Why the big fascination with First focal plane

http://www.armament.com/heritage-5-25x56

MOA-ER its been available for some time.

I have been told by one of the optics engineers that the FFP scopes carry an extra lens. This extra lens will reduce light transmission.

In most SFP scopes with calibrated reticle MOA or other style of reticle, they introduce the likelyhood that the operator will make an error. Many operators will not read the manual (or educate themselves on the subject) that the reticle is only 1:1 when the scope is set a specific power. Question is, without a dedent in the power ring, you may not be exactly at 22x or 12x or 24x or where you need to be to use the reticle as intended.

I.E. Countless Nightforce owners who have a 8-32 or 12-42 are unaware that the reticle is only calibrated at a specific power (if memory (another failing item - source of error) serves me) - 22x.

If you need a special reticle with hash marks for hold offs, KISS says FFP scopes reduce operator error and offer more flexibility (variable power).

In the old days before illuminated reticles, the european scopes (primarily) had heavy cross hairs for low light viewing). Today, reticles in FFP are generally finer and can be had with illumination.

[markg]

Frankly far from it. What this thread has taught me is that there are different strokes for different folks. Both have there advantages, if you dont like using your tactical turrets and have pretty decent math skills FFP are good. If you use your turrets and a range finder and hate doing math then SFP are better.

I fall into the catagory of the latter you fall into the catagory of the former. I think it also depends on the shooting you do and the environment you shoot in.

I think your post was a tad condescending toward my prefrence of SFP, i wouldnt question your intellectual capabilities because you prefer FFP.

Anyhow i guess this thread is a classic you say tomato i say tamato kinda thing.

[Ivo]

Originally Posted by markg

Frankly far from it. What this thread has taught me is that there are different strokes for different folks. Both have there advantages, if you dont like using your tactical turrets and have pretty decent math skills FFP are good. If you use your turrets and a range finder and hate doing math then SFP are better.

I fall into the catagory of the latter you fall into the catagory of the former. I think it also depends on the shooting you do and the environment you shoot in.

I think your post was a tad condescending toward my prefrence of SFP, i wouldnt question your intellectual capabilities because you prefer FFP.

Anyhow i guess this thread is a classic you say tomato i say tamato kinda thing.

I apologize if it came across in a condescending tone and if you felt I was questioning your intellectual capacity, that was not my intent at all. Furthermore, my post didn't quote you and wasn't directed at anyone in particular, more a general statement regarding my thoughts.

Most of my post was fact mixed in with a hearty helping of opinion, which I tend to do more often than I should. I just don't see the logic in using a SFP scope for long range field shooting is all. Like I said, FFP scopes are not for everyone and certainly not for every situation.

[markg]

Thank you for your reply. Sorry if i was too sensitive. I appreciate that you came back and clarified things.

[Tyzinger]

I've read through all the comments and will admit I'm new to trying to figure this whole FFP/SFP thing out. I think I get it but I need some hands on experience to test out the different theories/opinions and to see what I really like.
I've only owned SFP scopes and like one of the comments didn't realize until just recently the drop marks are only valid at max power...part of the learning curve I guess.
I've started reloading and am getting very interested in long range shooting. It sounds fun. I've been thinking of getting a Nightforce to put on my 7mm STW - but they are all SFP short of the F1 but I want more magnification than it offers. I think I'm leaning towards getting a FFP. Was thinking of the Vortex PST Viper but I've read more about it being low end then otherwise. Is there a $1500-$2000 ffp that isn't considered low end?
I need to study mils vs moa. Seems like many long range shooters are using mils...
Well I know this was a big ramble but these are some of the things on my mind after reading through this thread. Thanks for all your thoughts!

[raab]

Originally Posted by markg

I think the same way you do Cat. But I do appreciate the other two comments regarding there preference. With a Bdc reticle it makes sense. But using it for range finding when a person can buy a laser seems to complicated to me.

The problem I didn't like with them is that you get the BDC and Mildot scopes to shoot long distances. Usually your going to get a higher mag scope so that you can see way out there. But in order to use the BDC and Mil Dots your scope has to be dialed all the way up. Makes it a PITA to find game when they're a bit closer but you still want to use your BDC marks. IMO I wouldn't buy a SFP scope with mildots or BDC over 9x max magnification for hunting. If your target shooting then it shouldn't make a difference really. Although you could just get a fixed scope then and save some money.

[raab]

Originally Posted by markg

Frankly far from it. What this thread has taught me is that there are different strokes for different folks. Both have there advantages, if you dont like using your tactical turrets and have pretty decent math skills FFP are good. If you use your turrets and a range finder and hate doing math then SFP are better.

I fall into the catagory of the latter you fall into the catagory of the former. I think it also depends on the shooting you do and the environment you shoot in.

I think your post was a tad condescending toward my prefrence of SFP, i wouldnt question your intellectual capabilities because you prefer FFP.

Anyhow i guess this thread is a classic you say tomato i say tamato kinda thing.

Target turrets won't make a difference on FFP or SFP. The difference really is just that in SFP you have to be on a certain magnification to use the dots effectively where as FFP you don't. FFP is the way to go if you want a Long Range Hunting Scope but may still be taking shorter range shots.

[Fredo]

First thing first, I hunt nothing but paper or steel.

Had a FFP, I prefer SFP. Thinner reticle means a lot past 500 yds.

I'm sure target acquisition can be as fast with both style, as long as you know your bullet and your distance.

[southernman]

I have not long received a March, 3x24x42 Illuminated, FFP, MIL scope, its now installed on a .264 win mag.
It is with out doubt, the best scope I have ever used, anyone saying the reticle gets bigger and covers the target, has yet to use a high end FFP, its so simple it unreal,
I have, several very good swarovski Z6 and leica, But for distance, the march is fantastic.
It has changed my preconceived ideas about optics at any rate.

[sikwhiskey]

Here is a good explanation/comparison on SFP/FFP Scopes. Written by Plain sight solutions, over on gun nuts.


The choice to go MoA or MRAD, or SFP or FFP is dependent upon your intended use. Rather than falling into the trap of this is far superior to that, look at MoA/MRAD/SFP/FFP as tools, and each tool is better suited than others, for specific things. Pardon me if any of this is redundant for you.

If your intention is to get into F-Class, shoot at targets that are at known distances, shoot from a bench, etc...then a scope with MoA turrets and a finer SFP reticle has distinct advantages.

First, 1/4 MoA or 1/8 MoA clicks are finer than 1/10th MRAD clicks, permitting you to make sharper adjustments to your point of impact and your shot corrections: 1/4 MoA is approximately 0.250 inches @ 100y, 1/8 MoA is approximately 0.125 inches @ 100y, while 0.1 MRAD is approximately 0.36 inches @ 100y. Remember that, despite common usage and association, MoA is not imperial and MRAD is not metric - they are both measurements of angle. As such, 1 MoA is not exactly 1 inch at 100 yards; it's actually 1.05 inches at 100 yards, which will have an ongoing 5% error in adjustment if compensation is not considered. Kind of another topic, but worth mentioning. It's also worth mentioning, that repeated testing has demonstrated that the difference between 1/4 MoA and 1/10 MRAD adjustment boils down to about 1/4 inch difference in impact at 1000 yards, due strictly to the values of the adjustment.

Second, a SFP reticle will give the shooter the same sight picture, with the same reticle sub-tension sizes (not values though), at any magnification. Some prefer this, as the reticle does not get larger as the magnification increases (such as with a FFP reticle), which can result in the target being obscured, thus affecting the shooters ability to make fine adjustments to the point of impact. However, if using a reticle with sub-tension values (i.e. 1/4 MoA per hash-mark), those values will only be true at a specific magnification (typically at max power).

If you plan on getting into tactical match style shooting, shooting at unknown distances and making corrections, shooting at movers, or shooting in a manner that requires quicker adjustments, then a scope with MRAD turrets, and a FFP reticle has advantages.

First, as MRAD adjustment is "coarser", you can make quicker adjustments per click, allowing you to get from one distance to the next in a shorter amount of time. Likewise, given the inherent 10-base system of MRAD/mils, once you understand the math, some find it much easier to make MRAD/mil-based estimations, than with MoA.

Second, a FFP reticle will provide the shooter with the same sub-tension values, at any magnification. Thus, whether the scope is at 5x, 15x, 20x, 30x...you can rely upon the dots/hashes to make point of impact adjustment within the sight picture. Once again, this feature allows the shooter to make adjustments, relatively quicker than with a SFP reticle.

Speaking personally, if I'm punching paper at the range, I prefer a scope with 1/8th MoA turrets, and a very fine reticle in the second focal plane. If I'm shooting coyotes (which appear at random ranges, move, and change their range quickly), I prefer a first focal plane scope, with MRAD sub-tension values within the reticle, and turrets.

To restated with a bit more depth, when shooting paper for grouping accuracy, I don't care about speedy adjustments, and I don't want a big, fat reticle line or dot, obscuring my target at maximum magnification. I have the time to dismount my rifle, range the target, make the required click adjustments, remount the rifle, center my reticle, get composed, and shoot. If I'm shooting at coyotes, the opposite is true: I don't have time to dismount my rifle, range the target, and make fine click adjustments - I prefer to adjust on the fly, and I like that regardless of what mag I'm on, I know the range of each sub-tension line.

There is some more good info in the tread with pictures and a bit more detailed explanation. if you would like to read it go here http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum...3#post10169273

[Rman]

FFP scopes are extra snipery, hence the attraction...the Bob Lee Swagger crowd really likes them...

Don't get me wrong, they have their place, and like Sik says, they do have some advantages. It just seems most of the advantages are eliminated with a high end LRF and a proven drop chart, unless your chosen competition/hunt doesn't afford you those luxuries.

R.

[marxman]

i still want a ffp

[wally338]

And I will continue to use both of my S&B PMII for long range shooting. I might even buy me a compact March ffp for my 22.

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by Rman

FFP scopes are extra snipery, hence the attraction...the Bob Lee Swagger crowd really likes them...

R.

That, and people who like to make hits at long range

[Jordan Smith]

Many people misunderstand the most valuable use of an FFP reticle. Hint- it ain't range finding...

[Rman]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

That, and people who like to make hits at long range

I make hits at long range just fine without a FFP...and, I can see more of the target...

I really need to find a way to put Extra Snipery into a spay can!

R.

[twofifty]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

Many people misunderstand the most valuable use of an FFP reticle. Hint- it ain't range finding...

What is it then?

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by Rman

I make hits at long range just fine without a FFP...

R.

That's debatable!

Originally Posted by Rman

and, I can see more of the target...

How do you figure? The opposite is actually true considering the reticle I'm using in an FFP scope.

[tchardy1972]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

That's debatable!



How do you figure? The opposite is actually true considering the reticle I'm using in an FFP scope.

Are you still using that vortex PST?

[elkhunter11]

I tried one FFP scope, but that was also the last.

[roger]

If anything the crosshairs should get bigger as the gets smaller and finer at the higher magnification. Then it would be useful in alberta.
I have a spare swaro habeict 3x10 (or 12?)with 30 mm tube and A4 hairs in ffp as well. If anyone into it. Id rather it be a sfp. Shoot me a pm. Like new with 100 rounds in 257wby. Havent used it.

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by twofifty

What is it then?

By far the biggest advantage to a FFP reticle is the ability to make impact correction calls, both windage and elevation, for yourself or your shooting partner, as well as the ability to take calls from a spotter and instantly input them into the reticle without any guesswork, calculating subtensions on a given magnification setting, etc, like you would with a SFP scope. The subtensions are always the same, regardless of magnification. When taking a shot at long range, and especially when it's at an animal, there are a lot of factors to think about- how far away is the animal (LRF can solve that one pretty quickly), what is the wind doing, is it constant in direction and speed, variable but consistent across the trajectory of the bullet, or is it doing different things at different points along the bullet's path, and changing, what is the time and light conditions, is it getting brighter, or is night coming on, what is the angle of the shot, do I have to take the angle into account, what are the atmospheric conditions, what is my drop dope for this shot, and what is my net wind call and dope for the load I'm using, have I dialed the correction into the turret properly, is my magnification set where I want it for this shot so I can see enough of the animal, but still have a good enough field of view that if the animal runs after the shot I can still see where it goes, what is the animal doing, is it constantly moving, does it look like it might leave at any time, or does it look settled, is this a "shoot" or "no shot" situation, etc, etc. Having to worry about the reticle only working properly on one magnification setting, or calculating the reticle subtension at different magnification settings, is one more variable and factor that a person has to consider with an SFP scope. The fewer factors I have to remember and account for, the better.

Having the capability to give accurate corrections as a spotter, is invaluable. Many people, including myself, prefer not to use the scope at max magnification at all times, depending on distance, lighting conditions, etc. All optics struggle to give an image that is equally as bright and clear on max magnification as at a magnification setting somewhere in the middle of their range. As a result, I sometimes use max mag, but other times use a mid-range magnification setting. Having to calculate your reticle subtensions at a given magnification is a lot of math and bother that I prefer not to have to do in the middle of spotting or taking corrections from my spotter. Rather than saying "oh about a foot and a half", or "maybe 1/2 MOA", you can use your reticle to measure the difference between POI and the POA, in angular terms, without any guesswork, and without any delay. It is equally invaluable as the shooter to be able to take a correction call from the spotter and immediately input that correction onto the reticle or the turret, without having to think or calculate anything like you would with a SFP reticle.

Another advantage is the ability to measure a target's size in angular terms without any guesswork or hesitation. Sometimes it's valuable to know that a target is 1 MOA in size, or 1 Mil, or whatever.

Yet another useful purpose of a FFP reticle is the fact that the reticle appears smaller at low magnification, and larger at high mag. While many immediately think "oh well that's no good", with the proper reticle design, it's actually a great advantage. For example, a reticle that has bold, dark posts, and fine crosshairs marked with MOA or Mil intervals, is advantageous for two reasons. First, in failing light, you can zoom up a little to enlarge the posts in the reticle, making them easier to see in low light. The reticle is still small enough toward the low end of the mag range so that the "clutter", aka the lines and numbers on the fine cross hair, are not yet visible or distracting. Second, if shooting at distant targets, you can zoom in even more to make the posts disappear altogether, and the fine hairs and markings show up large enough to be usable and legible.

The argument that FFP reticles cover too much of the target is folly, given the excellent choices available that use reticles that are well-designed. The cross hair in a couple of my FFP scopes cover 0.25 MOA or less, regardless of magnification. Perhaps if shooting BR where a 0.100 MOA in POI will make or break you, I could understand the concern. But a 0.25 MOA or smaller reticle is not going to stop you from shooting 0.3 MOA groups. Now that's assuming the reticle actually covers the center POA. Many FFP reticles these days have a very small vacant center in the middle of the crosshair, so it doesn't cover any of the target at all. 1000 words...



The other argument that FFP reticles are pointless with the quality and affordability of LRF's these days, also misses the mark entirely. Unless somebody just chose not to use a LRF, I see no reason to use a reticle of any type for semi-accurate ranging endeavors. Sure, a ballpark distance is not a bad idea with a reticle, but it's too difficult to range with any sort of exactness with a reticle, whether SFP or FFP, and LRF's are too cheap and plentiful, for me to want to add yet another factor of math and calculation when I don't have to. Especially when an animal is thrown into the mix.

After owning several of both SFP and FFP variable scopes, if I ever buy variables these days, they are darn sure FFP. If I can't get FFP in the scope I want, then fixed power it is. Life is too short, and LR shooting too complicated as it is, to not simplify things wherever possible.

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by tchardy1972

Are you still using that vortex PST?

I used it for a while, loved it, then upgraded to the Razor HD when the opportunity arose. I shouldn't have let that PST go. It was such a solid and dependable scope. Not that the Razor isn't, but I'd sure like to still have both

[twofifty]

Thank you very much Jordan. I've learned a lot from your quality answer.

You cut right through the bandwidth clutter, and you made an excellent case for the practical use of a well designed FFP reticle in a hunting situation.

[Jordan Smith]

The truth is that sometimes in field conditions, things don't always go as planned, whether the shot is 140 yards or 640. When that happens, it's extremely helpful to have a spotter with a reticle in his spotting scope/riflescope that can call out "come right 1.5 MOA", and then to be able to hold exactly 1.5 MOA on your reticle. No guessing, no "maybe 7 inches to the right", which is extremely subjective and depends on what the spotter is deeming 7 inches to look like at a given distance, etc.

This is an example of the usefulness of a FFP reticle in dawn/dusk vs. engaging a LR target. Here is a pic showing the bold posts for low-light shooting. Note that the hash marks and numbers are too small to be visible/distracting for this type of shooting. Excuse the poor pic quality (taken with iPhone at dusk):



And another zoomed in for dealing with LR shots:

[Skytop B]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

The truth is that sometimes in field conditions, things don't always go as planned, whether the shot is 140 yards or 640. When that happens, it's extremely helpful to have a spotter with a reticle in his spotting scope/riflescope that can call out "come right 1.5 MOA", and then to be able to hold exactly 1.5 MOA on your reticle. No guessing, no "maybe 7 inches to the right", which is extremely subjective and depends on what the spotter is deeming 7 inches to look like at a given distance, etc.

This is an example of the usefulness of a FFP reticle in dawn/dusk vs. engaging a LR target. Here is a pic showing the bold posts for low-light shooting. Note that the hash marks and numbers are too small to be visible/distracting for this type of shooting. Excuse the poor pic quality (taken with iPhone at dusk):



And another zoomed in for dealing with LR shots:

Beauty, may try the H59 in my next scope.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

The truth is that sometimes in field conditions, things don't always go as planned, whether the shot is 140 yards or 640. When that happens, it's extremely helpful to have a spotter with a reticle in his spotting scope/riflescope that can call out "come right 1.5 MOA", and then to be able to hold exactly 1.5 MOA on your reticle. No guessing, no "maybe 7 inches to the right", which is extremely subjective and depends on what the spotter is deeming 7 inches to look like at a given distance, etc.

This is an example of the usefulness of a FFP reticle in dawn/dusk vs. engaging a LR target. Here is a pic showing the bold posts for low-light shooting. Note that the hash marks and numbers are too small to be visible/distracting for this type of shooting. Excuse the poor pic quality (taken with iPhone at dusk):



And another zoomed in for dealing with LR shots:

If someone misses a shot at a big game animal , at 140 yards, with a high powered rifle, I very much doubt that telling him how much he missed by, so he can hold the next shot differently is going to help. At that distance a miss is likely the result of hitting an object, or badly pulling the shot, rather than misjudging the wind or the trajectory. As well, I rarely have someone looking over my shoulder when I shoot a big game animal, so a FFP scope would be of little use for that purpose.

[marxman]

its just a feature that seems exclusive because its more expensive. im starting to feel smug over ffp and i dont even own one. if you dont use it and dont like the looks of the reticle zoom it would be silly to buy it

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If someone misses a shot at a big game animal , at 140 yards, with a high powered rifle, I very much doubt that telling him how much he missed by, so he can hold the next shot differently is going to help. At that distance a miss is likely the result of hitting an object, or badly pulling the shot, rather than misjudging the wind or the trajectory. As well, I rarely have someone looking over my shoulder when I shoot a big game animal, so a FFP scope would be of little use for that purpose.

I mentioned 140 yards just to emphasize that misses happen, regardless of the range. When they happen at LR, spotting shots is critical. When shooting game at LR a guy really should have a spotter, but if not, it is very possible to spot your own shots and measure the correction using your reticle. I do it all the time on steel. I spot my own shots on game, too, even if I have a spotter, since two people watching the bullet impact is better than one, but one is better than none.

Your scenario of not having a spotter is where an FFP reticle in the Shooter's scope becomes even more useful, being that he is his own spotter

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by marxman

its just a feature that seems exclusive because its more expensive. im starting to feel smug over ffp and i dont even own one. if you dont use it and dont like the looks of the reticle zoom it would be silly to buy it

True. As with most things in the shooting and hunting world, if you don't use it, you may as well not own it. But it has nothing to do with being more or less expensive. The Europeans have been using FFP scopes for decades, LR shooting aside, and for good reason.