First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

[mildot1960]

I'm on 2 FFP scopes for $1700 invested - the Viper PST 4-16x50 on my Savage 12 243 AI and the 6-24x50 which is slated to go on my Remage (Remington 700 with a match 8x57 barrel secured with a barrel nut...). I was planning on both of these being switch barrel rifles. The 700 is a long action and the Savage 12 is a short action. But to make that a reality I need one of the receiver wrenches for each which slide into the bolt bore so the barrel can be removed without disturbing the scope base or scope.

In addition I have a Nikon 3-12x42 Monarch and a 4-16x50 Monarch. Then a bunch of Weaver 6x fixed scopes for my muzzle loader and Savage 24 combo gun. The Weavers have a rather short eye relief and the scope itself is short too so sometimes mounting them can be a challenge...

After talking to the sales Rep and with what I have read here I have just ordered a Viper PST in 4-16x50 based on what you said ealier about them (a few days ago ), although I like how a SFP works and if the Military use's FFP's then there must be something Special about them dispite my Resevations, So its Kill or cure time again and I dont want to be left in the Past by closing my mind to change or become Tunnel visioned in anyway,

John

 

[westcliffe01]

I wasn't sure if this question was ever answered in a sensible way with all the tit for tat bickering that was going on...

Compare this reticle image to this other one. This is at Min Magnification.

Sorry about the scale, they are both from the Vortex website.

Basically, since more or less of the reticle can be seen when you change the magnification of the scope, at low magnification the bold outer bars of the reticle dominate which have a very good centering effect for the eye. As you increase magnification, the inner part of the reticle grows in size (along with the target image) and at max magnification ony the very edge of the thick bars of the reticle can be seen and you can clearly see the fine center portion of the reticle.

It is a little hard to believe that these super profitable companies can't create an interactive display of how this works. It is totally intuitive to me. Somehow only scam companies seem to create nice graphical applications to let you understand their product. Even a looping GIF would work with a nice target behind the reticle... Is anyone from Vortex listening ?

Read here in greater detail http://www.vortexoptics.com/uploads/web_man_viper-pst-6-24x50-ffp_r624f1-a-12a.pdf

Soooo, I've been searching reticles on some FFP optics in an effort to see what gives, and try to find something that is close to what I know works well in the SFP optic and hopefully a decent price point that the average dude could afford.

This question still comes to my mind and that is if I bought say the Vortex HS LR FFP and I'm rolling into my hunting area and run into elk that are needing to die and it's low light early in the morning in the timber am I going to be able to find my reticle at 6x or am I going to be trying to fumble the scope and get it turned up in power, which will make target acquisition difficult, to see my cross hair. I know from experience that I can crank my my HS LR SFP DOWN, improving target acquisition, and get a clear reticle on a bull.

 

[Franklin]

FYI, you cannot see the full 30 moa reticle at 24x, if I remember right you can see about 24moa. To me, this is a disadvantage to alot of ffp scopes, for me I like to see the whole reticle, not just part of it.

 

[westcliffe01]

If you don't like what you see, just reduce the magnification a bit ! Don't blame the scope if you zoom in too far. What you see happens to be the field of view. If you want more field of view, zoom out.... It will make the reticle look thinner too....

 

[bigngreen]

I wasn't sure if this question was ever answered in a sensible way with all the tit for tat bickering that was going on...

Compare this reticle image to this other one. This is at Min Magnification.

Sorry about the scale, they are both from the Vortex website.

Basically, since more or less of the reticle can be seen when you change the magnification of the scope, at low magnification the bold outer bars of the reticle dominate which have a very good centering effect for the eye. As you increase magnification, the inner part of the reticle grows in size (along with the target image) and at max magnification ony the very edge of the thick bars of the reticle can be seen and you can clearly see the fine center portion of the reticle.

It is a little hard to believe that these super profitable companies can't create an interactive display of how this works. It is totally intuitive to me. Somehow only scam companies seem to create nice graphical applications to let you understand their product. Even a looping GIF would work with a nice target behind the reticle... Is anyone from Vortex listening ?

Read here in greater detail http://www.vortexoptics.com/uploads/web_man_viper-pst-6-24x50-ffp_r624f1-a-12a.pdf

I actually found a FFP and SFP Vortex PST in the same store in the 4-16 power and even just screwing around in the store I had to turn on the illumination on the FFP to use the cross hair on anything remotely dark at low power, and with all the talk about having the substentions the same at all powers being so important I kinda though it odd that below about half power you can't make out the hold points or numbers on anything and it's your basic cross hair.
I may yet try the Vortex HS LR with the XLR reticle on a rifle just to work a newer FFP over and if it works it stay and if not I can easily trade it of for a SFP.

 

[westcliffe01]

If you are going to take a shot at low power it is because the animal is close and fills your view in the scope. Lets not forget that 30 minutes is 1/2 a degree. If I am making a shot from a tree stand at a distance of 30 yards, the entire center portion of the reticle is a circle of just over 1 degree. Zoomed all the way out, the center of the reticle looks very thin, but I doubt you would have any problem centering your target in the space within that 1 degree. If you zoom in a bit, the target gets bigger and the reticle better defined. How long can you hold your rifle before it moves 1/2 a degree ?

I personally dial my magnification to match my binoculars since I am usually grabbing the rifle after I spotted something in the binoculars. Thar way my field of view is matched from the one to the other. By dialing I don't mean the same magnification number I mean field of view. View through the scope is a bit narrower at a given magnification due to loss of the stereoscopic image.

 

[Franklin]

If you don't like what you see, just reduce the magnification a bit ! Don't blame the scope if you zoom in too far. What you see happens to be the field of view. If you want more field of view, zoom out.... It will make the reticle look thinner too....

So, you want me to make the image and reticle less visable to see for a long range shot...hmm, sounds logical to me.

 

[westcliffe01]

I think you got that backwards. For a long shot you increase magnification. If there is some part of the reticle you can't see, why does it worry you ? Are you expecting to hold 30+ minutes of wind using the reticle, with the point of aim at the very edge of the image ? That doesn't sound like what most of us would do ? a 2 min correction for a shift in the wind speed, yes.

 

[Franklin]

No, I said what I meant, you totally missed my point on ffp scopes.

 

[westcliffe01]

I don't think I missed anything. I own one and I use it and your "problems" are imaginary. Why is every critic of the FFP a non owner ? Lots of idle speculation going on in this thread. Personal choices, I understand. If you absolutely don't want 2" of the target blocked by the reticle at 1000 yards, then I understand. Just accept that the reticle is forever equally skinny and I would suspect hard to see with a SFP scope at ANY magnification. That sounds like something I would NOT like.

With a SFP, the view of the reticle is always the same, regardless of scope magnification. With a FFP one magnifies the reticle in proportion to the target. If you adjust the magnification to give you a comfortable field of view based on distance, size of the animal, speed it is moving at and situational awareness (like presence of livestock), why then would it matter what portion of the reticle you can or can't see ?

If the animal is so close that you are at minimum magnification and the holdovers on the reticle are too small to see, you could probably hit the animal by sighting down the barrel (thats what shotgun hunters do) yet the fact that I cant read a 2MOA tic mark on the reticle is somehow going to prevent me from making a hit at 6x magnification with a 1 degree "opening" between the broad lines of the reticle ? Unless I am mistaken, there are a lot of people who shoot to 100 yards and beyond using 2-4MOA red dot scopes where the dot fully obscures whatever is behind it. "Edit, OK, I got this wrong. Some of the well known brands have a 65MOA "ring" with a dot in the center."

Come on men. Is that the best you got ? I can't make the shot because 2" of my target is covered at 1000 yards ? I can't make a shot at 40 yards at 6x because I can't see the tics on my reticle within a 60MOA region ? Holey smokes...

 

[mildot1960]

Well guess this is where SFP's are better in the respect that you can see the whole Reticle no matter what the magnification, So what this tells us is that we need both FFP and SFP scopes in our Kit and that there is no do it all scope so its a good thing that Vortex are alot cheaper than the others because we can have both and still save enough money to by another two compared to the other brands we have talked of,

john

 

[westcliffe01]

John, referring to my earlier post with the 2 different images of the reticle at Min and Max magnification. Could you explain why either of those reticle views are unsuitable to use as an aiming point, because in my view that is the most basic purpose of a scope ? Is the Min magnification a problem if the animal fits in the field of view ? If it does not fit the field of view you just have to rotate the mag ring to zoom in and increasing magnification suggests it is further away and therefore additional precision is REQUIRED to get a good shot and balistic corrections are going to increasingly be applied.

By the time the range is getting long, and by that I mean 350 yards + for small critters, most of us would be at max magnification provided mirage allowed it. No-one can argue that the subtentions on the reticle are unintelligible under these conditions.

How about describing when you think it is going to be an issue ?

 

[Broz]

I think rather than start this whole thread over maybe we should all just re-read it again. lightbulb Most all of this has been covered at least once.


Wesycliffe01, as for this blanket statement please read my first post in this thread on page 2.

"Why is every critic of the FFP a non owner ?"

Thank you.

Jeff

 

[westcliffe01]

Broz, you don't seem to be coming up with imaginary issues with the FFP scope. I think you have clearly laid out your workflow and concluded you don't need it and that it is an issue for you finding FFP's with slim enough reticles.

You are right, blanket statements never work. I am having a hard time understanding the issues some are raising at Min magnification. If I need to dial that far back all I need to do is point and shoot. I would never be shooting at 6x at 100 yards unless I am using my muzzle loader which happens to have a 6x fixed magnification scope on it. 8-10 is pretty comfortable for me at 100 yards and I have no need to apply any ballistic corrections at that range, but I might have to lead a little for movement.