First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

[Broz]

There would be a quintessential difference in how we use an optic. My follow up shots come with a very precise correction, measured by the reticle, which I can perform on any magnification.

I too "self spot" and send the follower without the need of a spotter.

The difference is that my correction is measured and can be replicated as many times as necessary via my unit of choice: Mils. It would work the same with an MOA reticle however.

Why do you need a number or unit of measure. If you can remember the unit of measure and number you can remember the visual distance you need to correct and you can place as many as you want there. Many times it will fall between hash marks it does not matter if it is mils or moa all you need to do is follow over to the correction point for the correction hold. We can put a number on it later with a tape measure while we are gutting it.

Jeff

edit: I will also add it does not matter what power I am on either. That is a Myth put forth by FFP supporters. I don't need a number for a correction for a follow up unless I am don't see the hit and I need a spotter call. Then I need to be on full power and follow cue. But I see the hits more times that not by far and I will 99% of the time be on full power.

 

[orkan]

Situation:

You fire at a 500yd target, and find your wind hold to be off.

You are about to fire at a 600yd target.

How do you determine your precise correction for the 600yd target based on your correction from the 500yd target if you have no precise number for the correction?

I can use previous wind calls, to determine my future wind calls... because they have a definite number value.

You say it doesn't matter what power you are on... and for your method... it doesn't. However, if I were to ask you for a precise correction given in minutes, based on a shot impact while you are on 17x magnification... what would you have to do to give it to me?

 

[bigngreen]

The difference is, I can collect the data from my hits/misses as it correlates to the reticle, and learn from that data. You can only do this on max magnification.

Yes, you can read the reticle and apply a hold, but that data is only useful on the power your reticle subtends correctly.

Earlier, you said your new POA is the first shot's POI. What you are saying now makes more sense.

Ya my words come out about like my numbers, scrambled

I'm not worried when I'm hunting about data collecting till the animal is down, then I can go back and collect data on the shot, I've gone back to the original shot and shoot a rock or something at the same point the animal was standing just to figure out what went on.

If I need to back of for some reason I simply back of the the spot marked on my optic that says 2x and then it's doubled, which I do often if I'm using my BDC reticle optic to change the value of the hold to be more accurate to what I need. I find it very handy to have an optic that the reticle changes in, sometime I run out of windage on the reticle and need to dial it back to gain more MOA on the hold.

 

[Broz]

Situation:

You fire at a 500yd target, and find your wind hold to be off.

You are about to fire at a 600yd target.

How do you determine your precise correction for the 600yd target based on your correction from the 500yd target if you have no precise number for the correction?

I can use previous wind calls, to determine my future wind calls... because they have a definite number value.

You say it doesn't matter what power you are on... and for your method... it doesn't. However, if I were to ask you for a precise correction given in minutes, based on a shot impact while you are on 17x magnification... what would you have to do to give it to me?

If I was spotting for you I would not be on 17X I would be on 22X and my reticle would be correct to give you a correction in moa.

As far as correction form 500 to 600 yards I stated earlier I do not do sniper competitions if that is what you scenario is from. I am a firm believer in the slow hit is better than a fast miss. If I am changing targets, I would change the distance in the app and redial, if off on the wind from an earlier shot I would change that input as well.

It is becoming clear to me that there is a big difference in our ways. Your "situations" are not ones I often encounter in the field while hunting. You felt earlier that the fact I have only purchased one upper end FFP scope and viewed others in the field that I was not well enough versed to have an educated opinion of a FFP. I am starting to feel the same way about your actual experience in long range hunting. So if I am sub par by only owning one high end FFP should I judge you by asking how many big game tags you fill a year? Or how many times per season you set up another hunter for his shot? Is that not as important as how many FFP's you own. How about 20 one shot kills from the same rifle and SFP scope in the same season? My knives get washed almost daily during season.

Jeff

 

[blackdog]

My knives get washed almost daily during season.

Jeff

Thanks. That was perfect. I always appreciate a good laugh on a Monday.

 

[orkan]

It is becoming clear to me that there is a big difference in our ways.

Quite clear indeed.

 

[ishootkittens]

Quite clear indeed.

Glad we got that out of the way.. sorry I brought it up!

 

[bigngreen]

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.

The Nightforce NP-R1 seems to be the bench mark for me, shot it a bunch at long range and it's proven very good for me and others with a reticle of .062 MOA, I also shoot the Vortex HS LR and at about 8-900 yards I start having to compromise a little and at a mile it takes ingenuity for me to get the kind of hold I want some of which is the reticle thickness and some is glass quality but the price point is excellent and it functions decent but nothing that will blow anyone's socks of, reticle is .156 MOA so these are my two benchmarks that I'm very familiar with in SFP.

The Nightforce NP-R1F1 comes in at .205 MOA.
Vortex Razor EBE-2B is .150 MOA and EBR-2 at .200 MOA.
Vortex Viper PST EBR-1 is .180 MOA.
Vortex HS LR comes in at .100 MOA.
Premier 5-25 Gen2XR is .075 in/hundred yards.
Premier 3-15 Gen2XR is .114 in/hundred yards.

I found it's kinda hard to find the reticle specs on most sites, Kahles M6 I just could not find though the optic is interesting. Tried to find a few others I know of but could not but it would be nice to have a better list.
The Vortex HS LR actually is interesting because it's one of the finest FFP reticles I could find and it has a decent price point.
The Premier 5-25 has the thinnest reticle of any FFP optics I could find which is cool but still thicker than the NP-R1 or even a SFP PST with a .060 thick reticle.

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.

 

[orkan]

In that instance, I'd have illumination turned on before I set out. FFP reticles at low settings tend to take on the appearance of a duplex in low light, without illumination.

 

[fmajor]

In the (albeit entirely out of the *self*) interest of seeing this discussion continue, I hope both parties will stick strictly to the facts while avoiding excessive criticism and/or refrain from taking potshots - even in the midst of frustration/angst and general ****ed-offed-ness. gun)

Thank you.

Also, thank you "Ishootkittens" for posting your question - it is timely and likely to be in the back of many readers minds - especially as these technologies become more affordable. I know i've been curious about this as well.

To both Broz and Orkan: I respect both of your experience, knowledge and expertise on this topic. This has been and i hope will continue to be, a very informative *discussion*.

I appreciate the situation when we have our own well-thought-out opinions on a matter, substantiated with fact and positive, practical experiences which support our position. I have been and continue to be in similar situations, though not specifically this topic.

We can all line up our own team of experts, successes, performance benchmarks, etc etc ad nauseum to support our position. However, it is entirely possible at the end of the discussion to remain on opposite ends of the idea continuum. Is this all bad? To have choices is a good thing.

We have greater fights ahead of us than ffp vs sfp - our entire access to guns is being assaulted - lets keep our energies for fight focused elsewhere.

In the hope of seeing this dialogue continue, it's important to realize it's possible for folks to have preferences based on their very personal response to/success with either ffp or sfp reticles/optics. There seem to be excellent potential applications to either method and possible short-comings as well.

Those of us without the depth of knowledge, experience, expertise or opportunity to gain these depend on those of you who do. We look to you all to learn from since most of us don't have the resources to examine, personally, all the options here.

Thanks for your time in contributing thus far.

 

[fmajor]

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.

Neither. You're going to shoulder your lever action 45-70 and punch a huge hole through that 7x7's vitals because your Vortex scoped bolt-gun is in your drag-bag strapped to your pack!

 

[Pdvdh]

I'm learning here. From what I can tell, cost is a major difference in selection of a FFP scope versus SFP scope. I currently spend about $800/scope. Most I've ever spent on a scope is $1300. I currently have no intentions of spending $2000 per scope, let alone $3000 or more per scope. I do like the option of using the FFP reticle for hold-offs at all powers. Very simple in concept and application. But the apparent reality, based on self-set cost limits, is that I'll be using SFP scopes until and unless the FFP versions don't impose the cost premium that currently exists.

No company is going to sell a lot of $3000 scopes, unless they're selling to the military. Which means they have to make more money per scope sold to stay in business. That much I understand. I won't pay that premium. This is likely why there aren't, and won't be, as many FFP options as SFP options. There isn't enough demand for those comparatively high cost scopes to support a lot of manufacturing competition and options.

 

[orkan]

We can all line up our own team of experts, successes, performance benchmarks, etc etc ad nauseum to support our position. However, it is entirely possible at the end of the discussion to remain on opposite ends of the idea continuum. Is this all bad? To have choices is a good thing.

I agree. The more options there are, the better.

I think we finally stumbled onto the core issue. Broz is an expert in the ways of SFP. It's what he's comfortable with, and can get it done in any situation with SFP optics. It's tried, proven, and effective. I too can make a SFP optic do what ever I would need to get the shot done.

FFP is new, and the more expertise someone has with SFP the less appreciation they have for FFP.

I can not get Broz to concede anything good about FFP. While I can concede several good things about SFP. Namely as it pertains to low magnifications. When I say things like "I can get specific number-based holds on any power." I'm met with "why the hell would you want or need that" types of responses.

This is born out of our different shooting habits and experiences. Sounds like Broz is a guide. You couldn't pay me to do that job. I would hate dealing with people's idiocy while hunting. I've seen it first hand, and want no part of it. I spend a great deal of time competition shooting, and also long range hunting.

Broz's way of old, works flawlessly for hunting, I'm sure. Yet will never carry over and be as effective as FFP in a tactical rifle competition setting. If it were, the top tactical competitors would have SFP optics instead of FFP. My way, with FFP optics, is perfectly suited to tactical competition AND long range hunting. I have a few dozen kills on big game from 500-800yds to prove it... with my personal best being a nice oregon mulie at 945yds. Sounds like Broz has a great deal more experience in big game hunting than I. I've never even shot an elk. Whitetail, antelope, and mulies is the extent of my big game experience. I have some nice ones on the wall to prove my chosen gear works just as well as Broz's when it comes to taking game at distance. He maintains his claim that FFP is inferior to SFP for ELR, and we will absolutely remain on opposite ends of that argument. Outside of this website, it's Broz that would be taking the beating, instead of myself. This is due to there being more shooters on here doing it his way, than mine. Why wouldn't there be? FFP is relatively new, and as a result, far fewer people using it. On other sites, in other circles, that would be reversed.

Keep one thing in mind. It's very frustrating to listen to people claim a certain thing doesn't work well, when I and many others have seen it work well for years. I'm not saying SFP doesn't work. I'm simply opposing those claiming FFP doesn't work. It does, and it works quite well. For some, it works better.

Think about that for a second. If you are using something, and it works great, and others claim it doesn't work... what conclusions could you draw?

1) They don't know how to use it.
2) Theirs is broken, or not the right one.
3) It works, but they simply don't "prefer it" and will claim it doesn't work anyway, for various reasons.

If people have used FFP optics, and don't like it. I'm fine with that.

It's when they start claiming that FFP optics can't get it done as well as SFP. That's when I have a problem.

 

[cohunter14]

I think you sort of hit the nail on the head...in 'other circles' most of us who use SFP would be the minority. The problem is those 'other circles' are those who are doing the tactical competitions that you are talking about. This circle here is long range hunters, big difference. The FFP makes perfect sense for tactical shooters, but doesn't make the same amount of sense for hunters. There are very few circumstances I can see where I wouldn't be dialed up to full power if I was calculating my shot and hold-over amounts. However, there are far more circumstances where close shots might happen and the reticle will matter. On top of that, the cost for a good FFP makes it even more difficult to justify going that route. If it were the other way around and SFP was the more expensive option, I think a lot of people would be using the FFP. It is difficult to justify the extra cost of the FFP when you might be gaining something, but you are losing something as well and, in the end, it is probably not going to put more meat in the freezer. Just my $.02...