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
  #190  
Old 03-16-2013, 09:46 AM
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Damascus, MD
Posts: 863
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

Quote:
Originally Posted by PEEWEE69 View Post
broz
that's exactly what I meen but Im not going only by the post pic but by looking through both my scopes both are vortex viper pst 4-16x50 only difference is one is ffp and the other is sfp so if this is how a ffp scope is then Im paying extra $$ for 16 power and only getting 10 not worth it to me
Im gonna call vortex and see what they say
Did you ever call Vortex and if did, what did they say?
__________________
Remington 700 Sendero SF 7mm STW
Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50 FFP EBR-1 MOA Reticle Scope

Remington 700 Sendero SF 7mm STW
Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50 FFP EBR-1 MOA Reticle Scope

Remington 700 LSS .257 Weatherby Magnum
Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50 FFP EBR-1 MOA Reticle Scope
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 03-16-2013, 09:51 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Townsend, Montana.
Posts: 7,822
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scot E View Post
Yes, ballistic style reticles can theoretically do the same in an FFP or SFP scope assuming you keep the SFP scope at its calibrated power. Things you must do though.
1. Measure the subtentions at the calibrated power to make sure they match up correctly. It is commonly believed that they come from the manf. calibrated correctly, many of them, including some high end ones don't.
2. If you are going to use a lower power, say for example half of the calibrated power, in order to double the subtention amounts, you must also calibrate at that power level to make sure that everything is matched up. This is almost never exactly accurate and you will have to find the correct power were your subtensions are correct and mark you own point so you can return to it consistently. Many people don't realize that scope rated 5-20 isn't exactly 5-20 power. It may be 4.5-19 or 5.3-19.7. So you don't start out exactly correct and the power numbers on the adjustment knob are seldom perfect. This is one of the reasons SFP scopes are not ideal for holding over, because power adjustment affects subtension measurements whereas with an FFP scope it has no influence. Again, it can be done but you just have to be careful and know what you are doing. I personally don't like the error that is introduced by the whole concept I described and is part of the reason I first tried FFP.

Not that you specifically asked this but there are some benefits for not having to shoot on high power all the time. If there is any mirage high power can get you in trouble. I personally don't like the narrow field of view and critical eyebox that max power gives me. I also don't like the reduced image quality that you will get as the power increases. And you have this issue on most scopes to some degree. I only ever use as much power as I need to make the shot, nothing more. But this is a luxury only FFP allows, unless you are dial wind and elevation shooter, which I am not.

Hi Scott, I wish to address the above quote with, how much error? Now I am also a fan of removing all the error you can in a long range shot. We all know errors multiply with distance. But we are talking hold over with a calibrated reticle here or a BDC reticle. The FFP users have already stated many times that this type of hold over aiming is a "better choice" for the "quick Shots" some will take at fleeing game, or game that may soon move out of sight. Most likely at closer distances. Correct? So I feel that distance will surely be held to, , is 500 to 600 yards fair?

So a reticle that is in calibration on highest power, lets use a NXS on 22X and a reticle on a 1 moa grid (NP-R1 or MOAR). At 11x it is a 2 moa grid. So at 16.5 X it is a 1.5 moa grid. Now even if you have this scope on 10 or 12 X instead of 11, or it is slightly off in calibration 1 X or so as you gave in your example. The actual amount of error at 500 or 600 yards is not much. It is indeed less than 1/4 moa. That is less than 1 1/2 inches at 600 yards. Surely you can agree that 1 1/2" is not a huge factor, and that the shooter errors implied from a "quick shot" is most likely a lot greater?

As can be seen in this thread earlier on. The guys that use FFP and know them well like to whine about "Myths" for the FFP, being put forth by the SFP users. Which I feel is a "Myth" in it self. So Is it not fair to say the above example I gave not an example of the FFP users not putting forth the entire story, or putting forth a "Myth" about the SFP's?

Also, if this miscalculation of reticles is a valid one we need to check. And I agree we need check everything we can to be the best at what we do, then are we saying that this can not exist in a FFP as well? It seems to me that it surely could. Especially less expensive offerings as pointed out by a FFP user / expert early in this thread. The difference would be if the FFP is off , it will be off through the entire magnification range and would not be correct at any one point.

For the record I am not a BDC or Hold over fan any more. I used them years ago. They are widely used with success at the distances they are intended for. But you said yourself you want to remove room for error. I do as well, for me, and many will agree, the most accurate way is to dial and hold center crosshair where you want the bullet to go. It removes all the "Error" we are talking about here with either FFP or SFP alike. And that is the fact that makes me prefer to not use hold over unless I have to.

Jeff
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 03-16-2013, 10:30 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SW Montana
Posts: 4,460
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

How many of you guys who use hold overs have used a Ballistic turret, kinda curious since we are talking so much about getting on target fast.

I've used hold overs and dialing for years, this year I changed to Ballistic turret with MOA markings as well and you could not pay me enough money to go back to hold overs. I was blown away with how fast I can deliver a much more precise hit on game with the ballistic turret than any other method I've used!!
__________________
High Fence, Low Fence, Stuck in the Fence, if I can Tag it and Eat it, it's Hunting!

"Pain is weakness leaving your body"
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 03-16-2013, 10:41 AM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London
Posts: 180
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

Quoted by Bros:- For the record I am not a BDC or Hold over fan any more. I used them years ago. They are widely used with success at the distances they are intended for. But you said yourself you want to remove room for error. I do as well, for me, and many will agree, the most accurate way is to dial and hold center crosshair where you want the bullet to go. It removes all the "Error" we are talking about here with either FFP or SFP alike. And that is the fact that makes me prefer to not use hold over unless I have to.End Quote.

That was My point earlier, as to using the scope as it was ment to be used, but i just had a thought about some of the FFP Reticle's they seem to have the extra markings that really just show the aim points/holdovers that alot of shooters have done with Mildot/crosshair designs for years and it might just be there to help those who are less well versed at doing holdovers??

I think that these scope's are becoming more of a crutch and we tend to ignor the common methods of using a scope in the first place and lesser shooters are trying anything to become the next Carlos Hathcock, God Bless Him,

USMC and Seal Snipers do all the shots that some of us only dream of and they just do it the way they were taught and they still can beat most of us if not all, RESPECT.

I think that you shoot the same way and and I try To, and these FFP fancy Reticle's ( NOT THE NORNAL M/DOT FFP ) types distract us to using a differant method from the Basic way and It all goes wrong when we forget and combine the two ways together and it all goes wrong???

Thats just what I pickup from all this and I am reluctant to mix and match the two, because that might put me back to square one

John

Last edited by mildot1960; 03-16-2013 at 10:50 AM. Reason: needed correct spelling
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 03-16-2013, 10:42 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Townsend, Montana.
Posts: 7,822
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigngreen View Post
How many of you guys who use hold overs have used a Ballistic turret, kinda curious since we are talking so much about getting on target fast.

I've used hold overs and dialing for years, this year I changed to Ballistic turret with MOA markings as well and you could not pay me enough money to go back to hold overs. I was blown away with how fast I can deliver a much more precise hit on game with the ballistic turret than any other method I've used!!
I agree with this. And I am using them more all the time. As long as they are as you indicated with both yardage and MOA readings. The reason for both is that we need to understand the Ballistic turrets are only calibrated to one temperature and altitude. So we need to limit the distance they are used to within the accepted error factor they will induce, much like hold over. I limit their use to 600 yards.

Jeff
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 03-16-2013, 09:05 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 HARPERC View Post
Not just an arm, some of these optics ask for the leg also. Pretty good thoughts all the way through Scot.
I've been going through the reticles available in FFP, and really have not found one I like.
The Leupold TMR is what I'm currently using and like. Is there a reticle in FFP that is open in the center.
I shoot a ffp Leupold mark 4 TMR,holds are the same as dial up.I bought scope specific for the fact that it had good features and was 22 oz.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 03-16-2013, 09:40 PM
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Near Napoleon,MI
Posts: 997
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

John, with all due respect, I think many people buying FFP scopes are not in it for snob value. I paid $900 for my 4-16x50 Viper PST including a lens shade. In the case of this scope, the FFP is a $200 add on.

I just today got lucky with an "open box special" from Camera Land on my second, a PST 6-24x50 FFP for $830. With this scope I believe the cost of the FFP is also a $100-$200 add on. In both cases I am getting a FFP and an illuminated reticle. Illumination as an option can be pretty pricy on its own with a bunch of other manufacturers.

So this is not about price/snob value. Plenty of people on this forum are paying those prices and 2-5x more for their SFP scopes. I have never yet owned a Leupold and at the going rate probably never will.

Now I am not doing competition or tactical shooting and don't belong to any clubs. The people who know I have this gear can probably be counted on 2 hands and the majority of them don't shoot...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mildot1960 View Post
As I have said before regarding the price, since these things have been on sale all that has happend is that another $1000 plus has been added on to the price because its something new and alot of it Is people wanting to be the first in the club to Own/Have one and with some it's because they are trying to get better at shooting, I have seen both examples at differant gun clubs

john
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Current Poll
Do you archery hunt for elk?
YES - 32.52%
80 Votes
NO - 50.81%
125 Votes
Not yet, but I plan to. - 16.67%
41 Votes
Total Votes: 246
You may not vote on this poll.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:34 PM.


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