1st Focal Plane Reticle

[MontanaRifleman]

My thoughts on FFP vs SFP. The advantages of the FFP have been spelled out. One of the biggest disadvantages is the cost.

I use a NF 5.5-22 with an NP-R2 reticle, SFP and it works fine for me. On 22x the reticle subtension is 2 MOA, on 5.5x, the subtention is 8 MOA. When I am in the field, it is always set on low power until it's time to shoot, and then adjust power to what I like for the range and conditions. My scope is zeroed @ 300 yds so basically, any shot from point blank to 400 yds is a dead on hold or slightly high @ 400. No need to use any of the subtentions inside 400 yds. Outside 400 yds, I can go to 22x for ranging if I want to. Ranging past 400 yds with a reticle is not a precise method so the ranging argument dimishes, and I can adjust the math anyway.

I dont understand the following from Boss Hoss' post?

Second plane scopes also have a smaller appearing reticle on the target at high power than low power, which is extremely important for precise shot placement.

The size and thickness of the reticle does not change. If the statement is saying that less of the target is being obscured than with a FFP reticle. I assume that's true because I would think the FFP reticle "grows" with increase in power setting, which is not something I like. Correct me if I'm wrong. One reason I like NF scopes is their fine reticles. I do no like thick reticles, but that's just me.

I am speaking from a bit of ignorance here... but wouldn't the NP-R2 and many other reticles look tiny and very busy on low power?

I know there are a lot of folks who like FFP, but I just don't see a big practical benefit in them. If you are taking a LR shot, your scope will very likely be set on high power (unless you want to power down for mirage) and if you are on high power with an FFP, the reticle is thicker, if I understand correctly, which I do not care for. If your zoom is a factor of 4, then I'm guessing that the reticle will be 4 times thicker?

Anyway, I hunt with a SFP NF and I do not feel disadvantaged in any way.

JM $.02

 

[Boss Hoss]

My thoughts on FFP vs SFP. The advantages of the FFP have been spelled out. One of the biggest disadvantages is the cost.

I use a NF 5.5-22 with an NP-R2 reticle, SFP and it works fine for me. On 22x the reticle subtension is 2 MOA, on 5.5x, the subtention is 8 MOA. When I am in the field, it is always set on low power until it's time to shoot, and then adjust power to what I like for the range and conditions. My scope is zeroed @ 300 yds so basically, any shot from point blank to 400 yds is a dead on hold or slightly high @ 400. No need to use any of the subtentions inside 400 yds. Outside 400 yds, I can go to 22x for ranging if I want to. Ranging past 400 yds with a reticle is not a precise method so the ranging argument dimishes, and I can adjust the math anyway.

I dont understand the following from Boss Hoss' post?



The size and thickness of the reticle does not change. If the statement is saying that less of the target is being obscured than with a FFP reticle. I assume that's true because I would think the FFP reticle "grows" with increase in power setting, which is not something I like. Correct me if I'm wrong. One reason I like NF scopes is their fine reticles. I do no like thick reticles, but that's just me.

I am speaking from a bit of ignorance here... but wouldn't the NP-R2 and many other reticles look tiny and very busy on low power?

I know there are a lot of folks who like FFP, but I just don't see a big practical benefit in them. If you are taking a LR shot, your scope will very likely be set on high power (unless you want to power down for mirage) and if you are on high power with an FFP, the reticle is thicker, if I understand correctly, which I do not care for. If your zoom is a factor of 4, then I'm guessing that the reticle will be 4 times thicker?

Anyway, I hunt with a SFP NF and I do not feel disadvantaged in any way.

JM $.02

I use MOA reticles on ALL of my scopes that offer them and in fact the one being built at USO has the same as all of my other builds in the SN3 version except for 1. My Zeniths and VMV's do not have MOA reticles. On my competition (1k) rifles the NF's are used because of weight. Any new builds will use the new S&B big boy!!!

 

[jwp475]

Thanks Don!

That seems a lot easier than using Mils. I'm going to have to search the net and see what i can find on this now.

With both Mil & MOA one must know the size of the object being ranged. They are both angular measurements. It is no more difficult to use Mil to range .

I started use MOA reticle and turrets but have since switched over to Mill and could not be happier

 

[mike33]

How is the mil easier? I don't understand it i know is 1 reason, but it looks like an obsolete way to go. I know the military uses it but that dont mean it right.
Mike

 

[joseph]

How is the mil easier? I don't understand it i know is 1 reason, but it looks like an obsolete way to go. I know the military uses it but that dont mean it right.
Mike

For Mil or MOA you have to use MIL or MOA for size not inches or yards. With Mil it is in 1/10ths. like making change for a dollar bill. That is why Mil is a little easier.

joseph

 

[statjunk]

My thoughts on FFP vs SFP. The advantages of the FFP have been spelled out. One of the biggest disadvantages is the cost.

I use a NF 5.5-22 with an NP-R2 reticle, SFP and it works fine for me. On 22x the reticle subtension is 2 MOA, on 5.5x, the subtention is 8 MOA. When I am in the field, it is always set on low power until it's time to shoot, and then adjust power to what I like for the range and conditions. My scope is zeroed @ 300 yds so basically, any shot from point blank to 400 yds is a dead on hold or slightly high @ 400. No need to use any of the subtentions inside 400 yds. Outside 400 yds, I can go to 22x for ranging if I want to. Ranging past 400 yds with a reticle is not a precise method so the ranging argument dimishes, and I can adjust the math anyway.

I dont understand the following from Boss Hoss' post?



The size and thickness of the reticle does not change. If the statement is saying that less of the target is being obscured than with a FFP reticle. I assume that's true because I would think the FFP reticle "grows" with increase in power setting, which is not something I like. Correct me if I'm wrong. One reason I like NF scopes is their fine reticles. I do no like thick reticles, but that's just me.

I am speaking from a bit of ignorance here... but wouldn't the NP-R2 and many other reticles look tiny and very busy on low power?

I know there are a lot of folks who like FFP, but I just don't see a big practical benefit in them. If you are taking a LR shot, your scope will very likely be set on high power (unless you want to power down for mirage) and if you are on high power with an FFP, the reticle is thicker, if I understand correctly, which I do not care for. If your zoom is a factor of 4, then I'm guessing that the reticle will be 4 times thicker?

Anyway, I hunt with a SFP NF and I do not feel disadvantaged in any way.

JM $.02

Montana,

You make a very good point here. Very good. Your arguments are so valid that I'm swayed to the SFP side of things. I see the advantages of both sides but generally speaking if you're trying to range an object at long range you'll likely be at max power. Then all that holds true of first focal plane scopes is true.

Thanks

Tom

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Tom,

I dont mean to step on any toes or dis anyone's scope, but I just dont see the practicality of a FFP. I sure wouldn't pat more for one, in fact, i wouldn't pay less for one is it does what i think it does in making the reticle thicker on higher power and small and busy on lower power. At the distances I would need a quick holdover, it would be on high power with the same MOA (or Mil) value being the same.

I just dont get it... but then again, my ex-wife used to say that to me all the time

 

[joseph]

Tom,

I dont mean to step on any toes or dis anyone's scope, but I just dont see the practicality of a FFP. I sure wouldn't pat more for one, in fact, i wouldn't pay less for one is it does what i think it does in making the reticle thicker on higher power and small and busy on lower power. At the distances I would need a quick holdover, it would be on high power with the same MOA (or Mil) value being the same.

I just dont get it... but then again, my ex-wife used to say that to me all the time

Ever think about staying with open sights?

joseph

PS: When the power is increased with a FFP scope the reticle enlarges with the same relationship to the target. Example. If aiming at a man at 4x the reticle is thick as his belt with a FFP and a SFP. When the power is increased to lets say 24x the reticle is still as thick as his belt with the FFP and thinner than his belt with the SFP.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Ever think about staying with open sights?

joseph

Real men use open sights

PS: When the power is increased with a FFP scope the reticle enlarges with the same relationship to the target. Example. If aiming at a man at 4x the reticle is thick as his belt with a FFP and a SFP. When the power is increased to lets say 24x the reticle is still as thick as his belt with the FFP and thinner than his belt with the SFP.

OK, so the reticle stays the same in relation to the target as the power goes up and down. But.... to compensate (there is always a trade off) the reticle is thicker on the FFP on high power vs the SFP. For example, in a NF, let's say that the reticle is 2 1/2" wide @ 1000 yds with the SFP on 22x, with the FFP it would be 10" wide. On the SFP, when the power is increased, the targets gets bigger but the reticle is remains the same resulting in less target being obscured. On low power, they are both the same thickness, but with the FFP, the NP-R2 reticle (if they have an NP-R@ with the FFP) must look quite small and busy... something like fine print....which would be more obstructive to a target at long range... right??? Or am I missing something?

 

[sscoyote]

I use both FFP and SFP with my optics and actually slightly prefer the SFP. I don't like using small reticles at low power. If i need to make a long shot with some time to spare the optic is always cranked to the highest power, and i don't range at a lower power except for a point blank range rangefinding system i establish with any reticle i happen to be using. But that system is only used when a quick shot is presented and always at closer ranges (<~300).

The best way to think of the subtension system with FFP and SFP is that the subtension of the reticle stays the same with FFP since the reticle shrinks and grows with magnification. Since the reticle does not get smaller or larger with a power change in SFP then the reticles subtensions (measurements downrange) have to change.

It doesn't make any difference what reticle you're using--MOA or mil or IPHY, u still have to calculate interpolation (in-between stadia figures--.3,.4,.5, etc.). At least for me i can't divide a number by another number that has a decimal fraction in my head while sitting at the computer screen drinking coffee, much less in the field.

 

[Jon A]

For example, in a NF, let's say that the reticle is 2 1/2" wide @ 1000 yds with the SFP on 22x, with the FFP it would be 10" wide.

Mark,

Have you actually ever used a FFP scope? The problems you see with them appear to be largely imagined. My Premier reticle covers 2.16" at 1000 yds. If you opt for the XR reticle it covers 0.9" at 1000 yds. The S&B P4 reticle covers 2.4" at 1000 yds. The P4F covers 1.26". The Vortex PST 4-16 covers 2.16" at 1000 yds. The PST 6-24 covers 1.44" at 1000 yds.

Could you explain how those thicknesses would hinder you in making a shot big game hunting?

As for the rest of the debate, it's really been hashed and rehashed here so many times I prefer to direct people to the search function in lieu of re-typing a book. So just a couple quick questions:

Do you ever use your reticle for anything? Ever? If the answer is no, you always even dial your wind, etc, then FFP really gives you no advantage, you are correct. Stick with SFP.

If you do hold wind or anything else with the reticle, have you never shot in conditions where the mirage was so bad you had to dial down in power? Or low light conditions where it helped you see the target by dialing down in power? If so, how fun was it holding with the reticle then? If not, you're lucky and since you always have perfect conditions when you shoot FFP gives you no advantage.

 

[statjunk]

I've seen the mirage once. Hmm never thought of that before. I could see how that would throw you off if you had to dial the power down.

I really wish I knew someone local that has a FFP scope.

Tom

 

[jwp475]

Montana,

You make a very good point here. Very good. Your arguments are so valid that I'm swayed to the SFP side of things. I see the advantages of both sides but generally speaking if you're trying to range an object at long range you'll likely be at max power. Then all that holds true of first focal plane scopes is true.

Thanks

Tom

His arguments are not valid and they are from his incorrect opnion of a FFP reticle with no acctual experience with them. I deduced that from his posts. I have both and the disadvantages of a FFP reticle are only imagined by MM and are not valid. A S&B P-4F reticle does not cover too much target ot long range on high power In fact it only covers 1.26"

 

[statjunk]

So is Vortex the only affordable FFP scope out there?

Anyone know of a place to find USOpitcs used?

Tom