Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Broz" data-source="post: 772832" data-attributes="member: 7503"><p>If you are ever in the area I would be glad to share my range or do some shooting with you. That would be a chance for you to show me in real world scenarios. Just looking at a camera pic with out seeing them side by side does little for me. I will admit the last FFP I owned was a NXS F1. That was a few years back and I have not used a premier . But I still do not in any way see why I would want to spend the extra money of for the FFP. I simply do not feel it will bring anything to the table for me. Plus I still like the target growing while the reticle does not. Sorry, that is just the way it is. As far as the part about not using my long range rig in dark woods, well I have, and am sure I will again. Out here where I hunt elk the shot can be from as far as you are prepared to shoot while out in the open, to 50 yards or under if you go in after them during the day while the bulls are bedded in timber. If I hike in I choose to only pack one rifle. I use the same rifle and optics for both. That is a fact and I usually fill my bull tag.</p><p> </p><p>Edit to add: One more thing on the pic you posted. Would you not agree that this shot would even be easier if the target with the 6x6" head grew in size and the reticle did not? That is what I am saying and what the SFP does for me. I am not saying the shot can not be done with a FFP. But what I said was I prefer a larger target without the reticle growing. This is the fact and the difference in SPF / FFP and why I like the SFP better.</p><p> </p><p>Jeff</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Broz, post: 772832, member: 7503"] If you are ever in the area I would be glad to share my range or do some shooting with you. That would be a chance for you to show me in real world scenarios. Just looking at a camera pic with out seeing them side by side does little for me. I will admit the last FFP I owned was a NXS F1. That was a few years back and I have not used a premier . But I still do not in any way see why I would want to spend the extra money of for the FFP. I simply do not feel it will bring anything to the table for me. Plus I still like the target growing while the reticle does not. Sorry, that is just the way it is. As far as the part about not using my long range rig in dark woods, well I have, and am sure I will again. Out here where I hunt elk the shot can be from as far as you are prepared to shoot while out in the open, to 50 yards or under if you go in after them during the day while the bulls are bedded in timber. If I hike in I choose to only pack one rifle. I use the same rifle and optics for both. That is a fact and I usually fill my bull tag. Edit to add: One more thing on the pic you posted. Would you not agree that this shot would even be easier if the target with the 6x6" head grew in size and the reticle did not? That is what I am saying and what the SFP does for me. I am not saying the shot can not be done with a FFP. But what I said was I prefer a larger target without the reticle growing. This is the fact and the difference in SPF / FFP and why I like the SFP better. Jeff [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane
Top