• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

scout1

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Nov 14, 2006
121
1
Apache County,Arizona
This is similar to another topic that is active right now but I didn't want to step on it.

Is the cost difference worth it? Example: I just happen to be looking at picking up a Leupold Mk4 6.5-20x50 M1. This scope is going for $1250.00. The front focal version of this scope is going for $1700.00. The difference in price is not chump change. Will the average user fully utilize one over the other? I can't say that I'm considering the FF, just thowing the question out there. $450.00 buys alot of bullets and powder.

scout1
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tuxedo007
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

depends on if your doing a lot of unknown distance shooting were your ranging a lot and or need quick follow up shoots making adjustments in my opinion there well worth it
 
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

Whats more important than FFP is matching ret./knobs IMHO!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tuxedo007
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

Depends on what type of shooting you'll be doing. It's very usefull for ranging, wind hold overs, elevation hold overs and unders. In my opinion is to spend the money now rather than regret not getting it later. You'll use it eventualy
 
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

Follow up question. On non front focal scopes I am of the understanding that the reticle divisions are accurate at the highest magnification, correct? If that is so then on the Leupold 6.5-20x50 non front focal scope is the 20 power the power that the reticle is accurate for holdovers, leads etc..? I tried finding this out on the Leupold site but was unable to do so.

I'm strongly considering the purchase of this scope for my in progress rifle build, but after doing searches here on this topic I am really confused on which to buy, front focal or non.

scout1
 
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

Scout1,

I am not arguing the information that Lindy just provided. However, the SFP reticle is not always accurate at the highest power. For example, my 4.5X14 IOR is calibrated at 10X.
 
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

Correct. It varies not only with different manufacturers, but also with specific scopes from the same one. However, he asked about a specific scope, which is what I gave information on.
 
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

That's why I wasn't arguing.
smile.gif


The way he worded the question, I didn't want him to mistakenly think that was always the case.
 
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

Lindy,

You mention the SFP reticle, I'm not familier with that one,( maybe I'm having a mind fart). Does your info also hold true for the Leupold TMR? That is the reticle that I would be getting.
 
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

Leupold produces some reticles in both SFP and FFP. I don't keep track of which, so you'll need to ask Leupold about specifics. Their web site is not always timely nor accurate.
 
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

i agree with abolt, my millet trs i is accurate on about 11 power. best thing to do if you get an sfp scope is to find what power it is accurate at and mark it. the best way i find to test it is with a yard stick at exactly 100 yards.
 
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

Yep I knew it. Thats what that smell was, my mind did fart. SFP(second focal plane), FFP (first focal plane). Thanks

scout1
 
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

I get asked this question quite often and here is my .02

FFP is perfect for the kind of shooting we like to do, Tactical. If you engage multiple targets at multiple ranges OR measuring targets for range calculation a FFP will help you greatly. I find myself shooting on 10x allot when i shoot COF's with multiple targets at random distances requiring holdovers.

Now, for hunting I dont want a FFP simply because i want the big x hairs in my scope so i can see them on 3x. I dont use holdovers while hunting and if i am going to shoot further than point plank zero then i have time to range, dial get comfy and squeeze the trigger.

Given the two very different shooting situations above, its your call if you need FFP or not. Its good to have both
smile.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: NewsShooter
Re: Is Front Focal worth the cost difference???

heatseekins,
I don't find myself shooting in matches much any more, used to shoot in a bunch. I live in the middle of nowhere which makes for great shooting country but its a long way from formal matches. I usually go out by myself or with one or two buddies. I own a great randefinder(Swarovski) and one of us is always on that while another is shooting. So with no time pressure in the mix the SFP may be just fine for what I do. It sure can get involved reseaching new gear for new projects.

scout1
 
This is similar to another topic that is active right now but I didn't want to step on it.

Is the cost difference worth it? Example: I just happen to be looking at picking up a Leupold Mk4 6.5-20x50 M1. This scope is going for $1250.00. The front focal version of this scope is going for $1700.00. The difference in price is not chump change. Will the average user fully utilize one over the other? I can't say that I'm considering the FF, just thowing the question out there. $450.00 buys alot of bullets and powder.

scout1

Yes.
 
Depends on what your use is. I may get slammed for this, but IMO, for hunting, I prefer SFP. The reason being, I spend the majority of my time on the lower magnifications (ie 3.5-7). And an FFP reticle is damn near unusable at those magnifications.
For anything other than that use, FFP is a no brainer. Well worth the $$$.
 
Yes If your using it for comp I used a sfp NF on a new rifle for a comp last weekend because it’s my break in scope and I didn’t have time to switch it probably cost me 15 points. For hunting the reticles do get small but I use holdovers and a dope card even when hunting.
 
Yes

On a similar note... I saw a Quigley Ford on a used browning Hells canyon at my LGS. Oh... my.... buddly.. there was CA visible in the store! And hold overs out to 1000 yards... just amazing.

I've gotta stay away from these threads....
 
If you dial your turrets for every shot, it’s not worth the extra money.
If you use wind holds and elevation holds, well worth the extra money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HEnrI
It all boils down to what you use your reticles for!?
 
In all seriousness... if you want to improve on first round hits with accurate wind holds. Definitely go FFP. If you're just planning on sending one and going from there then that's your choice. If you shoot with people that you may want to communicate what you're seeing down range (accuratly) then yes it's well worth it.

Depending on personality you'll change your barrel more than your scope so why not do it right the first time?

As far as wind calls go, listen to the everyday sniper podcast. They've ironed it out so well and it works nearly perfectly. You'll really just want to spend the money if you find any satisfaction in first round hits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HEnrI
Depends on your application and intended usage, but in most cases an FFP scope will be money well spent... Keep saving, buy once cry once.
 
Agree with many here who have said the same thing already.

I much prefer SFP for bench or stationary shooting. For quick tactical shooting FFP works well. Either can work well as the other, given enough time behind the trigger. For my big heavy target rifles I prefer SFP (current fav is my Trijicon 5-50x56). For my sporting rifles used for run and gun I prefer the FFPs in lower magnification.

Above all, getting practice with your setup is the key in my opinion.
 
Haha, yeah read the whole thread just realized it was dug up from 2009. Still a good topic. :)