I currently own a nightforce 2.5-10x42 in second focal plane but am looking at other scopes and everyone is telling me to go strictly first focal plane and I dont rightfully understand the difference and if I do from now on get only first focal plane how confused will I be when using this second focal plane scope? Furthermore, I was told that a second focal plane scope is only accurate on max power, is that true? if so, why? help me out here, i am new to the game......
Rifle Scopes First vs second focal plane
- Thread starter dtaber32
- Start date
It is generally true that the reticle graduations are accurate at max power. Refer to the owners manual to be certain.
Refer to the optics selection thread in the stickies here. Has some very helpful info.
Refer to the optics selection thread in the stickies here. Has some very helpful info.
That Nightforce 2.5-10x42 you have is one of the best overall general use scopes one the market. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by going to a FFP scope at 10x and under, IMO. If you are going to be ranging with it, it will be at max power (10x) which is where it is calibrated, though ranging is almost always done with lasers anyway. If you will be doing holdovers shooting at long range, again you will be at 10x anyway. You also have a clearly visible reticle at 2.5x, where as broad mag range FFP scopes tend to have very small and faint reticles at min power.
FFP becomes very very handy to have when working at 14x and over, as this is where you will be dialing higher or lower based on field of view/ mirage issues at higher power, then you know you can be at any random power setting and have your reticle read true.
FFP becomes very very handy to have when working at 14x and over, as this is where you will be dialing higher or lower based on field of view/ mirage issues at higher power, then you know you can be at any random power setting and have your reticle read true.
What he said. If you are shooting bench, you just adjust to the impact point. Ftp is just easier to use.
See if you can hit anything with the SFP NF, if you cant then FFP will not do nothing for you. I say shoot the SFP until you are good enough to need a FFP.
Or suck balls at math compared to really suck balls at math.
Even as someone with VERY VERY strong mathematical and stastical skills, I find FFP MUCH quicker and easier to use.
Even as someone with VERY VERY strong mathematical and stastical skills, I find FFP MUCH quicker and easier to use.
listen to those three..
If you are going to dial adjustments and range with a laser.. save money and buy second focal..
If wanting to use holdovers at multiple magnifications, or range with reticle.. get first focal..
End of decision making process
For spotting fellow shooters and scaling missed shots with hold-over / adjustments, etc, I'll never go back to SFP. FFP is so much easier in every situation. The only draw back and it's pretty minor with the Razor, is that the reticle is a bit thick at full zoom on 100y work. Anything after that and it's great.
I like sfp scopes myself. Like Graham said if wanting to shoot in tactical comps. Where you may find yourself shooting multiple targets at multiple distances most of the time under time constraints FFP scopes are the way to go. If shooting known distance comps. I think most people would say save your money and get a SFP SCOPE. The one you have will get you out to 1000yds any day. I would keep that dude, it's a good SCOPE.
Don't forget leads on moving targets as well. Those too are only good on the certain power for sfp scopes too. Ffp can be lead accurately at any power in a ffp scope.
First vs second focal plane
Competitions have also been won with Fruit of the Loom underwear.
But it wasn't about the underwear.
They have.
Competitions have also been won with Fruit of the Loom underwear.
But it wasn't about the underwear.
But were your pants ever on fire??
It's not a real competition 'til the pants come off.
I've got a theory, most likely Freudian, that shooting for small groups in competition is a perfectly natural extension of dick measuring.
Where group size is inversely proportional to dick length.... Hence my 2.5 moa 100 yard standard. Maybe I should upgrade from my 10.5" sbr with 1.5x acog....
Last edited:
I found to save on confusion levels the FFP was the better way to go
a 1 mil lead at any magnification is a 1 mil lead as opposed to i am at magnification 5 out of possible 10 so 1 mil equals what
basically less math involved and more surety the scale is correct for holdovers at any magnification
then there is the argument the reticle covers up the target when zoomed all the way in if it is what they know as a tactical milling reticle if you dial for the half mil graduation and down .2 mil of whatever that line value is on the elevation value u can use that as a sight post thats well magnified or if you want you can be ultra precise by using the corner of that graduation to cut a quarter on the target for a sight picture
now when zoomed all the way out on some scopes the reticule does become quite fine the way to alleviate this was to observe the duplex lines (the thick heavy lines around the outside) they will make your vision center naturally on the main reticule you end up not even looking at the reticule look at the target and when it looks good let it go
this isn't to say there are horses for course's but that's what i have observed over the last whatever amount of years if you absolutely need the magnification down just fix a micro red dot on the rifle and start handling it like a shotgun
a 1 mil lead at any magnification is a 1 mil lead as opposed to i am at magnification 5 out of possible 10 so 1 mil equals what
basically less math involved and more surety the scale is correct for holdovers at any magnification
then there is the argument the reticle covers up the target when zoomed all the way in if it is what they know as a tactical milling reticle if you dial for the half mil graduation and down .2 mil of whatever that line value is on the elevation value u can use that as a sight post thats well magnified or if you want you can be ultra precise by using the corner of that graduation to cut a quarter on the target for a sight picture
now when zoomed all the way out on some scopes the reticule does become quite fine the way to alleviate this was to observe the duplex lines (the thick heavy lines around the outside) they will make your vision center naturally on the main reticule you end up not even looking at the reticule look at the target and when it looks good let it go
this isn't to say there are horses for course's but that's what i have observed over the last whatever amount of years if you absolutely need the magnification down just fix a micro red dot on the rifle and start handling it like a shotgun
The problem with many FFP reticles is that the people designing them (or making the decisions about them) have no clue how an FFP scope is used.
I should expand on my prior post. I like SFP scopes simply because I am a hunter first, and long range is just for fun. I have never competed in a long range shoot etc. That being said, the ability to dial the scope back and still be able to see the reticle in the timber is more of a priority to me. SFP also works for me in the open country because I have a habit of cranking the scope all the way up when making a longshot, so the wind holds etc work as they should.
An illuminated reticle, or illuminated dot within a reticle is a good way around that problem.. Also gives you the ability to turn it off when not wanted in some cases.. Just another way of doing it.. It's all about personal preference and what you like
Second focal plane is good for 1-5,1-6x or or even 1-8 type scopes where you are really using it as a red dot at short distance and instance cranking to max power for anything longer range. In second focal, the subtensions only hold true at max power, so if you are at 4x within a 1-6x scope and you are trying to make a 400 yard shot using your mil holdovers it won't be accurate. First focal is accurate the entire way through. That being said, the reticle shrinks as you zoom down to 1x, so in essence there comes a point where you can't even see or use the subtensions below a certain magnification. If you are doing long distance shooting past 400 to 500, I would suggest FFP, for anything inside, I would go with a 1-6x SFP scope to save on some cash. FFP are generally more expensive.
Similar threads
