close
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
  #225  
Unread 03-18-2013, 04:07 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SW Montana
Posts: 5,514
Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scot E View Post
A few I know about.

Premier Gen 2 XR (in Premier scopes only) .025 MIL/.085 MOA
Bushnell Tactical G2- .03 MIL/.1 MOA

I am pretty sure I have the SS 5-20 specs at home. Will post those later.

SS 5-20 .05 MIL/.17 MOA main line thickness, .015 MIL/.05 MOA MQ Dot size

Scot E.
The tech specs on line for the Gen2XR look like .075 in/hundred in the 5-25 and in the 3-15 it's .144 in/hundred, at least that's what it looks like unless there is some other info.

Do you have any good source for a picture on the SS 5-20 reticle?
__________________
"Pain is weakness leaving your body"
Reply With Quote
  •   #226  
    Unread 03-18-2013, 04:22 PM
    Platinum Member
     
    Join Date: Mar 2008
    Location: SW Idaho
    Posts: 1,307
    Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigngreen View Post
    The tech specs on line for the Gen2XR look like .075 in/hundred in the 5-25 and in the 3-15 it's .144 in/hundred, at least that's what it looks like unless there is some other info.

    Do you have any good source for a picture on the SS 5-20 reticle?

    SWFA SS Reticle Substensions - The Optics Talk Forums

    Scot E.
    Reply With Quote

      #227  
    Unread 03-18-2013, 06:04 PM
    Platinum Member
     
    Join Date: Jul 2011
    Location: Near Napoleon,MI
    Posts: 1,192
    Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

    Since these are FFP scopes and yes, I posted the pictures directly from the Vortex website and it says right on them that they are in MOA (I am not a MIL man), it means that no matter what, the reticle will be either 0.21 or 0.18 MOA wide.

    So taking the 4-16 as the worst case with the 0.21 wide reticle and knowing that 1MOA is a dimension of 10.47" at 1000 yards then multiplying 0.21*10.47" yields 2.20" at 1000 yards. So, please explain to me what you are trying to shoot at 1000 yards, that is smaller than 2.20" ? Especially considering that a 2mph wind drift is a full 1.4MOA POI shift or 14.6" ?

    I can understand that in benchrest shooting, where most other factors have been eliminated and one has the means to make tiny, repeatable corrections to the point of aim, that seeing the target clearly is important. But this is not a benchrest forum. Here people hunt in "field conditions" using what they carried to a high point and that sure isn't a bench rest...

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mildot1960 View Post
    WestCliffe, I'm NOT Speculating Anything AT ALL, work out the Math on that for a second,

    IF they were that Thick they would be .21 = 21MIL at 100yds and that 210MIL at a 1000yds that is 8 and a 1/4 inches at a 1000yds.

    Now how the Heck can we see A 1/2" MOA Hiding behind a21mm Reticle

    1/2"= 12.7mm approx, 21mm= 13/16ths,

    I Repeat, I Phone the Company that Supplies the British Army And the British Police Force and He looked it up on his computer just to make sure and he said that they are .03 and .06

    Now weather Those drawings are accurite as per newer models I dont know, But I will Call him again and get the Spec Sheet that he is Quoting from,

    If they were .21 that meens they would measure .00827" (just over 8 thou) I think,

    When a Person from a multi million Dollar Company Who supplies the Armed Forces gives me the good Oil on a product I have now reason to call him a Liar.

    this thread is getting out of hand now, I am the messinger Thats all
    Reply With Quote
      #228  
    Unread 03-18-2013, 06:16 PM
    Platinum Member
     
    Join Date: Jul 2011
    Location: Near Napoleon,MI
    Posts: 1,192
    Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

    I would have to add, that I am pretty sure my eye is not going to resolve a 2" object in my 16x scope at 1000 yards. Perhaps someone younger and better endowed in the vision dept, but not me. Which is why I got the 6-24 on order since I think I have a better chance resolving something at 1000 yards with that scope. Even a coyote is more than 0.5MOA at 1000 yards and with the 6-24 scope the reticle should neatly divide it in 3.

    I'll be sure to post here when I do actually shoot my first coyote at 1000 yards. The vitals on an elk would be well more than 1MOA and the same with a brown bear and the bodies on either of those closer to 2MOA or more, so seeing them and chosing a point of aim should not be a problem.
    Reply With Quote
      #229  
    Unread 03-18-2013, 06:33 PM
    Platinum Member
     
    Join Date: Feb 2007
    Location: Townsend, Montana.
    Posts: 8,470
    Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by westcliffe01 View Post
    I would have to add, that I am pretty sure my eye is not going to resolve a 2" object in my 16x scope at 1000 yards. Perhaps someone younger and better endowed in the vision dept, but not me. Which is why I got the 6-24 on order since I think I have a better chance resolving something at 1000 yards with that scope. Even a coyote is more than 0.5MOA at 1000 yards and with the 6-24 scope the reticle should neatly divide it in 3.

    I'll be sure to post here when I do actually shoot my first coyote at 1000 yards. The vitals on an elk would be well more than 1MOA and the same with a brown bear and the bodies on either of those closer to 2MOA or more, so seeing them and chosing a point of aim should not be a problem.
    Westcliff01, I understand that it does not matter to you and you are comfortable with a .210" and sir you are completely entitled to use what works well for you.

    I also prefer a fine reticle and .2 would not be one I chose. My aim point at my 1000 yard target is not much more than 2" and I prefer to divide it. I have shot more than a few coyotes past 1000 along with more than a couple antelope between 1000 and 1300. I like to split the vertical thickness of them in 1/2 and for this I feel thinner is better. Not to long ago I was on a sitting coyote at 1760 yards and ready to attempt my first mile yote. But he decided to move. I can tell you for sure I would not have wanted a reticle thicker than my .062" NP-R1 for that shot.

    It may be a personal preference, but I have also taken a few elk past 1000 and it is not the fact that it can't be done with a reticle that covers 2" or 3". It is more about the sight picture for me. I prefer to keep that 2" or 3"reduced to a finer point of aim. 2" could mean a lot on an elk if I am off on my wind call. Just another error we try to trim down.

    Just my experience and opinion, your mileage may vary.

    Jeff
    __________________
    Reply With Quote
      #230  
    Unread 03-18-2013, 07:09 PM
    Silver Member
     
    Join Date: Jun 2010
    Location: Huron, SD
    Posts: 353
    Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

    Yet you buy an ATACR with its thick reticle?
    Reply With Quote
      #231  
    Unread 03-18-2013, 07:28 PM
    Gold Member
     
    Join Date: Apr 2012
    Location: Terre Haute In.
    Posts: 693
    Re: First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by orkan View Post
    Yet you buy an ATACR with its thick reticle?
    I havn't said much on this thread, other than I prefer sfp. But man you just won't let it rest, your just too full of yourself, and since you are a sponser I will say this because of this thread, I wouldn't buy chit from you.
    __________________
    Rick

    Reply With Quote
    Reply

    Bookmarks

    Thread Tools
    Display Modes



    All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:37 PM.


    Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
    All content ©2010-2015 Long Range Hunting, LLC