Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Hunting > Long Range Hunting & Shooting

Long Range Hunting & Shooting Nightforce Optics


Reply

First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #169  
Old 03-13-2013, 11:38 AM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Huron, SD
Posts: 306
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

That illustration is meant to show reticle-target relationship... nothing more. The fact that the target doesn't "seem" as big is merely coincidence. It has not been my experience that targets are smaller at X magnification in FFP vs SFP. Same is same... so long as the magnifications being reported are actual magnifications.

If you have a 16x that doesn't show the same size as another 16x... then either one of the optics isn't "really" on 16x, or your diopter setting is off.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 03-13-2013, 12:08 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London
Posts: 180
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

PEEWEE69, It seems like some of us expect to use our scopes as we do our spotting scopes or Binoculars ( I DO ) in the respect it magnifies what we want to see???, But others want to magnify the cross hairs and the Target???,

I have found that more often than not that the cross hairs get in the way so to get Finer placement I crank up the zoom so I can bring in the target and view the shot placement,

IE, Heres a crude example,

1) hang a shirt on the shed at a 100yds with a scope set at 2.5x now your crosshairs completely cover the buttons so if you wanted to shoot the buttons off it ( YOU CANT because you cant see them )

2) Now crank it up to 10x or what ever the mildot reading is set at, Now you can see them because the target is now bigger and the buttons are not hideing behind the crosshairs
this is where SFP comes in to its own also you get to pick where the sht go's because the crosshair is not masking the spot where you want to hit the target,

John
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 03-13-2013, 10:44 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NW MT
Posts: 2,587
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

Quote:
Originally Posted by mildot1960 View Post
PEEWEE69, It seems like some of us expect to use our scopes as we do our spotting scopes or Binoculars ( I DO ) in the respect it magnifies what we want to see???, But others want to magnify the cross hairs and the Target???,

I have found that more often than not that the cross hairs get in the way so to get Finer placement I crank up the zoom so I can bring in the target and view the shot placement,

IE, Heres a crude example,

1) hang a shirt on the shed at a 100yds with a scope set at 2.5x now your crosshairs completely cover the buttons so if you wanted to shoot the buttons off it ( YOU CANT because you cant see them )

2) Now crank it up to 10x or what ever the mildot reading is set at, Now you can see them because the target is now bigger and the buttons are not hideing behind the crosshairs
this is where SFP comes in to its own also you get to pick where the sht go's because the crosshair is not masking the spot where you want to hit the target,

John
You must not be following thread,the reticle varies from manufacture.My cross hair that is open in middle cover zero.They all vary, even in same brand.Bench shooter use fine or floating dot and hunters heavier.But it is personal preferance.Doesnt matter if ffp or sfp.matters spec on cross hair.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 03-13-2013, 11:00 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London
Posts: 180
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

Quote:
Originally Posted by sp6x6 View Post
You must not be following thread,the reticle varies from manufacture.My cross hair that is open in middle cover zero.They all vary, even in same brand.Bench shooter use fine or floating dot and hunters heavier.But it is personal preferance.Doesnt matter if ffp or sfp.matters spec on cross hair.

Yes I am following it and the open centre type was mentioned but I was under the impression that we were talking about fine crosshairs and MilDot Types, Seeing as they were the scopes in the pictures and the drawings,
but then theres the rarer types like the german number 1 mk4 which is just a single post which are the best of both worlds without ranging possibilities

But hey, I could be wrong

Sorry sp6x6, I was talking about what PEEWEE and the other guys Said not in reply to what was going on page 23,
But sure, I'd like to hear about open centred scope if the rest of the folks dont mind,

Last edited by mildot1960; 03-13-2013 at 11:14 PM. Reason: Left out my reasons why,
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 03-14-2013, 02:24 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SW Idaho
Posts: 1,151
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

For those that think FFP may fit their need for their style of hunting, this info may be helpful as there has been a lot of bad or exaggerated info given in this thread.

FFP scopes are not all 2-3k, far from it. You can get top end durability, repeatability and plenty good glass starting at around $600.

SWFA's SS line makes a great starter FFP for $600. It is a 3-9x42 with excellent glass, turrets, and durability. It offers plenty of power for shots on almost all critters out to 1000 yards and anyone will be able to determine if they like the FFP concept with this beauty of a scope. And they hold their resale well. In fact SWFA has a great used scope trade in program if needed. They also have a 5-20 that is top notch and have a mid level zoom coming out soon.

Bushnell's tactical series, which includes a couple generations of HDMR, some of the LRS, and the new XRS series, are all FFP scopes and have what I consider to be one of the best reticles on the market. Their G2 reticle is simply fantastic. One of the best features in my mind is the varying thickness of the center crosshair vs the rest of the reticle. The center crosshair, the part that would be used for the real LR work, is very thin, .03 MIL or .1MOA which is thinner than most SFP reticles including NF's MOAR and is even getting close to the holy grail of ELR shooters, the NPR1. The rest of the reticle however is thicker which aids in shooting on lower powers or in dark timbered areas. The reviews have been through the roof on these scopes in terms of turret repeatability, overall durability, glass and features. There is a range from 3-12 to 4-30 so a guy can get about anything he wants. The 3-12, a nice starter FFP scope runs about $8-900 again with plenty of power for most LR shots.

There are a number of others models/manf. as well and manufacturers are coming out with new FFP models all the time, which makes me think there is an actual demand for them, but hey maybe I am wrong.

In my mind the truth on this topic is clear, in part because I have used both FFP and SFP extensively and still have a number of both styles and because if guys hung in and filtered out all of the bravado and testosterone, this thread shows it as well. For most big game hunters that are moving into the LR game, which is a large % of guys on this site, an FFP scope makes a lot of sense. Is it mandatory, no not at all but the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks for this group of hunters IMO. For LR shooters like myself, who love LR shooting but aren't married to it to the extent that they are going to pass-up a shot at an animal just becuase it is too close, but still want to be proficient at LR (say 8-1000 yards or so) FFP makes a heck of a lot of sense, especially if you like being able to get off quick shots by using holdover which I really like. And lets be honest, that is probably 95% of LR hunters in general and even here on LRH where there is a lot more dedication to the sport it is still likely 85-90% of shooters. Again is it necessary, no but the advantages outweigh the negatives for this kind of shooter in my mind. For those that will only dial for elevation and wind for every shot, then FFP isn't as important. For those pure LR hunters and ELR hunters, the SFP advantages, or FFP disadvantages, will likely outweigh the advantage FFP offers. But the new reticles and features are even making that a tougher sell for guys like me that prefer FFP for my general purpose shooting and hunting. And for the record I have never shot a tactical match ever. What must be wrong with me!

One other issue that was hit on a couple times but really not fleshed out as well as I would have liked is the benefit of holding for wind vs dialing. Again shooting style will dictate this to some extent. But I tried the dial wind thing and hated it for the way I hunt. First I want to be able to get off my shot as quickly as I can and still complete a clean well executed shot. Dialing for x amount of wind then waiting for that exact condition to return so I could shoot was painful, cost me a couple nice trophies, and lowered my confidence because if I knew I needed to shoot but the wind wasn't exactly back to when I took the reading then I was too focused on that and didn't execute my shot as well as I should have. Yes I am sure I could get used to it and I know a lot of guys do but I really like the concept of being able to dial elevation, calculate wind extremes and the holds that correlate and then use my experience reading conditions to hold for wind. I believe it to be a more accurate way of shooting in the varying winds I deal with. FFP is far superior to this style of wind compensation, again for my style of hunting.

I guess my encouragement to guys reading this in order to determine what direction they should go is to sit down and really evaluate how you are going to hunt, what style you prefer or are best at, what expectations you have, and what exactly you want to accomplish. That may take some time out shooting for you to get a good enough feel for different styles, etc. before you can make that decision. Then look at the individual advantages and choose what is going to work best for YOU. Not what I say or the majority says or what the poster with the highest post count or highest number of big game kills says. But what works for YOU after a good thorough analysis of what you need/want in a shooting system.

This thread made me chuckle many times. If I didn't know better I would have thought that we were deciding on which arm to cut off and how each would most drastically affect our shooting. It is just a scope guys and personal preference, style, and likes actually do come into play.

I think we need to move away from this diseased concept of "I think differently than you do so YOU suck!" If we were all the same life would be pretty boring.

Scot E.

Last edited by Scot E; 03-14-2013 at 02:50 PM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 03-14-2013, 02:41 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 176
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scot E View Post
I really like the concept of being able to dial elevation, calculate wind extremes and the holds that correlate and then use my experience reading conditions to hold for wind. I believe it to be a more accurate way of shooting in the varying winds I deal with. FFP is far superior to this style of wind compensation, again for my style of hunting.

Scot E.
Scot - can you explain how a FFP scope is 'far superior to this style of wind compensation' than a SFP would be? For example, if my NPR1 is dialed out fully at 22x, and I've dialed up my elevation, how would using the windage marks in my reticle be so inferior in this situation?

I'm not trying to question your judgement or anything, just honestly trying to find out what I might be missing out on. I generally don't dial wind either and seem to follow the same pattern you do. Dial elevation, figure out what the wind is doing and what those holds would need to be, and hold accordingly.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 03-14-2013, 02:48 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 220
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scot E View Post
For those that think FFP may fit their need for their style of hunting, this info may be helpful as there has been a lot of bad info given in this thread.

FFP scopes are not all 2-3k, far from it. You can get top end durability, repeatability and plenty good glass starting at around $600.

SWFA's SS line makes a great starter FFP for $600. It is a 3-9x42 with excellent glass, turrets, and durability. It offers plenty of power for shots on almost all critters out to 1000 yards and anyone will be able to determine if they like the FFP concept with this beauty of a scope. And they hold their resale well. In fact SWFA has a great used scope trade in program if needed. They also have a 5-20 that is top notch and have a mid level zoom coming out soon.

Bushnells tactical series, which includes a couple generations of HDMR, some of the LRS, and the new XRS series, are all FFP scopes and have what I consider to be one of the best reticles on the market. Their G2 reticle is simply fantastic. One of the best features in my mind is the varying thickness of the center crosshair vs the rest of the reticle. The center crosshair, the part that would be used for the real LR work, is very thin, .03 MIL or .1MOA which is thinner than most SFP reticles including NF's MOAR and is even getting close to the holy grail of ELR shooters, the NPR1. The rest of the reticle however is thicker which aids in shooting on lower powers or in dark timbered areas. The reviews have been through the roof on these scopes in terms of turret repeatability, overall durability, glass and features. There is a range from 3-12 to 4-30 so a guy can get about anything he wants. The 3-12, a nice starter FFP scope runs about $8-900 again with plenty of power for most LR shots.

There are a number of others models/manf. as well and manufacturers are coming out with new FFP models all the time, which makes me think there is an actual demand for them, but hey maybe I am wrong.

In my mind the truth on this topic is clear, in part because I have used both FFP and SFP extensively and still have a number of both styles and because if guys hung in and filtered out all of the bravado and testosterone, this thread shows it as well. For most big game hunters that are moving into the LR game, which is a large % of guys on this site, an FFP scope makes a lot of sense. Is it mandatory, no not at all but the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks for this group of hunters IMO. For LR shooters like myself, who love LR shooting but aren't married to it to the extent that they are going to pass-up a shot at an animal just becuase it is too close, but still want to be proficient at LR (say 8-1000 yards or so) FFP makes a heck of a lot of sense, especially if you like being able to get off quick shots by using holdover which I really like. And lets be honest, that is probably 95% of LR hunters in general and even here on LRH where there is a lot more dedication to the sport it is still likely 85-90% of shooters. Again is it necessary, no but the advantages outweigh the negatives for this kind of shooter in my mind. For those that will only dial for elevation and wind for every shot, then FFP isn't as important. For those pure LR hunters and ELR hunters, the SFP advantages, or FFP disadvantages, will likely outweigh the advantage FFP offers. But the new reticles and features are even making that a tougher sell for guys like me that prefer FFP for my general purpose shooting and hunting. And for the record I have never shot a tactical match ever. What must be wrong with me!

One other issue that was hit on a couple times but really not fleshed out as well as I would have liked is the benefit of holding for wind vs dialing. Again shooting style will dictate this to some extent. But I tried the dial wind thing and hated it for the way I hunt. First I want to be able to get off my shot as quickly as I can and still complete a clean well executed shot. Dialing for x amount of wind then waiting for that exact condition to return so I could shoot was painful, cost me a couple nice trophies, and lowered my confidence because if I knew I needed to shoot but the wind wasn't exactly back to when I took the reading then I was too focused on that and didn't execute my shot as well as I should have. Yes I am sure I could get used to it and I know a lot of guys do but I really like the concept of being able to dial elevation, calculate wind extremes and the holds that correlate and then use my experience reading conditions to hold for wind. I believe it to be a more accurate way of shooting in the varying winds I deal with. FFP is far superior to this style of wind compensation, again for my style of hunting.

I guess my encouragement to guys reading this in order to determine what direction they should go is to sit down and really evaluate how you are going to hunt, what style you prefer or are best at, what expectations you have, and what exactly you want to accomplish. That may take some time out shooting for you to get a good enough feel for different styles, etc. before you can make that decision. Then look at the individual advantages and choose what is going to work best for YOU. Not what I say or the majority says or what the poster with the highest post count or highest number of big game kills says. But what works for YOU after a good thorough analysis of what you need/want in a shooting system.

This thread made me chuckle many times. If I didn't know better I would have thought that we were deciding on which arm to cut off and how each would most drastically affect our shooting. It is just a scope guys and personal preference, style, and likes actually do come into play.

I think we need to move away from this diseased concept of "I think differently than you do so YOU suck!" If we were all the same life would be pretty boring.

Scot E.

That hit a Bullseye.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC