First Focal Plane Vs. Second Focal Plane

[Broz]

I'm sure the results of your little test will serve to back your opinion on the matter.

I asked a simple straight forward question and added my methods as well.

Well, I think your above statement says a lot. I don't feel it was fair. Never mind, you are a sponsor selling your product and a world class shooter in every type of shooting known to man. In your own words, I am simply, in your mind, a person that would construe results to support my own views.

Good day.

Jeff

 

[orkan]

Well I think this statement says a lot. I don't feel it was fair.

That's simply because you took it wrong. I've provided pictures, and hard evidence of things supporting my views. How about you start? On with the test, if you've got something to share. ... or have you resorted to villainizing me because YOU took something I wrote wrongly? This crap below is ridiculous, and can ONLY be taken one way.

Never mind, you are a sponsor selling your product and a world class shooter in every type of shooting known to man. In your own words, I simply am in your mind a person that would construe results to support my own views.

... and that is the third or fourth time you've insinuated that I hold views simply because I sell a thing. Pointing out multiple times how "you aren't selling anything" and how you "have no financial motivation." Despite overlooking it every time in the history of this thread, I won't be any longer.

I've been selling optics for a whopping couple months. I've been using and advocating FFP optics since around 2008. So nice try, but you are so far off base with your remarks all throughout this thread, it doesn't even begin to hold water.

So maybe you better take a breath. If you've got a test to perform... go do it. I hope the results will be more than text.

... or take your ball and go home because you aren't grown up enough to realize I had no malice in that statement. Now try and convince me you had no malice in yours.

 

[Pdvdh]

The hunting scenario John describes is the situation where a FFP would be superior, to my mind. Time is of the essence because the animal is on the move, or could be expected to move into cover or over the top of the ridge. The hunter can turn the magnification to what best suits that specific shot without worry about the moa/mil distance between reticle ID markings. I'm going to inject that the game animal in that scenario is also not apt to be at extreme long range, where the dope has to be exactly correct, everything double checked, and the shooter's set up for the shot as steady as possible, in order to feel good about being able to connect.

The longer the shot, the more prep time required for shot preparation. This requires game animal activity and behavior that affords the time necessary to get set up to take the shot. As in the animal is bedded down, or busy feeding - not making tracks and moving cross-country. And the longer the shot, the more apt a long range hunter is to dial the dope into turrets rather than using reticle hold-overs. The longer the shot, the greater the advantage to using maximum magnification power, and having finer cross hairs for the refinement of the aiming point. I think this is the hunting scenario that Broz is focused on and most concerned about. The most challenging longer range shots. He wants the ideal power/reticle to match shots attempted at the very greatest distances. He's willing to hunt without the FFP benefits for the closer, less difficult shots where reticle holdovers are often good enough to get the job done. And he's evidently not convinced its worth the extra $1000-$1500 (I know I'm not) to get one of the premium FFP scopes with the finer reticles, because his SFP scope/reticles are working great for the shot scenarios he's prioritized - extreme long range.

That's what I conclude from all of the pros and cons being expressed. I see advantages to FFP for shots at less extreme range on game animals that won't stand still long enough to give the hunter time to determine and double check dope and then dial the dope on the turrets. Many have found reticle holdover completely acceptable out to ~7-800 yds on large game sized animals. The closer the range, the greater the allowance for some measure of error/guesstimation. But for the guy who's setting up to specialize on the longest of shots, the ultimate precision is required. The highest magnification power useful under the atmospheric conditions, the finer aiming point, and dialing dope into the turrets for precise aiming rather than the less precise reticle holdover method.

 

[James Mock]

The first focal plane reticle subtends the same distance no matter what power. A problem with the ffp is that the reticle is maganified as the power is increased. One ends up with a thick reticle at the higher powers and a thin one at low.... just the opposite of what most people want. Good shooting....James

 

[LazzInc]

Broz ,,,,,,

I am not here to brag about my recent lucky shot BELOW ,,, but I used a FFP Mil-Dit reticle and used the holdover method, which I have been doing pretty consistently for more than 15 years ,,,,,,

and even when I DO use a dial-a-buck type of scope while hunting, I NEVER dial wind, I only ever hold the wind, but still make a decent math calculation of just how much wind to hold ,,,,,

 

[LazzInc]

hopefully the deer photo shows on this one ,,,

 

[orkan]

Wow... Great buck!

I've always had great respect for those cartridges. 168gr bullet at 3,535fps isn't screwing around.

 

[Broz]

Hey Orkin, be as rude and arrogant as you want. The below statement of yours can only mean one thing. You feel I would not support my views with real results.

"I'm sure the results of your little test will serve to back your opinion on the matter."


You stated earlier you were not getting mad and you were actually gaining respect. I see that is no longer true. What happen did you feel I was supporting my opinions of the FFP not being right for my type of use to well. So much so that you would rather I not test some SFP functions to support my statements?


Heck no I have not posted pictures, I have no prepared media or a website. I will not be intimidated by you, I will test what ever I want. Not for your benefit, but for the readers that Pm'ed me and wanted me to continue. So get ready to attack again, more real world results on the way.

Jeff

 

[westcliffe01]

I too use a FFP in a modestly priced Vortex Viper PST 4-16x50 scope and the main reason is because I am generally shooting coyotes which are never standing still and I tend to have about 10-15 seconds to make the shot after spotting them. I have a drop and windage chart for my 243 load clear taped to the left side of my stock and I am always hunting the same property (sheep farm), so I tend to know the distances from familiarity with the place.

In most cases I do not have even an opportunity to adjust magnification, just figure the range and holdover and shoot. Now I will admit that I have not set any long distance records, but getting a hit at 350 yards in the circumstances described above is what matters to me. If I don't kill the predators, then sheep die. All the coyotes are "educated" due to hunting pressure in the area, so they are unresponsive to calling.

With my previous Monarch scopes, I was just guessing for holdover but with the FFP scope I can be confident that 2moa is 2moa, regardless of where the magnification ring is at. My scope cost less than a lot of 2FP leupold scopes, so I am perfectly satisfied.

 

[danj]

Hey Orkin, be as rude and arrogant as you want. The below statement of yours can only mean one thing. You feel I would not support my views with real results.

"I'm sure the results of your little test will serve to back your opinion on the matter."


You stated earlier you were not getting mad and you were actually gaining respect. I see that is no longer true. What happen did you feel I was supporting my opinions of the FFP not being right for my type of use to well. So much so that you would rather I not test some SFP functions to support my statements?


Heck no I have not posted pictures, I have no prepared media or a website. I will not be intimidated by you, I will test what ever I want. Not for your benefit, but for the readers that Pm'ed me and wanted me to continue. So get ready to attack again, more real world results on the way.

Jeff[/QUOTE

+ 1

 

[Broz]

Broz ,,,,,,

I am not here to brag about my recent lucky shot BELOW ,,, but I used a FFP Mil-Dit reticle and used the holdover method, which I have been doing pretty consistently for more than 15 years ,,,,,,

and even when I DO use a dial-a-buck type of scope while hunting, I NEVER dial wind, I only ever hold the wind, but still make a decent math calculation of just how much wind to hold ,,,,,

John, thanks for the straight forward reply. And good shooting! 800 yards with a hold over shot to me would not be an easy task, I would want to be dialing. But your post sparked another thought, and that is with the speed of your rifle it is definitely a flatter shooter than most are use to. So your hold over would be less than most.

I do dial for both wind and elevation unless the wind is light and the distance is not terribly long. I just like the "put it where you want it" method better than holding off. That could be because it is what I have perfected and practiced, or also due to some of the distances I shoot often during practice. I believe in practicing way farther than I would engage game. That builds my confidence for hunting. So if you are shooting 1500 and beyond holding both elevation and wind, even a modest wind can put you off in no mans land on the reticle.

Now I do practice 90% of my follow up shots with a corrected hold over. It is just simple to me to see the hit, gauge how far off it was from point of aim make the corrected hold and send it. Although most all this is indeed done on highest power where the reticle is in tune, it really does not matter as I am looking at the distance I need to correct in the sight picture not counting hash marks. But these corrections are generally small if I do a good job with the initial doping of the turrets.

Jeff

 

[LazzInc]

Broz ,,,,,,,,

you sound like a man who knows what he is doing ,,,, and YES, 800 yards is a long ways with the hold over method, and in fact is my last mil-dot, 900 yards would be the top of my duplex post ,,,,, ((I sight in dead on at 200Y, 400Y is my first mil-dot down, 550Y is the second mil-dot))

it is also true that the Lazzeroni Warbird is damned fast compared to most 30cal hunting cartridges, so to 800 yards, it is pretty flat ,,,,, that also helps me out and that is the whole point of why I designed all of the high-speed Lazzeroni calibers in the first place ,,,,,

years ago when I starting "extending the range" of my own shots in the field, 300 yards was considered long and 500 was considered to be to HELL and back ,,,, and the magazine writers back in those days would RUN from any story that included a 500 yard shot at a game animal ,,,,,

now ,,, my gosh, it is like 600-800 yards is almost the norm, with 1,000+ shots now considered very long range ,,,,,,

but as you and I both know, without a lot of practice and good marksmanship skills, no matter how much technology you buy and bolt on your rifle, you will not be successful at those kinds of ranges ,,,,,,,

energy on the animal is another issue at 1,000 yards ,,,,, obviously a 7.62 NATO (.308 Win) is not going to put the hurt on anything at 1,000 yards ,,, so I think the 300 Ultra, 30-378 Wby and Lazz 7.82 Warbird are almost minimum calibers speed wise for taking game animals at those kinds of ranges ,,,,,

 

[Broz]

Thanks John for the complement, and I agree with your post. I will not go past 1000 with my 300 win sending 215 Bergers at 3035 to 3050 on elk, that's what my .338 is for. But the 300 is a wicked antelope rifle to a ways past a grand. I filled two doe tags this season from the same herd. First was 1005 yards and when they stopped I took a second at 1285 yards. Two shots and my antelope hunt was done. I will add the hero pic taken by my friend.

Jeff

 

[orkan]

The below statement of yours can only mean one thing. You feel I would not support my views with real results.

"I'm sure the results of your little test will serve to back your opinion on the matter."

Wrong. What it meant was there are many tests that could be done to prove my side of the argument, and many that could be done to prove yours.
THAT is what it meant. You didn't take it that way, and then went on a personal tirade. So yes, I'm done being cordial with you. Being accused of having no ethics over and over again tends to do that. Yet you won't even concede that... so I see little point in continuing. It is YOU that took it into the gutter... not I.

Never mind, you are a sponsor selling your product and a world class shooter in every type of shooting known to man. In your own words, I am simply, in your mind, a person that would construe results to support my own views.

It's nice to know you are goaded into that kind of behavior via PM's. You can't concede that you can do nearly anything SFP optics can do with FFP optics, so you constantly resort to implying I'm just a snake oil salesman, that will say anything to move product. Yes, I've reached my limit with that crap. How many times you expect to openly assault someone's character before they say something?

You don't like FFP. Well good for you. Doesn't change the fact that FFP allows you to do things that SFP doesn't. The fact that you and others don't "like" that... doesn't preclude it from being true.