First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

[orkan]

I am not trying to degrade you. You choose to do that to me.

That was NOT my intention. You'll have to take my word for it. I value this discussion, and I'd ask that you give me a little trust in that I'm not trying to attack you. This is an important discussion, the outcome of which will help decide how manufacturers choose to spend their money in R&D, which can lead to many new FFP offerings, or the same stagnant SFP offerings we are currently saddled with. As you said, there are a vast majority of FFP optics that can be found lacking. I agree 100%, and find it very important to ensure people adequately understand FFP before condemning it. Please forgive me if I worded things poorly, and accept it in the spirit that it's intended.

I do have enough experience to state what I did. It may be your opinion that I don't but I disagree. Just because I have only spent the money on one FFP, that was over $2000, does not mean I have not seen others or used others. I hold long range shoots, instruct long range, and have attended many long range shoots where I have seen many of the offerings. None of these have changed my mind on what I feel is best for long range.

Is it unreasonable for me to draw that conclusion? I currently own more than a dozen FFP optics, manufactured by 9 different companies. You owned one. I have been using FFP optics exclusively in my daily shooting habit for around 4 years. I am also an instructor and get to peek through everyone's scope if I choose to. However, daily or frequent use is what brings experience and knowledge of what something is capable of. This was the basis of my suggestion that you gain more experience before solidifying your opinion in the way you have. Again, I'm not trying to belittle you, but who would you say has more experience with FFP optics between us?

But I have stated nothing that is not mechanical fact.

While you may believe this, it is not so.

I much prefer the SFP for the FACT that it allows the target to grow in size as the magnification is increased while the cross hair lines remain the same size and appear finer on the target.

That there in bold is not a mechanical fact. The first part is true, in stating how SFP differs in function from FFP, however the last part is absolutely untrue. FFP reticles can and do have the same thickness as SFP counterparts at top magnifications which would be required for a long range shot. I proved this with specific models and their published reticle dimensions. How can this be a "mechanical fact" when it is so easily proven otherwise?

I say at best, (and I need to see this first hand and why I offered you a day shooting with me) that there could be a FFP that can equal a SFP for a ELR shot. But I do not believe the SFP will give up anything.

It will give up one fundamental thing, I assure you: The ability to have accurate reticle holds and ranging capability on any magnification. The fact that you do not require this ability due to your humidity-free shooting environment does not reduce its importance for many other shooters.

But there are far more FFP's that will fall short. And for me to pay double what a NXS cost me, the FFP better offer some serious advantages for (here it is again) the LONG RANGE shot.

I agree 100%, and therein lies my motivation for making sure the entire truth be known. Without a growing market, newer and more innovative products will never come to light. People steadfastly opposing FFP optics in all their forms and inciting others to do so will surely not help the situation. If enough people have the concerns that you and I share, then we can ask for and receive a specific optic to do the work we want it to do. Imagine an ELR optic that gives you everything you want, and everything I want. That would be something.

If it suits you, I'd like to carry on by comparing specific instances. We can talk about the bold print as much as we like, but lets refine the discussion to a specific set of circumstances and try to provide proof of our opinions. You have already done this by talking about LONG shots, at a mile plus, so we'll use that as a basis going forward.

If time allows today, I'm going to set a IPSC C-zone target at 1 mile, and try to get some pictures through the scope. I'll be using a Premier 5-25 with GenIIXR reticle. I'm quite confident that it will show that a fine point of aim can be accomplished at extended ranges with a FFP every bit as easily as a SFP.

I'm not trying to "win" anything or "convert" you. I simply want accurate information to be conveyed in regard to what FFP optics are capable of.

 

[Broz]

I really think it all has been said. Please tell me again what the Premier FFP reticle covers in moa on full power 25X? Or if it is not too much trouble maybe just a link where they have that printed on their site.

Thanks
Jeff

 

[Broz]

so.. with the magnification turned down.. the reticle gets smaller? Why the hell is that good?!

It's not as far as I can see. I have tried to shed light on this. I feel it is a backwards function of the FFP. I prefer the same size reticle all the time (like a SFP). The SFP actually stays the same as the target increases in size when you turn up magnification. So if you are on 10x as you crank up the power the target grows in size and the reticle covers less target area. If you are on 10x and you crank it down the target gets smaller and the reticle covers more target area. Which works well for me as I only crank it down when in dark timber where shots are close and if the reticle covers more target it is a good thing.

But maybe orkan can add to this. I do feel Orkan is lacking in SFP actual field experience and hope to help him when he comes out by letting him use some of my equipment.

edited to elaborate:

Jeff

 

[Franklin]

For me it's not the top magnification that bothers me, it's how small the reticle gets on the bottom end, especially for big game hunting. Now, I have never looked through a premier, they could be differen't. I think it's just what you get use too, so far I can't stand the ffp I've looked through.

 

[orkan]

It's not as far as I can see. I have tried to shed light on this. I feel it is a backwards function of the FFP. I prefer the same size reticle all the time (like a SFP). The SFP actually stays the same as the target increases in size. But maybe orkan can add to this.

Jeff

It maintains your reticle holds at all magnifications instead of just one. That is it's purpose. This means if you needed to apply a 1.2 mil hold, you could apply that hold using the reticle at any magnification instead of only max magnification. At lower magnifications when using SFP reticles, you must do the math as it corresponds to the specific magnification you are on.

Broz, here's the breakout on the GenIIXR reticle in the 5-25 model. "K" is the dimension you are after.
http://www.premierreticles.com/pdfs/2009-5-25xxGen2XR.pdf

Beware however, their website is dangerously outdated, and some information may not be presented properly.

 

[orkan]

For me it's not the top magnification that bothers me, it's how small the reticle gets on the bottom end, especially for big game hunting. Now, I have never looked through a premier, they could be differen't. I think it's just what you get use too, so far I can't stand the ffp I've looked through.

Everyone's eyes work differently, and people like different things. They aren't for everybody. Me, I like very fine hold points. So I like that the reticle covers the same amount of the target regardless of what magnification I'm on.

With SFP, as you dial down the magnification, the reticle covers more of the target. So if I dial back from 22x to 11x on a SFP optic, the reticle is covering two times more area. On a FFP, it's covering the same amount regardless of magnification.

That pales in comparison to the importance of having my holds be accurate on all powers however.

 

[bigngreen]

With SFP, as you dial down the magnification, the reticle covers more of the target. So if I dial back from 22x to 11x on a SFP optic, the reticle is covering two times more area. On a FFP, it's covering the same amount regardless of magnification.

That pales in comparison to the importance of having my holds be accurate on all powers however.

Having the reticle cover more of the target as I dial down is EXACTLY what I want it to do, I dial down because I'm shooting close. I also want my reticle to be as fine as possible at max which is where it lives when shooting at any distance. I use the reticle changing in the SFP as a tool like you use the reticle staying the same with the FFP.

The only times I'm interested in an actual number for holding of is when I'm at long range at full power, in the field on a game animal I pull the trigger and if I miss I don't shoot again, if I connect and I'm of I simple change my hold to the possition the bullet landed and us that as my aim point and pull the trigger, I don't have time to think about how far of I was just gotta fix it so for that I don't really care what the reticle substitutions are.

 

[orkan]

I connect and I'm of I simple change my hold to the possition the bullet landed and us that as my aim point and pull the trigger, I don't have time to think about how far of I was just gotta fix it so for that I don't really care what the reticle substitutions are.

If the animal moves between when you saw the bullet impact, and when you are set to fire the next shot, how do you know where to hold?

If you fire at where the bullet impacted, provided you can see it, your shot will likely fall an equal distance away from your new POA as the first shot did from your original POA.

Using your reticle to take a snapshot of the correction and applying that correction precisely is a much easier method than the SWAG method. Each take the same amount of time.

 

[Broz]

If the animal moves between when you saw the bullet impact, and when you are set to fire the next shot, how do you know where to hold?
.

That's easy. You know your point of aim for the first shot. You usually see the impact or know where the bullet went. You simply hold the distances needed for correction. Very seldom do you need to measure anything with a reticle. You have the visual image right there. It does not matter if they take a few steps or move. The picture is the same. I practice follow ups and self spotting a lot. I can have a second shot on the way before a spotter can give me a correction call. Just second nature with practice. No pun intended. If you didn't see where the shot went it does not matter what scope you have FFP or SFP.

Jeff

 

[aroshtr]

I wish I knew more about scope manufacturing to know if my idea is even possible.

Wouldn't it be cool IF: You could have a reticle in both focal planes? This would open up a whole lot of options. One idea would be to have only vertical and horizontal hash marks in the 1st plane. Then have the crosshair in the 2nd plane. That way ranging would be accurate at all powers, and the crosshair would "appear" to be bigger on lower magnifications. As long as the hash marks were taller/wider than the reticle on low power it should work. At max power the hash marks could be a little annoying because they would appear to be really tall/wide.

For me this would be the end all, of a perfect scope theory for almost all disciplines (Hunting, Long range precision, Tactical competitions, and Military).

If someone who knows more about the manufacturing process could chime in and let us know if this would even be possible, that would be great!

For the purpose of the discussion I will call this imaginary scope the "Dual" focal plane.

Joel

 

[bigngreen]

If the animal moves between when you saw the bullet impact, and when you are set to fire the next shot, how do you know where to hold?

If you fire at where the bullet impacted, provided you can see it, your shot will likely fall an equal distance away from your new POA as the first shot did from your original POA.

Using your reticle to take a snapshot of the correction and applying that correction precisely is a much easier method than the SWAG method. Each take the same amount of time.

If I'm of the animal I don't shoot a second time, I screwed the pooch somewhere so I have to figure it out before I fire again but if I say hit the animal back just a bit and I want to put another one in it I simply use my same hold as for the first shot, mentally mark the spot the bullet hit on the reticle then move over and use that spot as my hold and shoot for the same spot on the animal, very fast and has put me dead on over measuring then thinking and moving over a specific distance then trying another. There's no SWAG to it at all, very precise!!!!

 

[orkan]

You simply hold the distances needed for correction. Very seldom do you need to measure anything with a reticle.

There would be a quintessential difference in how we use an optic. My follow up shots come with a very precise correction, measured by the reticle, which I can perform on any magnification.

I too "self spot" and send the follower without the need of a spotter.

The difference is that my correction is measured and can be replicated as many times as necessary, at any magnification I choose, via my unit of choice.

 

[orkan]

If I'm of the animal I don't shoot a second time, I screwed the pooch somewhere so I have to figure it out before I fire again but if I say hit the animal back just a bit and I want to put another one in it I simply use my same hold as for the first shot, mentally mark the spot the bullet hit on the reticle then move over and use that spot as my hold and shoot for the same spot on the animal, very fast and has put me dead on over measuring then thinking and moving over a specific distance then trying another. There's no SWAG to it at all, very precise!!!!

The difference is, I can collect the data from my hits/misses as it correlates to the reticle, and learn from that data. You can only do this on max magnification.

Yes, you can read the reticle and apply a hold, but that data is only useful on the power your reticle subtends correctly.

Earlier, you said your new POA is the first shot's POI. What you are saying now makes more sense.

 

[orkan]

Joel,

What you are referring to is DFP (dual focal plane) scopes, and they out there, with more in development.