First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

[fmajor]

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.

This is great! So, since your proposing a solid case for ffp and conceding a point that sfp will also work, we have 2 winners - all good things.

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.

I like your point - for some it works better. For others, maybe they didn't like that "flavor" - some like vanilla some like strawberry.

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.

Condemnation is never a good thing. Innovation - it's a difficult thing. Attempting the latter and avoiding the former is nearly impossible....

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.

One thing that has been good for me to keep in mind during negotiations is trying to remember to not make (or take) criticisms personally. If someone has a disagreement about whatever i'm supporting, i try to learn and understand what they believe about my position. Then I try to clarify any factual misunderstandings through dialogue. If what i'm supporting still doesn't work for them (or they have another perfectly viable solution), i just let the matter go - argument rarely (if ever) changes a persons opinions/beliefs.

 

[Broz]

Orkan, would you please take off your FFP glasses for one minute and show me where I said that FFP would not work for anything? as you alluded to in your last post? Below is my first post quoted. I only stated I prefer SFP for what I do and gave solid accurate reasons why. I also stated in other posts that I do not compete and am not in a hurry to shoot long range like in some competitions. If I were, I would use the necessary equipment to run up front. But if someone spooks game and must hurry a shot from 600 or 1000 yards, then I say they need to sharpen their stalking skills or get out of the truck to hunt. This past season we actually shot one elk, took a phone call, and then took a second one out of the same herd and the distance was only 20 yards different, and it was 20 yards closer. There is no need to get excited and hurry a LR shot. I prefer taking the time to do proper preparation and take one slow shot. Many times I even have the shooter dry fire a couple times on the animal first. Hurry up shots are not cool in long range hunting. I am no dummy, I am not using out dated equipment. I will spend what it takes to be good at what I do. Example, the new LRKM, ATACR, Vectronix PLRF10 etc. I use to build, tune and drive nitro burning race cars and actually won a US championship or two. I didn't do that with outdated "old ways" or being thick headed. If I found a FFP that would work as well as a SFP for me, the way I hunt, by golly I would have one even if I had to work even harder to earn the extra money to get it.

You pointed out that there are (or at least one) FFP reticle that on max power is almost as thin as a SFP NPR1 that I prefer. But you and I both know that in order for a FFP to be that fine on top it will be very hard to see on low magnification when I go in the woods.

The big argument about needing the reticle calibration on all powers is a preference. It is true, that FFP allows the reticle to be accurate on all powers. But please understand that some people have shot enough to realize they don't need that. I sure don't for the added $1800 in the price. I, not in a rush now, will make sure my scope is on 22X or if I do find that 22X is too much for the mirage that day I can wheel it back to 11X and know that the reticle is now reading x2. Not that hard for an option I hardly ever use and the added $1800.

BignGreen and I have both tried explaining to you how we hunt and use scopes and why we prefer SFP for our needs. But you insist we are "out of the loop" not up to speed, or using "old ways". You accuse me and others of spreading inaccuracies. I call BS. What I am doing is offering what works for me, what I prefer, and how it works so people can make the decision best for them. I have no motive, I am not selling scopes, I am just a guy that loves long range and rifle shooting and have done it enough to keep the freezer full. So what is so wrong with sharing what works, explaining why, and doing it for no charge or commission?

Jeff

PS: I am not a guide, I simply help my friends, family and neighbors fill their tags and again I do it for fun, not profit.

There are also people that have spent the extra money for FFP scopes and did not like them, at all. I being one.

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.

In many cases, a FFP with a fine enough cross hair to suit me on full magnification has a crosshair that is too fine on low power. I will admit I hardly ever turn my long range scopes down in power, but if I go into a wooded area I will. That is not a good time for the reticle to get finer, hard to see, in lower light. For this reason I say the FFP is backwards. If it would have a thicker reticle when on low power and get finer as the magnification was increased it would make more sense to me for both ends of the power range. But I realize that is probably impossible. So for me the SFP is a better choice for my type of hunting and shooting. I will take a larger target and finer crosshair for long range anytime I can get it.

Jeff

 

[orkan]

Orkan, would you please take off your FFP glasses for one minute and show me where I said that FFP would not work for anything? as you alluded to in your last post? Below is my first post quoted. I only stated I prefer SFP for what I do and gave solid accurate reasons why.

Yes, but some of those "solid accurate reasons" are not so solid or accurate in my opinion. They are more perceptions and opinions that you have, which you are entitled to. I absolutely concede they may be solid and accurate facts for you, in your setting, with the models of FFP optics you have experience with. I feel it important for the other side of the equation to be filled in for those not in your setting, or with your specific situation. We hold a different opinion of what FFP is capable of. I have seen it work in situations where you claim it not to work. My 5-17 USO is a great example. Low light in dark woods is no problem for this optic on 5x.

I also stated in other posts that I do not compete and am not in a hurry to shoot long range like in some competitions. If I were, I would use the necessary equipment to run up front.

As I said, FFP works equally well for competition as it does for long range hunting. SFP works well for long range hunting, not so much for competition.

As you said, there are quintessential differences between our two shooting styles. These differences explain our equipment choices entirely. My choices as a competitor don't preclude me from long range hunting situations. Your choices as a hunter, definitely preclude you from competition situations.

So, its easy to say then that a rifle wearing a FFP optic is more capable than a rifle wearing a SFP optic, provided that the driver is up to snuff. As you and others have pointed out, you sometimes pay for that extra capability. You don't need the capability Broz, and I'm fine with that. Others do, or at least want it even if they don't need it. Soon, there will be FFP options on the market at every price point, and that will bridge the financial delta. Same money, more capability. Who wouldn't want that?

Sadly, right now there are only a few ELR FFP options with thin reticles, and they are all expensive. So again, I will concede that for some people, in some situations, the extra money isn't worth the gain.

Yet if they have the money, the choice is clear. Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Having FFP definitely doesn't hurt you. Low magnifications included. Hey, there's always illumination. (in the states that allow it anyway)

 

[orkan]

It is true, that FFP allows the reticle to be accurate on all powers. But please understand that some people have shot enough to realize they don't need that.

I have a hard time even knowing what to say to that.

On the surface, its unbelievably condescending.

Volume of fire doesn't negate features of an optic. I can introduce you to a guy that can be competitive at 1000yds with a sharps buffalo rifle. Doesn't mean that's what I want to use. Volume of fire has NOTHING to do with why that feature is important.

 

[Broz]

Yet if they have the money, the choice is clear. Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Having FFP definitely doesn't hurt you. Low magnifications included. Hey, there's always illumination. (in the states that allow it anyway)

So you are saying anything a SFP will do a FFP will do better?

 

[Broz]

I have a hard time even knowing what to say to that.

On the surface, its unbelievably condescending.

Volume of fire doesn't negate features of an optic. I can introduce you to a guy that can be competitive at 1000yds with a sharps buffalo rifle. Doesn't mean that's what I want to use. Volume of fire has NOTHING to do with why that feature is important.

Well if you read the rest , and would have quoted the entire statement it is very clear.

Not condescending at all...Maybe you need to read it again.?

"The big argument about needing the reticle calibration on all powers is a preference. It is true, that FFP allows the reticle to be accurate on all powers. But please understand that some people have shot enough to realize they don't need that. I sure don't for the added $1800 in the price. I, not in a rush now, will make sure my scope is on 22X or if I do find that 22X is too much for the mirage that day I can wheel it back to 11X and know that the reticle is now reading x2. Not that hard for an option I hardly ever use and the added $1800".

I could have said it a little better by adding for their type of shooting.

Now what is so difficult about this? On full magnification my SFP reticle will function the same as a FFP reticle. If I do crank it down it reads twice the calibration. Which by the way allows twice the hold over from the reticle and something the FFP does not have to offer. I may not use that option much with my 100 moa of elevation plus the reticle. But some scopes with less built in elevation to dial sure could.

 

[Broz]

If any of the readers here (Mr. Orkan excluded) feels I have posted any inaccurate facts or misled anyone please tell me and I will gladly stop posting on this thread. I wish it were easier to get a point across in print but it is very hard some times.

Trust me when I say if I felt a FFP would bring something to my table my new ELR rifle would be wearing one. I just don't see it and I have tried.

Jeff

 

[orkan]

So you are saying anything a SFP will do a FFP will do better?

Not anything. Many things. I thought we were talking about long distance here?

I think the true answer lies with neither, but with DFP.

I could have said it a little better by adding for their type of shooting.

Yes, that does take the sting off it. The former indicates that only the inexperienced enjoy the feature.

Now what is so difficult about this? On full magnification my SFP reticle will function the same as a FFP reticle.

Agreed.

If I do crank it down it reads twice the calibration.

Only if you crank it down to exactly half magnification. Well how do you know where that is? The printed numbers? Ever test a few scopes to see whether that half magnification actually lines up with the printed scale? Not many do. Even when corrected, the human error in getting them lined up perfectly is enough to ruin the shot. With FFP, all holds are constant, regardless of power. You literally don't have to care what magnification you are on. You dial the power ring to where you have the best, most workable sight picture.

Which by the way allows twice the hold over from the reticle and something the FFP does not have to offer.

While academically correct, is this ever a benefit in the field? On my GenIIXR reticle I have 10 mils of hold over. I dial my elevation, so I would never use it anyway. I dial my nearest half mil value for wind. So If I'm looking at a 1.7 mil call... I'll dial 1.5 and hold the rest. I'm a live wind shooter though, so I hold the wind to match the condition. I don't hold the shot to match the condition. Never have I ever needed to "double" my hold. I simply use the reticle, in its correct subtension, to hold the exact amount necessary. Give me a situation where you'd want to employ the "capability" you are describing.

Since I know we all like pictures... I dug up another. Below is a whitetail deer walking across the road at approx. 3000 yards. (yes, three thousand yards) Looks like the FFP would be able to get it done to me. That would be an ELR shot if I've ever seen one. That stop sign is exactly 2 miles. I can EASILY quarter that deer with the reticle. The crosshair could be out in front because that's precisely where I calculated fo.... haha.. Just kidding. It's just really hard to track a moving deer at 3000yds while taking a picture through your scope!

 

[orkan]

If any of the readers here (Mr. Orkan excluded) feels I have posted any inaccurate facts or misled anyone please tell me and I will gladly stop posting on this thread. I wish it were easier to get a point across in print but it is very hard some times.

Trust me when I say if I felt a FFP would bring something to my table my new ELR rifle would be wearing one. I just don't see it and I have tried.

Jeff

This is a useful discussion. I'm not upset at all. NOR do I have a lower opinion of you than when we started. Quite the opposite. You've hung in there and maintained civility when others would not have. I applaud you for it.

I do not think you are intentionally misleading people. I trust you when you say you don't need FFP in your setting, for your situations.

Can you trust me when I say outside of your setting and situation... FFP can be of great benefit?

 

[Broz]

While academically correct, is this ever a benefit in the field?

Never have I ever needed to "double" my hold. I simply use the reticle, in its correct subtension, to hold the exact amount necessary. Give me a situation where you'd want to employ the "capability" you are describing.

I gave you one but I will elaborate.

A 8~32 NXS has 65 total moa of internal elevation. You mount it with a common 20 moa rail. This gives you 50 +/- moa of elevation dial up. Your reticle on full power is 20 moa for a total of only 70 moa. There is a rock ledge at 2100 yards with a visible dark spot that is screaming at you "come on, try me" your 338 LM with a 300 Berger needs 81 moa. You are short by 11 moa. But you have the option to dial back to 16x and now you have a total available moa up of 90 moa.

Not common, but yes it is a fact and I have been it that position before.

Jeff

 

[Broz]

Can you trust me when I say outside of your setting and situation... FFP can be of great benefit?

I was taught at a young age to never trust a salesman.

just kidding.

But I will trust you to say outside of some hunting situations a FFP can be of great benefit.

If you will recall I stated early on that I was not talking about competition shooting.


I am by no means the only one out here. I am by no means the only one doing what I am doing. Have you ever shot along side Shawn Carlock? I have on more than one occasion and I have never seen him use a FFP.

 

[Broz]

Oh, and by the way it no task at all to go to 1/2 power on a nightforce NXS accurately. There is an indicator and a special line you can turn to and alige very easily if you wish to double your reticles hold over.

all the time I have now. Gotta run.

Jeff

 

[orkan]

Aaaah. I'm tracking now. I thought we were talking specifically about long range hunting, not just launching rounds at rocks for fun. I'm tracking, and agree, with that kit you would do just as you said.

However, with my Premier FFP, I'd simply back down the magnification a bit, and use my reticle for the hold. I have 65 mils (227 MOA) of holds available at 5x. An additional 28 mils available in my turret, for a total of 93 mils (325 MOA). Forgive the poor picture quality, but in the image below, you can see the hash marks every 5 mils along the entire vertical stadia, as well as windage stadia. If I dial .5 mils left, or right, I can use the tip of that stadia for a precise aim point.

Other FFP reticles have similar functionality.

 

[orkan]

I am by no means the only one out here. I am by no means the only one doing what I am doing. Have you ever shot along side Shawn Carlock? I have on more than one occasion and I have never seen him use a FFP.

As was indicated by another poster... I could easily line up numerous witnesses and "big names" to support my position. I won't bother with it, as it serves little point.

If you will recall I stated early on that I was not talking about competition shooting.

Nor was I. I was talking about hunting. The idea that FFP is excellent for tactical competition, but not for hunting, is a self-defeating argument. I don't even need to point that out. In tacitcal competition we have more targets, smaller targets, in tougher situations, and less time to engage them. If it works for that, it will EXCEL at hunting.

People hunting "the most dangerous game" are using and prefer FFP. I've found that it also works very well on not-so-dangerous game.