're using a laser range finder with inclination adjustment.
Even then, with SFP scope you have to either 1) dial in the dope or 2) adjust to max magnification in order to accurately use the correct holdovers.
Alternatively with FFP you can 1)dial your dope or 2) holdover accurately at any magnification.
It's worth it for me but you will have to decide for yourself.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gunslinger07</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SWThomas</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok. So for hunting and the occasional paper punching session, it's not worth the extra loot for a FFP scope? Are there any cons to going with a FFP? </div></div>
In FFP the reticle magnifies as you increase the power. At longer ranges, that can cover your target, but it hasn't bothered me as I haven't shot it so far that it has mattered. It's a hobby of mine that I like to use for hunting.
I just wanted a FFP to range distances quickly and at any power I want when hunting and eliminate the calculations required for SFP. Its a bit faster and was worth it to me. Whether or not that is worth it to you, is your decision. I'm sure some other more well versed and experienced member will chime in, as I'm still learning as well. </div></div> </div></div>
Thanks for clearing that up for me. That's what I read in the past but failed to understand. I'm learning, thanks for schooling me.
Re: First and second focal plane
Agreed
Typically those reticles which are not useful/visable on lower magnifications in FFP scopes are most useful for the shooter at higher magnification and are at least only offered on variable power scopes with higher magnification.
I guess the real issue is that 1)people want to squeeze whatever they can out of an optic investment and 2) manufacturers want to keep costs down by limiting the number of models so instead of dedicating these reticles to 10-25 power scopes they plop them in the pre FFP versions where they are useless at the low end.
All good to know stuff for the OP to consider so they know what they are getting in to.
Agreed
Typically those reticles which are not useful/visable on lower magnifications in FFP scopes are most useful for the shooter at higher magnification and are at least only offered on variable power scopes with higher magnification.
I guess the real issue is that 1)people want to squeeze whatever they can out of an optic investment and 2) manufacturers want to keep costs down by limiting the number of models so instead of dedicating these reticles to 10-25 power scopes they plop them in the pre FFP versions where they are useless at the low end.
All good to know stuff for the OP to consider so they know what they are getting in to.
Re: First and second focal plane
It's worth mentioning that rarely is a FFP scope of "higher magnification" used with the mag dialed down close to or at it's lowest power. Typically this is done for a very close and a very easy shot, like for example a deer or coyote at 25Y-50Y. If you miss at that distance on that big of a target it's not because you couldn't see the reticle
The few times I have dialed my mag down all the way on a FFP scope was to make sure I didn't shoot my chronograph or holding over with the reticle while using 8x mag to shoot at a 2000Y steel.
One time at a tactical match we had a KYL paper stage at 11Y so I had to use 3.5X because the scope had 50Y minimum parallax and was too blurry with any higher mag, I got 100% on that stage and could see the .05 mil thick reticle fine.
Here's a pic of a IOR FFP scope on 6x with a .1 mil reticle thickness. As you can imagine .05 mil reticle thickness at 6x would still be easy to see.
Low magnification FFP scopes like 1-4's, 1-6's are designed with thicker reticles, illuminated dots or crosshairs, cirles, 3/4 circles, etc, so the reticle can be picked up quickly even on the lowest power.
It's worth mentioning that rarely is a FFP scope of "higher magnification" used with the mag dialed down close to or at it's lowest power. Typically this is done for a very close and a very easy shot, like for example a deer or coyote at 25Y-50Y. If you miss at that distance on that big of a target it's not because you couldn't see the reticle
One time at a tactical match we had a KYL paper stage at 11Y so I had to use 3.5X because the scope had 50Y minimum parallax and was too blurry with any higher mag, I got 100% on that stage and could see the .05 mil thick reticle fine.
Here's a pic of a IOR FFP scope on 6x with a .1 mil reticle thickness. As you can imagine .05 mil reticle thickness at 6x would still be easy to see.
Low magnification FFP scopes like 1-4's, 1-6's are designed with thicker reticles, illuminated dots or crosshairs, cirles, 3/4 circles, etc, so the reticle can be picked up quickly even on the lowest power.
Re: First and second focal plane
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: scudzuki</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In theory an SFP variant of a particular scope model has fewer lenses...</div></div>
Tell me more about that theory, never heard about it. </div></div>
I mis-spoke (mis-typed?), it is not in theory, in fact FFP scopes have 2 more lenses than SFP. Research it yourself.
Joe
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: scudzuki</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In theory an SFP variant of a particular scope model has fewer lenses...</div></div>
Tell me more about that theory, never heard about it. </div></div>
I mis-spoke (mis-typed?), it is not in theory, in fact FFP scopes have 2 more lenses than SFP. Research it yourself.
Joe
Re: First and second focal plane
I have both and prefer the FFP. Yes it is worth the extra paid.
I have both and prefer the FFP. Yes it is worth the extra paid.
Re: First and second focal plane
I think I've decided to go ahead and she'll out the extra loot for an FFP scope. Seems like the way to go. Thanks for all the input fellas.
I think I've decided to go ahead and she'll out the extra loot for an FFP scope. Seems like the way to go. Thanks for all the input fellas.
Re: First and second focal plane
Great post. I'm trying to decide which FFP 1-4 or 1-6 to go on my SBR. 10" Noveske 300blk..decisions...decisions...keep reading a lot of good stuff about Vortex..love my Nightforce NXS F1...just not sure about the Nightforce 1-4...
Great post. I'm trying to decide which FFP 1-4 or 1-6 to go on my SBR. 10" Noveske 300blk..decisions...decisions...keep reading a lot of good stuff about Vortex..love my Nightforce NXS F1...just not sure about the Nightforce 1-4...
Re: First and second focal plane
The only thing I don't like about my FFP scope, is that near dusk/dark with the mag dialed back, my reticle becomes nearly impossible to see. So if your going with a FFP for hunting I'd strongly recommend one with illum.
The only thing I don't like about my FFP scope, is that near dusk/dark with the mag dialed back, my reticle becomes nearly impossible to see. So if your going with a FFP for hunting I'd strongly recommend one with illum.
Similar threads
