1st FFP vs 2nd FFP

[jakebrake]

I am in a little toss up here.1st or 2nd FFP.I have only use the 2nd but never really did any LRS. For deer hunting here unless I watch fields or powerlines my shots are not far.But I wanted to be able to take the longer shots but with the ease of the 1st ffp.Now my question will the 1st ffp hurt me in the woods up close or with low light.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Do you want the reticle to increase in size as you turn up the magnification? If not you want a second focal plane scope.

I have seen them with the reticle so fine they can't be seen on the lowest magnification setting and then cover up too much of the small targets on higher magnification setting.

 

[Mikecr]

will the 1st ffp hurt me in the woods up close or with low light.

FFP / SFP are irrelevant to these concerns.

 

[Darkker]

Yes, up close, low light issues are arguments for not having a crappy scope. The focal plane is irrelevant to that.

So here is the easiest way I can explain the difference in a practical manor. Let's set a ground rule for either argument.
Miss matching turrets and reticles, is unforgivably stupid. Any focal plane better have the turrets adjustment and reticle match.

FFP strong points:

The reticle is ALWAYS the same size, RELATIVE to the target. So the reticle matches the turrets adjustment at any magnification. Where this shines is for ranging a target, OR engaging and correcting for misses on targets. Especially helpful for coyotes, or deer on the run if you miss. Adjust what you saw you missed by.

SFP strong points:
Shooting VERY high magnification at known targets. Such as paper and 32X. You can keep a very fine Crosss hair, for this bullseye type shooting.

 

[WYcoyote]

FFP is very much an issue for me on low power and low light.
I can't use them in those conditions for hunting without being lit.

 

[Darkker]

FFP is very much an issue for me on low power and low light.
I can't use them in those conditions for hunting without being lit.

Again, which focal plane the reticle is in, has absolutely nothing to do with light transmission.
That is simply an argument against buying a $200 special, even if that company charged you $700.

 

[FEENIX]

I am in a little toss up here.1st or 2nd FFP.I have only use the 2nd but never really did any LRS. For deer hunting here unless I watch fields or powerlines my shots are not far.But I wanted to be able to take the longer shots but with the ease of the 1st ffp.Now my question will the 1st ffp hurt me in the woods up close or with low light.

Nope, it does not, as others have already noted. For instance, SWFA makes a 3-15x42 SFP and 3-15x42 FFP, more than likely you'd have it set at 3X anyways regardless which one you pick when you're hunting in the woods.

Low light capability of a scope, depends on glass quality (coating, HD vs non-HD, etc ...) and light transmission design of the scope (1" vs 30MM tube, 40MM vs 50MM bell, etc ...).

 

[Browninglover1]

I'll play. I own FFP and SFP scopes and up close in low light I'd rather have a SFP EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

It has nothing to do with glass quality as the image quality between a comparable SFP and FFP is for all intents and purpose identical. The problem comes with the reticle. most FFP reticles simply are very difficult to see at lower magnifications when the light is low. Flipping on illumination completely solves the problem but with a SFP scope you can just point and shoot.

If I was building a rifle for dark timber it would wear a low power SFP scope but for a mixed hunting rifle I love my FFP scopes and I just make sure I have enough battery left to illuminate the reticle for when I dive into the timber.

 

[wpwarren]

I'll play. I own FFP and SFP scopes and up close in low light I'd rather have a SFP EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

It has nothing to do with glass quality as the image quality between a comparable SFP and FFP is for all intents and purpose identical. The problem comes with the reticle. most FFP reticles simply are very difficult to see at lower magnifications when the light is low. Flipping on illumination completely solves the problem but with a SFP scope you can just point and shoot.

If I was building a rifle for dark timber it would wear a low power SFP scope but for a mixed hunting rifle I love my FFP scopes and I just make sure I have enough battery left to illuminate the reticle for when I dive into the timber.

I agree with this. Great glass doesn't help you see a fine reticle. I chose a second focal plane primarily because I can use my range finder faster than I can calculate a range with a FFP reticle. However, I also like the fact that I don't need a lighted reticle in order to see it at low power in dark timber.

 

[gusd]

To answer your question. I only use SFP exactly for the 2 reasons you stated.

 

[memtb]

As a proud member of the "Doomsday Society", "Preppers", "WTSHTF"er, or whatever you wish to call me and my kind, I want a scope that can be used as a tactical scope (range finding capabilities) when you don't have batteries for the rangefinder!!!! Anything under 400 yrds., I don't need range finding capabilites. So for a long range/higher power scope, make mine a ffp! If needed for close range or low light conditions, then another firearm would be chosen for the task at hand! memtb

 

[angus-5024]

I love both.

As Browninglover1 said on low magnification I find FFP hard to see the reticle.

I use FFP on 4-14 up, and SFP on anything less. Anything FFP must be illuminated, because if I have a close shot I can turn on the illumination and still see the reticle.

 

[royinidaho]

With the new SIG all reticle visibility, under any conditions, are eliminated with the very nice adjustable reticle illumination capability.

Check it out for yourself.

I'm a FFP kind of guy for everything except for ELR when max power is always the scooe's power setting.

 

[WYcoyote]

FFP is very much an issue for me on low power and low light.
I can't use them in those conditions for hunting without being lit.

Again, which focal plane the reticle is in, has absolutely nothing to do with light transmission.
That is simply an argument against buying a $200 special, even if that company charged you $700.

Browninglover1 explained my opinion in Post#8 above probably better than I could have.