First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

[orkan]

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.

Academically, yes you are correct. Bigger target, smaller reticle will provide for a finer aim point.

However, non-academically, do you really find yourself using an optic with more than 25x magnification in the field?

What is your go-to optic right now Broz?

 

[bigngreen]

Is there a decent FFP optic out there with a thin reticle like the Premier 5-25 for less than 3500 dollars?

 

[Broz]

I think I'll take you up on that. If I get a tag, I'll be headed out to Oregon for mule deer this september. Townsend is right along the way with a tiny detour up north. I'll gladly bring all my wares along and we can make a day of it. If you have any extra elk like the one in your signature... I'll try to talk you into pointing me at one of those as well.

Awesome, That would be fun! I think you would enjoy the time spent here shooting. As far as elk, I shot the last one left last season and it makes the one below look like a squeeker. But a few more have moved in. There were 600 out my back window this am and probably another 400 within 3 miles from here.

Jeff

 

[Broz]

Academically, yes you are correct. Bigger target, smaller reticle will provide for a finer aim point.

However, non-academically, do you really find yourself using an optic with more than 25x magnification in the field?

What is your go-to optic right now Broz?

Yes, if I could get it all in one package. I have tried the 8x32 NXS and probably would have stayed with it, if it were not for the loss of elevation, 65 moa is simply not enough and I am not fond of hold over. 32x did cause some mirage issues on the more humid days, but humidity is not something that we fight here daily. There are frequent days where 32x is doable. So I dropped back to the 5.5x22 NXS and the NP-R1 , I have a few of those now as well as a new ATACR for my new build. The NP-R1 with the .062 cross is the best I can find but would welcome a .050 reticle cross. I am going to give the ATARC a go but get sick thinking about the .140 cross hairs. That does not allow for a very precise aim point. Maybe the better glass will help. I hope to have the option to change that reticle in the future. But for now, and for the LRKM Shawn is building me in .338 Terminator +P I really need the 125 MOA of elevation and the 25 X is of some improvement too. Find me a SFP, MOA, scope with 125 plus of elevation, and a super thin cross, with 25 x plus, and I will be giddy.

Jeff

 

[orkan]

Is there a decent FFP optic out there with a thin reticle like the Premier 5-25 for less than 3500 dollars?

There are a few. However the rest of the features might not be there. If we are just talking reticles however, there are a few.

Kahles K624i is a 6-24, and you can get it with the Mil-6 reticle. Very good reticle which is similar to the GenIIXR found in the Premier. You can get one of those around the $2800 mark.

The GenIIXR reticle in the 3-15 Light tactical is thin as well, but it lacks magnification. At $2200, it's much cheaper however.

There are a couple others off the top of my head with thin reticles, but I'd have to go do a bit of research. There aren't enough of them, in my opinion. This is why it's so important to ensure that the myths of old don't continue. The more support FFP gets, the more options there will be. We really can have our cake and eat it too, but the message of what we are looking for needs to get to the manufacturers.

I guess if there were a cheaper scope that mirrored the performance of a Premier... I'd be using it instead.

 

[orkan]

Here's another through-the-scope on a mule deer. About 800yds out. (never got an exact range)

Pretty easy to make that work huh?

 

[Broz]

Pretty easy to make that work huh?

Or you could have two SFP Nightforce 5.5 ~ 22 NXS's that would work just as well for this shot or better for the same price. Now come on, there are many scopes out there that will work on a deer at 800 yards. But when you start holding on a coyote at a mile, or a gopher at 1000 the ducks better be in line and a fine point of aim is crucial.

This shot was made with a SFP. 1002 yards, note the wind blowing the steel target, and no problem. We took the video through a spotting scope. Scope was a NXS.

What would a FFP have done for us here? Would you agree that the finer the reticle and the larger the target would help on this shot?

Jeff

 

[orkan]

What would a FFP have done for us here? Would you agree that the finer the reticle and the larger the target would help on this shot?

Sweet video.

There are several ffp optics with just as fine of retcile as the one you were using for that shot. Gophers, clay pigeons, starlings... I've shot lots of tiny things at a thousand yards or better.

You already stated that you don't have to dial back your magnification ever, so yes, I already conceded that for YOU, there probably isn't a dire need for FFP. That is not the situation the majority of shooters are in, however. Most of us routinely have to dial back due to mirage or moving targets.

22x vs 25x. I would argue I'd have had a better view of that gopher than you did.

 

[Broz]

or moving targets.

22x vs 25x. I would argue I'd have had a better view of that gopher than you did.

Moving targets at long range? you would dial back? Why? I am thinking if they are moving that much that you can't keep them in the scope you just as well stand up and throw the round by hand..

But YES!! you are definitely correct the 25X would surely make for a better shot. But lets say both scopes are 25X. Now when you crank the SFP the added 3x the target grows in size as the reticle remains the same. On the FFP the relation between the target and the reticle stays the same. That will add little or nothing for aim point ease of this long range shot on a small target.

Orkan, good discussion. I am considering what you are posting as well as posting my ways and beliefs. I can be stubborn but I do walk the walk and will always look at better options if they will indeed improve my shooting. I tend to shoot farther than most and that will single me out some. But I still think that in most cases if you don't pay the $3500 plus for a FFP you are not going to get all these usable options that you speak of. And further more, to me, the added $1000, $1500, or $2000 for a top of the line FFP is not a value for true long range and still I feel it could be less effective in some long range shots.


Thanks
Jeff

 

[orkan]

Moving targets at long range?

Where did I say long range? I simply said moving targets. A USO 5-17 FFP resides on my primary coyote rifle. MANY a running coyotes have been laid to waste with it, and a great deal more stationary coyotes.

But I still think that in most cases if you don't pay the $3500 plus for a FFP you are not going to get all these usable options that you speak of.

Quite true. You have to pay for quality features. Same is true of SFP optics. A nightforce is not the end-all as it pertains to quality SFP optics either. Were they, the military wouldn't have to be looking to S&B, Premier, and Leupold to fill contracts. Not that the military does everything right... I'm simply saying that there is a lot more to the argument than meets the eye.

I too have enjoyed the discussion.

I would have but a singular request of you. Avoid perpetuating the myths of old regarding FFP that drew my ire, at least until after my visit in Sept. If you still maintain your beliefs after I've given you the opportunity to play with some of my gear, then so be it. Just understand that when you proclaim things regarding FFP as you did earlier in this thread, you are leading people to believe that FFP is not as capable as SFP. This is very much an untrue blanket statement that is born from not experiencing enough FFP optics.

With your experience drawn from a nightforce F1 3-15, and knowing a bit about your shooting habits, it is obvious to me why you hold the opinion of FFP optics that you do. Yet there are so many more options. To condemn an entire technology as a result of only using a handful of the options available is not wise. No more so than it would be for me to condemn the entire nightforce line without ever having used more than a couple of them.

So if you voice your opinion on specific FFP optics which you have used, simultaneously making it known that you do not have a enough experience with other FFP options to summarily judge all FFP optics capabilities, I will have no issue with that at all. It's the incorrect blanket statements which do harm.

 

[Broz]

Avoid perpetuating the myths of old regarding FFP that drew my ire, .

Calling BS here. I let it go before but will address it now since you are tossing it out again.

I have in no way "perpetrated any myth" I stated, for long range work, I prefer the fact that the SFP allows the target to grow in size as the magnification is increased while the cross hair remains the same size and in return will appear to be smaller on the target as it grows in size. THAT IS FACT.

Now I will ask you to not call me as one spewing BS when it is simply not true.

Just because I have only spent the money on one FFP, that was over $2000, does not mean I have not seen others or used others. I hold long range shoots, instruct long range, and have attended many long range shoots where I have seen many of the offerings. None of these have changed my mind on what I feel is best for long range.

If you want to talk about "blanket statement" I feel most of the time the FFP supporters are guilty of this in what they say. You just admitted that to get a well working FFP you need to buy one of the upper end scopes. $3500 plus. We both know that many....Many, of the less expensive FFP's do indeed have the problems of either a too large of reticle on top or too small at low magnification. But yet when the discussion of FFP's come along are we only to consider the $3500 plus offerings in regards to FFP? If we say FFP's do not have these problems then is that not a blanket statement? Or when they are brought to discuss we are stating Myths?

Sorry, BS!!!

Respectfully
Jeff

 

[Broz]

Where did I say long range? I simply said moving targets.

Did I not, in one of my first post define my findings were long range and I believe I stated 700 yards?

Let me look that up.

Ah yes, let me quote my first post.

"The fact is, I shoot long range, not just to 700 yards now, but regularly to a mile and beyond. I much prefer the SFP for the FACT that it allows the target to grow in size as the magnification is increased while the cross hair lines remain the same size and appear finer on the target. This I prefer for a more precise point of aim on a long range target. Even at only 1000 yards." [end quote].

This is no myth. But perhaps you are trying to portray a myth buy now jumping back to running shots in close while we were indeed talking long range. Which by the way I have also done on several occasions with a SFP. I stated quite clearly I was talking long range. If one prefers a thicker crosshair or FFP under that I have no issue. But still feel a scope would be better served, (like I stated once before) if the cross hairs were thicker on the low end and thinner on upper magnification to better suit dark timber, quick acquisition but also get thin for long range and a fine point of aim. Just the opposite of a FFP. Myth's sorry, no myths here in what I have posted.

Jeff

 

[orkan]

Not at all... I was referencing my last post specifically where I mentioned movers, not the spirit of the long distance overtone of the thread.

Your position is that SFP is more capable than FFP.
My position is that of the opposite.

You have very little experience with FFP, and a great deal of experience with SFP.
I have a great deal of experience with both.

I can tell you that nearly anything a SFP optic can do, there is a FFP optic which can do it better. This driven by my direct, first-hand experience with both. You disagree.

Is it unreasonable to ask that you gain experience in the area you are lacking before solidifying that opinion and inciting others to follow? What if you find that your opinion is false, after you gain more experience? Wouldn't it be a disservice to those whom listened to your opinion earlier which was born out of inexperience?

I try to be extremely careful to gain a great deal of experience in a specific topic before handing out advice on it. My reputation can suffer greatly otherwise, and that will cost me dearly.

For instance, I've never hunted an elk in my life. I have opinions about it... but as I lack experience, I would gladly defer to your advice if we were talking about killing an elk. First hand experience is significantly important.

 

[Broz]

I do have enough experience to state what I did. It may be your opinion that I don't but I disagree. I am open to look at new options. If not why would I spend what I am on the Defensive Edge LRKM? That is far from a cookie cutter rifle. But I have stated nothing that is not mechanical fact.

I say at best, (and I need to see this first hand and why I offered you a day shooting with me) that there could be a FFP that can equal a SFP for a ELR shot. But I do not believe the SFP will give up anything. But there are far more FFP's that will fall short. And for me to pay double what a NXS cost me, the FFP better offer some serious advantages for (here it is again) the LONG RANGE shot.

I am not trying to degrade you. You choose to do that to me. We were simply having an in depth discussion about long range and the FFP/SFP. I respect your position and your experience and realize you have a business selling scopes and you like the Premier FFP's. I have no allegiance to any of them. I do like the Nightforce for the $$ spent. But it was not long ago I started a thread looking for other options that met my criteria. Proof of no allegiance.

all I have stated it true and factual, you know that. So now I will please ask you respect my posting to and not try to degrade it with simply your observations that you have no first hand experience in. At least until we have shot together and you have a chance to experience what I am capable of too. Then if you still feel I am uninformed so be it. But I feel you pull your pants on the same as I at this point.

Jeff