First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

[Broz]

I agree it is very evident many of the deciding factors are "personal preferences" and a new user should look hard at the differences and decide what is best suited and necessary for the methods they wish to pursue. I also feel that whatever they buy they need to learn to use it well and concentrate on it's advantages. I am continually surprised by reading posts that reveal the owners/users of some fine equipment that clearly have not mastered its full potential yet. Scopes and rangefinders are among the top items taken for granted.

Jeff

 

[MMERSS]

I am continually surprised by reading posts that reveal the owners/users of some fine equipment that clearly have not mastered its full potential yet.
Jeff

Thats EXACTLY how I feel about my wife!

 

[Scot E]

I agree it is very evident many of the deciding factors are "personal preferences" and a new user should look hard at the differences and decide what is best suited and necessary for the methods they wish to pursue. I also feel that whatever they buy they need to learn to use it well and concentrate on it's advantages. I am continually surprised by reading posts that reveal the owners/users of some fine equipment that clearly have not mastered its full potential yet. Scopes and rangefinders are among the top items taken for granted.

Jeff

Very true!

Scot E.

 

[Scot E]

Bros, I have seen the same Reticle design's in SFP Scopes as those here in the FFP pictures, So surely with all those windage and eleivation marks, they would both be able to do the same as what some are calling Quick Shots,

I agree that the concept of FFP is a cool idea, But apart from Target and crosshair staying as a matched size to eachother then there is no other real issue/benifit here, Which means this all goes back to the first comments by you and Orkan, that the bottom line is IT's all about personal choice

As I have said before regarding the price, since these things have been on sale all that has happend is that another $1000 plus has been added on to the price because its something new and alot of it Is people wanting to be the first in the club to Own/Have one and with some it's because they are trying to get better at shooting, I have seen both examples at differant gun clubs,

I've seen guys who were fairly resonable shots spend over $1200 on a .22 getting work done on it and fitting a 6-$700 Leupold scope on it and yet someone with a $150 Rifle and a $65 scope win the shoot,
My point is an Aston Martin is not going to turn anyone in to James Bond,
And no mater what you spend is not going to help, its like other people have said here already, IT's what you prefer and how you put your particular skills/scope to work.

john

Yes, ballistic style reticles can theoretically do the same in an FFP or SFP scope assuming you keep the SFP scope at its calibrated power. Things you must do though.
1. Measure the subtentions at the calibrated power to make sure they match up correctly. It is commonly believed that they come from the manf. calibrated correctly, many of them, including some high end ones don't.
2. If you are going to use a lower power, say for example half of the calibrated power, in order to double the subtention amounts, you must also calibrate at that power level to make sure that everything is matched up. This is almost never exactly accurate and you will have to find the correct power were your subtensions are correct and mark you own point so you can return to it consistently. Many people don't realize that scope rated 5-20 isn't exactly 5-20 power. It may be 4.5-19 or 5.3-19.7. So you don't start out exactly correct and the power numbers on the adjustment knob are seldom perfect. This is one of the reasons SFP scopes are not ideal for holding over, because power adjustment affects subtension measurements whereas with an FFP scope it has no influence. Again, it can be done but you just have to be careful and know what you are doing. I personally don't like the error that is introduced by the whole concept I described and is part of the reason I first tried FFP.

Not that you specifically asked this but there are some benefits for not having to shoot on high power all the time. If there is any mirage high power can get you in trouble. I personally don't like the narrow field of view and critical eyebox that max power gives me. I also don't like the reduced image quality that you will get as the power increases. And you have this issue on most scopes to some degree. I only ever use as much power as I need to make the shot, nothing more. But this is a luxury only FFP allows, unless you are dial wind and elevation shooter, which I am not.

A couple points of interest. FFP scopes aren't new. Their popularity is new in the US because SFP has been what we were offered as an option for the most part. But our European counterparts have been just as diehard about FFP as we have in the US about SFP. And in the US FFP has been available just not popular so there weren't many options. Part of that was the technology of old wasn't as kind to FFP as it was to SFP so that made the FFP drawbacks more considerable. Now we are seeing the differences shrink. Also, FFP scopes are more expensive to make. I am not stating that all of the price difference is cost of build but some of it certainly is.

Also, I understand your premise about the expensive gun vs the cheap gun. But I think you may be missing the bigger picture. Put the expensive gun into the hand of the better shooter that was using the cheaper gun and you would likely see him improve his score or groups. So skill definitely matters but so does a finely tuned instrument. Add the 2 together and you have it all!

Scot E.

 

[mildot1960]

I agree Scot 100%, Today I have spent a few hours on NF's site and it has opened my eyes a fair bit and I like the concept even more and the build quality is from another world, incredable craftsmanship,

My example of the VERY average shooter spending big Dollars on that .22 setup was from someone that I knew of who was very upset at the fact his new rig did'nt help and after this happend a few times I then told him what was going wrong, needless to say he soon went up a grade,

After I pickup the Bushnell 6500 Elite, I think I will be playing with the NF 3.5-15x50 F1 NXS,
I like to buy military scopes because if they are Soldier Proof then there's got to be some good about them ONLY because as a Deployment Grade sight they dont have many weak points,

Don't get me Wrong, I still my SFP scopes but just like I use differant rifles for differant tasks I want to Put the right sights on them

Oh, and thanks for the info, John

 

[Scot E]

I agree Scot 100%, Today I have spent a few hours on NF's site and it has opened my eyes a fair bit and I like the concept even more and the build quality is from another world, incredable craftsmanship,

My example of the VERY average shooter spending big Dollars on that .22 setup was from someone that I knew of who was very upset at the fact his new rig did'nt help and after this happend a few times I then told him what was going wrong, needless to say he soon went up a grade,

After I pickup the Bushnell 6500 Elite, I think I will be playing with the NF 3.5-15x50 F1 NXS,
I like to buy military scopes because if they are Soldier Proof then there's got to be some good about them ONLY because as a Deployment Grade sight they dont have many weak points,

Don't get me Wrong, I still my SFP scopes but just like I use differant rifles for differant tasks I want to Put the right sights on them

Oh, and thanks for the info, John

If you like Bushnell don't forget to look at their tactical line. They are top notch as well. I have had really good luck with Bushnell.

Good luck!

Scot E.!

 

[mildot1960]

Hi Scot yes I will, I have just downloaded thei catalog thanks, last night chased down some price's on NF and Premier scopes and they are a joke over here, The NF Beast 5-25x50 is $4492.50 and thats just crazy and all the Premier scopes are $3577.50 and up, the New Steiner 5-25z56 is $3900.00, As I came over here from Oz one thing that I have noticed that all they do here is change the Dollar sign to a pound sign and plus their 20% vat (sales tax) it doubles the price, Crazy, I'm thinking of crossing the pond to hunt and go shopping and I'd still have money to spare,

thanks Mate, John

 

[gamehawker]

broz
that's exactly what I meen but Im not going only by the post pic but by looking through both my scopes both are vortex viper pst 4-16x50 only difference is one is ffp and the other is sfp so if this is how a ffp scope is then Im paying extra $$ for 16 power and only getting 10 not worth it to me
Im gonna call vortex and see what they say

Did you ever call Vortex and if did, what did they say?

 

[Broz]

Yes, ballistic style reticles can theoretically do the same in an FFP or SFP scope assuming you keep the SFP scope at its calibrated power. Things you must do though.
1. Measure the subtentions at the calibrated power to make sure they match up correctly. It is commonly believed that they come from the manf. calibrated correctly, many of them, including some high end ones don't.
2. If you are going to use a lower power, say for example half of the calibrated power, in order to double the subtention amounts, you must also calibrate at that power level to make sure that everything is matched up. This is almost never exactly accurate and you will have to find the correct power were your subtensions are correct and mark you own point so you can return to it consistently. Many people don't realize that scope rated 5-20 isn't exactly 5-20 power. It may be 4.5-19 or 5.3-19.7. So you don't start out exactly correct and the power numbers on the adjustment knob are seldom perfect. This is one of the reasons SFP scopes are not ideal for holding over, because power adjustment affects subtension measurements whereas with an FFP scope it has no influence. Again, it can be done but you just have to be careful and know what you are doing. I personally don't like the error that is introduced by the whole concept I described and is part of the reason I first tried FFP.

Not that you specifically asked this but there are some benefits for not having to shoot on high power all the time. If there is any mirage high power can get you in trouble. I personally don't like the narrow field of view and critical eyebox that max power gives me. I also don't like the reduced image quality that you will get as the power increases. And you have this issue on most scopes to some degree. I only ever use as much power as I need to make the shot, nothing more. But this is a luxury only FFP allows, unless you are dial wind and elevation shooter, which I am not.

Hi Scott, I wish to address the above quote with, how much error? Now I am also a fan of removing all the error you can in a long range shot. We all know errors multiply with distance. But we are talking hold over with a calibrated reticle here or a BDC reticle. The FFP users have already stated many times that this type of hold over aiming is a "better choice" for the "quick Shots" some will take at fleeing game, or game that may soon move out of sight. Most likely at closer distances. Correct? So I feel that distance will surely be held to, , is 500 to 600 yards fair?

So a reticle that is in calibration on highest power, lets use a NXS on 22X and a reticle on a 1 moa grid (NP-R1 or MOAR). At 11x it is a 2 moa grid. So at 16.5 X it is a 1.5 moa grid. Now even if you have this scope on 10 or 12 X instead of 11, or it is slightly off in calibration 1 X or so as you gave in your example. The actual amount of error at 500 or 600 yards is not much. It is indeed less than 1/4 moa. That is less than 1 1/2 inches at 600 yards. Surely you can agree that 1 1/2" is not a huge factor, and that the shooter errors implied from a "quick shot" is most likely a lot greater?

As can be seen in this thread earlier on. The guys that use FFP and know them well like to whine about "Myths" for the FFP, being put forth by the SFP users. Which I feel is a "Myth" in it self. So Is it not fair to say the above example I gave not an example of the FFP users not putting forth the entire story, or putting forth a "Myth" about the SFP's?

Also, if this miscalculation of reticles is a valid one we need to check. And I agree we need check everything we can to be the best at what we do, then are we saying that this can not exist in a FFP as well? It seems to me that it surely could. Especially less expensive offerings as pointed out by a FFP user / expert early in this thread. The difference would be if the FFP is off , it will be off through the entire magnification range and would not be correct at any one point.

For the record I am not a BDC or Hold over fan any more. I used them years ago. They are widely used with success at the distances they are intended for. But you said yourself you want to remove room for error. I do as well, for me, and many will agree, the most accurate way is to dial and hold center crosshair where you want the bullet to go. It removes all the "Error" we are talking about here with either FFP or SFP alike. And that is the fact that makes me prefer to not use hold over unless I have to.

Jeff

 

[bigngreen]

How many of you guys who use hold overs have used a Ballistic turret, kinda curious since we are talking so much about getting on target fast.

I've used hold overs and dialing for years, this year I changed to Ballistic turret with MOA markings as well and you could not pay me enough money to go back to hold overs. I was blown away with how fast I can deliver a much more precise hit on game with the ballistic turret than any other method I've used!!

 

[mildot1960]

Quoted by Bros:- For the record I am not a BDC or Hold over fan any more. I used them years ago. They are widely used with success at the distances they are intended for. But you said yourself you want to remove room for error. I do as well, for me, and many will agree, the most accurate way is to dial and hold center crosshair where you want the bullet to go. It removes all the "Error" we are talking about here with either FFP or SFP alike. And that is the fact that makes me prefer to not use hold over unless I have to.End Quote.

That was My point earlier, as to using the scope as it was ment to be used, but i just had a thought about some of the FFP Reticle's they seem to have the extra markings that really just show the aim points/holdovers that alot of shooters have done with Mildot/crosshair designs for years and it might just be there to help those who are less well versed at doing holdovers??

I think that these scope's are becoming more of a crutch and we tend to ignor the common methods of using a scope in the first place and lesser shooters are trying anything to become the next Carlos Hathcock, God Bless Him,

USMC and Seal Snipers do all the shots that some of us only dream of and they just do it the way they were taught and they still can beat most of us if not all, RESPECT.

I think that you shoot the same way and and I try To, and these FFP fancy Reticle's ( NOT THE NORNAL M/DOT FFP ) types distract us to using a differant method from the Basic way and It all goes wrong when we forget and combine the two ways together and it all goes wrong???

Thats just what I pickup from all this and I am reluctant to mix and match the two, because that might put me back to square one

John

 

[Broz]

How many of you guys who use hold overs have used a Ballistic turret, kinda curious since we are talking so much about getting on target fast.

I've used hold overs and dialing for years, this year I changed to Ballistic turret with MOA markings as well and you could not pay me enough money to go back to hold overs. I was blown away with how fast I can deliver a much more precise hit on game with the ballistic turret than any other method I've used!!

I agree with this. And I am using them more all the time. As long as they are as you indicated with both yardage and MOA readings. The reason for both is that we need to understand the Ballistic turrets are only calibrated to one temperature and altitude. So we need to limit the distance they are used to within the accepted error factor they will induce, much like hold over. I limit their use to 600 yards.

Jeff

 

[sp6x6]

Not just an arm, some of these optics ask for the leg also. Pretty good thoughts all the way through Scot.
I've been going through the reticles available in FFP, and really have not found one I like.
The Leupold TMR is what I'm currently using and like. Is there a reticle in FFP that is open in the center.

I shoot a ffp Leupold mark 4 TMR,holds are the same as dial up.I bought scope specific for the fact that it had good features and was 22 oz.

 

[westcliffe01]

John, with all due respect, I think many people buying FFP scopes are not in it for snob value. I paid $900 for my 4-16x50 Viper PST including a lens shade. In the case of this scope, the FFP is a $200 add on.

I just today got lucky with an "open box special" from Camera Land on my second, a PST 6-24x50 FFP for $830. With this scope I believe the cost of the FFP is also a $100-$200 add on. In both cases I am getting a FFP and an illuminated reticle. Illumination as an option can be pretty pricy on its own with a bunch of other manufacturers.

So this is not about price/snob value. Plenty of people on this forum are paying those prices and 2-5x more for their SFP scopes. I have never yet owned a Leupold and at the going rate probably never will.

Now I am not doing competition or tactical shooting and don't belong to any clubs. The people who know I have this gear can probably be counted on 2 hands and the majority of them don't shoot...

As I have said before regarding the price, since these things have been on sale all that has happend is that another $1000 plus has been added on to the price because its something new and alot of it Is people wanting to be the first in the club to Own/Have one and with some it's because they are trying to get better at shooting, I have seen both examples at differant gun clubs

john