first vs. second focal plane, could there be another option?

[Tjscharp]

My understanding of rifle scopes is still pretty basic.
I understand that if the rectical is mounted in the first focal plane it will either increase the size or decrease the size of the rectical as you adjust the magnification. This can be helpful if trying to range something without and range finder, but the crosshairs may also be too big for yout target.
In the second focal plane the recticals maitain the same appearance regardless what magnification, but lose the ability to judge the range of the target.
Here is my question (finally) would it be possible for a small rectical to be mounted on the first plane ,somewhat off center for ranging purposes, while having the main target rectical mounted in the second plane? Does manufacturer do this already?

 

[Mikecr]

There is an extra lens with SFP.
Ranging with FFP has never been very accurate. I'm sure most LR shooters today use laser ranging.

 

[Bravo 4]

Alternative is fixed power.

Not all FFP reticles are created equal, my favorite is the TMR with its open center.

 

[7magcreedmoor]

Shepherd Scopes have both first and second plane reticles in the same scope. I have several, and they are great for hunting out to about 400 to 500 yards. I am willing to sell them, as I have since moved on to dialing for range with target style turrets, and have scopes in both second and first plane reticle designs. If you go to Vortex Optics website, they have a video illustrating the difference between the two types that is pretty good. I run the Vortex Viper HSLR, my first two are the second plane model, and while they are good scopes, you must be aware of your magnification setting to use the reticle subtensions to measure targets, or holdovers/holdoffs. It is easy to lose track of details in the heat of the moment and make a mistake. The two more recent purchases, for my last two custom builds are the first plane model. Don't worry about the reticle blocking your target, it isn't an issue. The center of the reticle has a floating dot that is 0.15 MOA in diameter- no game animal is that small. Well, maybe if you are shooting at chipmunks 1000yards out. If you want to do reticle based calculations, FFP is the way to go. Otherwise, it just comes down to personal preference. I hunt both short and long range with my FFP scopes, and don't feel the least bit hindered.

 

[LouBoyd]

Nearly all electronic night vision scopes whether they have image intensiifiers, CCDs, or thermal arrays have two focal planes, but they behave differently from an all optical scope. In any of those devices having either the first or second focal plane our of focus does make the image of the target or reticle fuzzy and reduces resolution but unlike optical scopes they do not introduce parallax error with respect to eye position behind the scope.

Night vision scope which use an intensifier in front or behind a conventional scope can have three or more focal planes, but they will still eliminate the parallax effects of eye placement.

It is also possible for the reticle to be projected onto the target directly as with a laser pointer. that is essentially a zero focal plane reticle. If magnification is needed a conventional riflescope can be used and it will have two focal planes but neither needs to have a reticle. By using a Galelian type telescope there is no focal plane within the riflescope itself The only images of the reticle are on the target and on the retina of the eye. Galilean telescopes are rarely used for riflescopes since they have no focal plane where a reticle can be placed. Riflescopes usually have two focal planes but can use a prism assembly to give an erect image and only have one focal plane. Variable magnification optics can be placed before or after that focal plane giving similar perfomance to a first or second focal plane conventional scope.

A fixed power conventional riflescope can have it's reticle at the first or second focal plane although there is little difference in their performance. either way they still need separate adjustments on both sides of the riticle for parallax and the diopter correction.

 

[HARPERC]

Not all FFP reticles are created equal, my favorite is the TMR with its open center.

Mine are SFP, but the TMR is my favorite.

 

[backyardsniper]

Im a ffp guy. I run a nightforce f1 and a vortex razor. I like to be able to hold over without thinking about what power I got the scope on. One less thing to screw up in a high stress situation

 

[trazman]

Im a ffp guy. I run a nightforce f1 and a vortex razor. I like to be able to hold over without thinking about what power I got the scope on. One less thing to screw up in a high stress situation

+1 ffp is always my choice...

 

[Thomas B.]

I picked up my first FFP scope last week. Weaver 4-20 50mm tactical with mil/mil. After receiving it, i played with it for a couple days before mounting it on my H.S. Precision HTR. Previously I had been using SFP scopes or fixed Weaver T-series. I was having a lot of second thoughts until this morning when I went out and sighted in. I was on at 100 yards with 2 shots. Dialed in 1 mil of vertical and started hammering the X-ring at 300. My groups were just as tight as previous groups using much higher powered T-series scopes.

I was worried the reticle would be too thick at highest power but that's not the case. I'll be doing FFP from here on in.

 

[Mikecr]

I'm a SFP shooter
And I don't worry about anything there, because SFP covers it all.

I see it as analogous to automatic transmissions -vs- manual.
IMO, once we had automatics widely available, manuals should have faded away.. Evolution
That manuals still exist, and people still buy them, only serves to reduce automatic R&D.. Evolution stalled
SFP scopes do cover everything, therefore we do not need FFP.
And Scopemakers should be focusing R&D on better SFP designs.

 

[trazman]

I'm a SFP shooter
And I don't worry about anything there, because SFP covers it all.

I see it as analogous to automatic transmissions -vs- manual.
IMO, once we had automatics widely available, manuals should have faded away.. Evolution
That manuals still exist, and people still buy them, only serves to reduce automatic R&D.. Evolution stalled
SFP scopes do cover everything, therefore we do not need FFP.
And Scopemakers should be focusing R&D on better SFP designs.

Mikecr I can understand your point of view, but at work I have both, a Night force sfp and 2 S&B FFP scopes... It is much easyer as a tactical shooter to have a ffp scope in the field... There are a lot of reasons for it. As a competitive shooter I could go with a sfp scope but I still prefer ffp. The only advantage that I see with a sfp is the reticle thickness which is partly true, because with a really good reticle as the P4L fine(s&b) there is not much of advantage over disadvantege of other things that come with sfp...

This is my opinion...

 

[7magcreedmoor]

I'm a SFP shooter
And I don't worry about anything there, because SFP covers it all.

I see it as analogous to automatic transmissions -vs- manual.
IMO, once we had automatics widely available, manuals should have faded away.. Evolution
That manuals still exist, and people still buy them, only serves to reduce automatic R&D.. Evolution stalled
SFP scopes do cover everything, therefore we do not need FFP.
And Scopemakers should be focusing R&D on better SFP designs.[/QUOTE




Oh My. Auto vs. Manual? Evolution? Probably you meant to say that automatic transmissions are a crutch for people who can't seem to master the complex decision-making and the hand/eye/foot/brain co-ordination it takes to operate a manual transmission. I speak as one who earns a living teaching people to drive tractor-trailers. There are auto-shift gearboxes available now for heavy vehicles, and they work decently, but nothing can substitute for the dedicated professional driver assessing all the variables and carrying out a skilled process that some will just never master. All kidding aside, I am glad we have an optics industry that does excellent work developing BOTH types, so that you can have yours, and I can have mine.

 

[Mikecr]

Mine are just opinions too, and I'm pretty sure the polls around here reflect the same.
This is not a tactical site.
It's Long Range Hunting here, and for this highest resolution in adjustment, aim, & accuracy of solution/ranging is appropriate. Many here use laser ranging as it's way more accurate than optical bracketing. We dial our scopes as this is more accurate than holding off for elevation. For us varmint hunters our reticles need to be finer with distance(instead of the same). MILS, which most often accompany FFP scopes, are often not as fine as common IPHY, or MOA adjustments. 1/10MIL is a good bit coarser than 1/4MOA, and worse still compared to 1/4IPHY.
Weight often follows tactical scopes, as it seems a tactical trend to add unnecessary weight to guns. FFP scopes similar in spec to SFP scopes are also more expensive.

Beyond slight brightness, possibly, I cannot think of a single practical advantage in FFP to a long range hunter. And the suggestion that a FFP scope is good enough doesn't impress me really, as SFP scopes are certainly good enough as well. And SFP scopes can always be had in finer reticle subtension, and adjustments(like 1/8). And price for price, I could pick up a far superior SFP.

Having both combined amounts to R&D that is less beneficial for us who laser range & dial with better precision anyway. I would not want a SFP that is somewhat like a FFP.
But then, I'm not tactical. I'm a LR Hunter.
Oh, and the 'Smart Car' that has a manual transmission -shifted automatically, will go down in automotive history as one of the dumbest designs released to our highways..

 

[HARPERC]

My

Here is my question (finally) would it be possible for a small rectical to be mounted on the first plane ,somewhat off center for ranging purposes, while having the main target rectical mounted in the second plane? Does manufacturer do this already?

I thought I saw one of the manufactures was making something like this, but I looked and could not find it.

I've seen some of the reflex sights mounted to the sides of scopes, but no experience with it.

My scopes are all SFP at this time. I think if you're really LRH or shooting this will work best, in these situations dialing is the better way to go.

Tactical, probably goes to the FFP guys.

Ridiculous goes to things like a Velocity, or Boone and Crockett reticle, in SFP, or trying to use the tip of the duplex as a reference. Guilty of that last one more than once, kind of a slow learner at times.

A coyote/wolf/hog rifle is the type of hunting situation I think FFP could be useful with the possibility of multiple targets, at multiple and changing ranges. I have a rifle in the works that will get an FFP on it.