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
  #197  
Old 03-16-2013, 10:31 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London
Posts: 180
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

WestCliffe, my comment was not aimd at anyone on here it was upon reflection of a certain Rifle club that I once belonged to many moons back,

QUOTE, 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, end Quote,

And those people were the most,,, well put it this way very close/strange,

I see that all the people here are very well versed in their craft and only want to help and it don't get better than That,

I wonder if the company that you bought your scope from would Export if I paid the Postage, or Any of the US Dealers for that matter,

Last night I saw a second hand 5 year old basic NF scope being sold for $15/1600, which is a little bit hungry I think, and it seems like Bushnell are my only option because anything better meens I will have to Put some Organs on Ebay or something,

John

And again Sir, Thank you for your Post because you have just helped my find a really good Scope and you have just saved me about $2250.00 YES THATS RIGHT $2250.00, what more can I say, John

Last edited by mildot1960; 03-16-2013 at 10:55 PM. Reason: new info found
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 03-17-2013, 08:45 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SW Idaho
Posts: 1,171
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broz View Post
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
Hi Jeff,


A couple things that may help make sense of where I am coming from. I think you always assume that I am an FFP guy only. I am not. I still have more SFP scopes that I do FFP. It just happens that I like FFP better for big game hunting which is primary what this forum is about. So I am speaking from personal experience when it comes to the issues that SFP can have. I have had to deal with it personally. Also, my learning curve in optics came when I was heavily involved in precision shooting with LR .22's and precision air rifles where our expectations were groups that were extremely small. So you are correct in one aspect, I have very high expectations when it comes to optics but I feel that my high expectations lends itself well to LR hunting. You would be surprised how many guys have no idea about the stuff we are talking about. But it is real and every shooter would be smart to learn about the inherent issues with each technology and learn how to test and account for them.

Secondly, when I refer to quick shots, I think we have different definitions. I am not talking about "running or fleeing" shots. I am talking about the need to get a shot off quickly in a spot and stalk style hunting scenario where you may come upon an animal and you see him about the same time he sees you or just a bit before. It could also be before an animal steps into the trees or around the hill,etc. Bottom line is I don't rush the shot so accuracy doesn't suffer on the execution side but I do find it beneficial to eliminate as much wasted time as I can before I can get a good shot off, hence the "quick shot" wording.

Having said that, I must admit I am a bit surprised you are arguing the "how much error" concept in this discussion. I have been hammered by many here over the fact that I use too thick of a reticle to be truly accurate but we are talking about way less error than a couple inches at 600 yards. But now this SFP error is acceptable? Not sure I follow this logic. I think a much stronger argument can be made for there being less accuracy loss in using a thick reticle, due to how the brain brackets objects stacked on top of one another, than the kind of error you are talking about which affects windage and elevation placement. Maybe I am missing something.

I cannot tell you how much error as every issue is different. I can tell you I have personally seen much more than 1/4 MOA like you mentioned. Like you stated, everything needs to be checked and most of it can be accounted for if a guy knows how to do it. This is similar to turret adjustment error which needs to be verified and accounted for, as does reticle cant. I will also admit that in general, as the quality of the optic goes up these issues go down but, and this is a big but, I have seen these issues on just about every high end brand to some degree, in some instances to a large and what I would consider unacceptable degree. Having said that the entire industry is getting much better at these issues and big improvements have been made just over the last few years, in part led by NF's attention to detail. I think their philosophy has spread across the board more than people think and has been the catalyst for all manfís. stepping up and providing a much higher level of precision than we once saw just a few short years ago. The reality though still is that because of the design of the optics there are inherent issues that can present themselves and need to be measured and accounted for. This isnít myth or conjecture, it is fact that any serious shooters, especially you ELR guys, need to be addressing with every scope purchase, if you want the utmost in precision.

Yes, the problem can happen with FFP but itís much less likely. I have personally never seen it in person but have heard about it a couple times. It is just much harder for it to happen on FFP as it is mostly how the reticle is etched. Along that same line of thinking, as guys are checking their scopes they also need to check for change in aim point as you go through the full power range. This is also an issue with SFP scopes. And yes it can happen with FFP scopes too but is much harder to have happen.

Yes, I said I want to remove error but remember that was in context to what my overall goal was when I use the reticle for holdover which is getting off a good, clean but quick shot. The error I was speaking of was things you can screw up while rushing to get a good shot off. Having your power level off is one of those things that can be avoided with FFP.

At the end of the day for me it is all about eliminating as much unacceptable error as I can from my system and managing the rest of it the best I can. For some that may include being okay with power range error or going through some scopes until you get one that doesnít have it, or paying a premium for your optic hoping that helps eliminate it to the extent you want. For others it may be them being okay with the accuracy loss of using a thicker reticle. We all have to manage the errors or potential errors. I just happen to like managing FFP issues better than SFP when it comes to big game especially since it fits my style better. If I was getting into ELR like you and Shawn then my expectations, requirements and style of shooting would likely change and I would very likely consider a SFP scope because their advantages fit that style better. So it is all about knowing what you want, what you need and how each option can help/hurt.

My 2 cents FWIW!

Scot E.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 03-17-2013, 09:00 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Near Napoleon,MI
Posts: 1,024
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

John, as far as I am aware, these scopes are all subject to ITAR export restrictions. I believe that to export these scopes requires a permit, which the distribution network for Vortex and other optical manufacturers will comply with. I am guessing that generally it is too expensive to do on an individual basis.

My father moved from South Africa to New Zealand a few years ago and just recently moved to a much more rural area. I thought I might send him a few of my less used rifles, but alas, it looks like just the paperwork to satisfy the government would be close to $400 before one even got into transportation cost, nor the cost on the NZ side of my dad getting a license (over $200 and takes 3 months or more).

Sometimes the land of the free is not so free... In the case of these scopes though, I am sure we don't want truckloads of them going into Afghanistan every day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mildot1960 View Post

I wonder if the company that you bought your scope from would Export if I paid the Postage, or Any of the US Dealers for that matter,

Last night I saw a second hand 5 year old basic NF scope being sold for $15/1600, which is a little bit hungry I think, and it seems like Bushnell are my only option because anything better meens I will have to Put some Organs on Ebay or something,

John
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 03-17-2013, 09:08 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Townsend, Montana.
Posts: 7,940
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

Fair enough Scot, and for the record I too am all about elimination of error, all and any I can. I think about it all the time for the ELR type shooting. I would not have the confidence to have taken any of the animals I have past 1000 yards if I knew of a multiplying error. I just felt is would be beneficial to talk about how little this error could be in a hunting situation of 600 yards or less. And we should point out that any 600 yard error would be doubled at 1200 yards. The reason I didn't elaborate on that was I felt the majority of the hold over type shots would be taken at these shorter (less than 700) distances. And most good rifles out to 300 yds would require little or no hold over with a 200 yard zero,and I would think eliminate all the error with either type of scope.

Thanks
Jeff
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #201  
Old 03-17-2013, 10:13 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Huron, SD
Posts: 305
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scot E View Post
If I was getting into ELR like you and Shawn then my expectations, requirements and style of shooting would likely change and I would very likely consider a SFP scope because their advantages fit that style better.
Shooting ELR does not preclude the use of FFP. Popular ELR FFP optics are just as thick/thin as SFP options.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 03-17-2013, 11:19 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 2,657
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

[QUOTE=Scot E;780664]Hi Jeff,







I cannot tell you how much error as every issue is different. I can tell you I have personally seen much more than 1/4 MOA like you mentioned. Like you stated, everything needs to be checked and most of it can be accounted for if a guy knows how to do it. This is similar to turret adjustment error which needs to be verified and accounted for, as does reticle cant. I will also admit that in general, as the quality of the optic goes up these issues go down but, and this is a big but, I have seen these issues on just about every high end brand to some degree, in some instances to a large and what I would consider unacceptable degree. Having said that the entire industry is getting much better at these issues and big improvements have been made just over the last few years, in part led by NF's attention to detail. I think their philosophy has spread across the board more than people think and has been the catalyst for all manf’s. stepping up and providing a much higher level of precision than we once saw just a few short years ago. The reality though still is that because of the design of the optics there are inherent issues that can present themselves and need to be measured and accounted for. This isn’t myth or conjecture, it is fact that any serious shooters, especially you ELR guys, need to be addressing with every scope purchase, if you want the utmost in precision.

This is where I have difficulty. Skills can't be purchased, but with the cost of these high end optics, I hear of way too many (for my liking) being sent back for not "measuring up". Maybe its folks scream louder about it than those purchasing entry level equipment. I learned to shoot with a rifle that wouldn't, very frustrating. Which kind of raises the thought is a piece of the SFP vs FFP question based on different individuals brand preference, secondary to either bad experience with one brand or a good experience with another? For me at this point, I would place buying a scope that it all measures up and works as advertised ahead of reticle type.

Last edited by HARPERC; 03-17-2013 at 11:28 PM. Reason: add sentence
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 03-17-2013, 11:40 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SW Montana
Posts: 4,566
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

Quote:
Originally Posted by orkan View Post
Shooting ELR does not preclude the use of FFP. Popular ELR FFP optics are just as thick/thin as SFP options.
It would be enormously helpful if some of the FFP guys would get a list of FFP optics and their reticle specs, I've found a good number of them but some are just a bugger to find. So far the only one that comes close to what seems to be the thin reticle standard of the NP-R1 is the Premier 5-25 then the next thinnest I can find is the Vortex HS LR 6-24 in FFP and then the Premier 3-15, from there it just gets ridiculous and I found some up at .250 MOA. Can't find the break down for the SWFA SS HD scopes but that is one I'd like to know because of the price range.
__________________
"Pain is weakness leaving your body"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:46 PM.


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