NEW POLL - Will your next rifle scope be first or second focal plane?

[Len Backus]

A couple years ago we ran this poll as more and more manufacturers had been bringing out new models.

Now I am most interested to see today's take on preference.

 

[ranger3]

A couple years ago we ran this poll as more and more manufacturers had been bringing out new models.

Now I am most interested to see today's take on preference.

Second Focal Plane. I shoot a lot of PD's and small targets, FFP doesn't allow the reticle to get small enough to make accurate sight pictures.

 

[C.O. Shooter]

I went with a 2nd Focal Plane, ATACR Enhanced (5.25.56), for my 338 Lapua Build.

 

[Buckskinner]

Second for my shooting style. I can see the benefit of using first plane, such as tactical high stress situations. But, I do not like the reticle appearing to grow as it is dialed up and covering more of the target. I generally have time to dial instead of using ticks.

 

[jonthomps]

I used to run SFP scopes but if you dial for elevation and hold for wind the wind holds are foolproof on FFP scopes. It doesn't matter what magnification you're scope is set on, and wind values are changing constantly. In my mind FFP scope are the way to go.

 

[762x51]

I used to run SFP scopes but if you dial for elevation and hold for wind the wind holds are foolproof on FFP scopes. It doesn't matter what magnification you're scope is set on, and wind values are changing constantly. In my mind FFP scope are the way to go.

ditto

 

[iclick]

I got my 1st ffp scope a few years ago and I have replaced 3 other rifle scopes with them since. I will replace them all as money allows. 4 down 13 more to go!

Happy Shooting.....gun)

 

[Okanogan]

My last three scopes have all been FFP and I'm very happy with them in the wide open areas where I live and shoot. Only down sides I have experienced are increased cost and small reticle size at low power. The smaller reticle size has not been an issue with the type of hunting I do as I'm not in heavy brush or jump and shoot situations often.

 

[charles bonner]

I am building a new LR ML ;so my next scope will be FFP. I shoot both but for the last five years my ML elk rifle has had a FFP scope. Most shots will be under 400 yards and it is quick and easy to consult the chart on my stock ,pick a dot and make the shot.No worry about which power the scope is on and the large cross hair really helps with my failing vision!

 

[ButterBean]

FFP

 

[teesquare]

There seems to be a fear of change among us a crusty old shooters....

It must be fear, because I do not find the broken record of "The reticle gets too big and covers the target" as having much validity when we mix in a little common sense here."Here" meaning HUNTING....Bench rest boys...maybe...

1. Reticles are all laser etched nowadays - if you are looking at any scope worth buying. SO the reticles are much finer than they were - even a few years ago, as laser technology has improved as well. The lines can be too thin/small at min. magnification, and too large at max. magnification. But - how many of us REALLY use the extreme ends of magnification regularly?

2. How much magnification do you need?

3. For hunting, how far will you be shooting?

4. What is the value of KNOWING that a 2nd Focal Plane scope's reticle is *ONLY* accurate at maximum magnification? (O.k. there are a very few exceptions, that are "zeroed" at a mid-point of magnifications ...very few).

5. What is the value of KNOWING that your reticle's crosshairs mean the same thing regardless of magnification?

6. Are you a "knob twiddler", or a shooter? Not really taking a poke - just teasing all of us for our propensity to become more "gadgetologists" than hunters. FFP allows you to be more on the move way of shooting without as much of the screwing with elevation and windage, as long as you are good with holdover shooting, AND you have a MEANINGFUL reticle. ( Think of a simplified Horus...I like the ones from Vortex, like the EBR-2 series. Something where the marks are easily calculable in your head for drop/hold.)

Full disclosure: I use BOTH. But for longer distances, backcountry hunting on the move...FFP...EVERYTIME.
I suppose if you are a sheep hunter, and will be in a fixed or prone location long enough where you have the luxury of dialing - FFP is less of an advantage. But, it seems to me that it still offers the advantage of the crosshairs meaning the same thing at close or far. Min. or Max. Magnification.

Just my opinion, I am not saying anyone else is wrong for seeing this subject differently.

 

[indyson]

A couple years ago we ran this poll as more and more manufacturers had been bringing out new models.

Now I am most interested to see today's take on preference.

it will be ff

 

[tigerrose01]

Second for me!

 

[toasted]

I just added two new scopes, both FFP. I topped my 20" Light Hunter Grendel with a Burris XPR II 1-8x24 & a new Wolf 16" in the 6.5 Grendel with a Bushnell 1-4x30. The Wolf upper is a project to see what I can build on a tight budget and feed it a diet of the cheap, steel cased, bi-metal bullet ammo that Wolf has brought to market for fans of this great cartridge. These are the only two FFP scopes in my safe. These two are my walkabout guns and I wanted the 1x for guick close in shots when needed yet offer ample magnification for up to 200yds with the 4x and 600 with the 8x. All of my other rifles are topped with various SFP scopes. Two styles of shooting, best served by two styles of optics.