First Focal Plane vs Second

[260madman]

FFP has to be on the highest setting to use things like BDC and MIL DOT accurately.

Umm....no. SFP is what you’re thinking of.

 

[Formidilosus]

I’ve killed a couple hundred or more. Maybe half those with a bow. I try to get close first, regardless of wind.

I’m not, nor did I say that someone can’t kill truck loads with about anything. You can do so with irons as well- doesn’t mean that it’s as effective.

I’ve tried FFP. Couldn’t get used to it.

And I guess I’ll bite? Which two? SWFA and Nightforce somethings?

Just SWFA 3-9x and 6x. NF reticles are subpar for general work.

 

[SDHNTR]

I’m not, nor did I say that someone can’t kill truck loads with about anything. You can do so with irons as well- doesn’t mean that it’s as effective.




Just SWFA 3-9x and 6x. NF reticles are subpar for general work.

Agree with you there! I’d own a NF on every rifle if they made a cleaner reticle.

 

[SDHNTR]

FFP has to be on the highest setting to use things like BDC and MIL DOT accurately.

You’ve got it opposite buddy.

 

[BCD]

You are not using the right ffp scopes. If I wanted to, I could hunt all night with my ffp scopes.

Which ones are the right ones? I've had 2 SWFAs and neither were great in low light with low magnification in the timber.

 

[davsco]

downside to sfp is you have to be on max magnification on most scopes for the reticle to be accurate for holding over (elev and wind). if you always dial (elev and wind), that is a non-issue. it's also mostly a non-issue if your scope's max magnification is where you generally put it to (eg 12 or 15x).

downside to ffp is the reticle gets tiny at low magnification, but if you have a good illuminated reticle (not just the center) that helps a lot. you can also mitigate this by getting a smaller magnification range (eg 4-16 vs 2-20),

one of my scopes is the nf 2.5-20 ffp. yeah that reticle is small at 2.5 but with the lit reticle, no issues seeing it.

another scope is the vortex 3-15 sfp. i generally hold over but will most likely be at 15x for any shots past 200+ yards. inside of 200 no need to hold over so at 3x or whatever i just pull the trigger.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

This doesn’t make sense- with a SFP if you are using the reticle to hold wind, then most of the time you need to be on max lower- not so with FFP.




Can you give a few examples of what you mean by “complex reticles, holdovers , dials and FFP”?

Very easy to enter the inputs into a ballistic calculator and have it show you where to hold. Just like a FFP if you don’t have a cheat sheet for wind. Regularly do this when setting up for glassing in the event that a quick shot is needed within X number of yards. Look at the yellow dot; 10 mph crosswind at 550 yards for demonstration.

Christmas tree reticles are busy. If you can successfully use them for quick shots then I tip my hat to you.

 

[Formidilosus]

Very easy to enter the inputs into a ballistic calculator and have it show you where to hold. Just like a FFP if you don’t have a cheat sheet for wind.

So your “simple” solution is to use an app to show you were to hold on a certain power? That changes every single time you change power? That you must look at your app before you shoot, because you can’t remember what the lines mean, because they change constantly. And if you change your power it changes again.

Logically this makes sense to you? Would you accept a speedometer that only reads correct at 60mph but is incorrect at all other speeds? What if you had an app that you could input say 42mph, and it would convert it and tell you that you are really driving 57 mph?

Regularly do this when setting up for glassing in the event that a quick shot is needed within X number of yards. Look at the yellow dot; 10 mph crosswind at 550 yards for demonstration.

And you believe this is quicker, less combersome and less error prone than a tape measure that reads correct at all lengths?

Christmas tree reticles are busy. If you can successfully use them for quick shots then I tip my hat to you.

Tree reticles generally suck for general hunting, but every single person can learn to use them competently. One just has to shoot.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Ah. Part of being able to shoot at distance is accounting for wind. I guarantee you that part of your trouble with wind is your scope preference. A properly designed FFP mil/mil scope is the simplest and easiest solution. It is no hindrance at close range and dominates at distance. Admittedly most FFP scopes have reticle that suck for all around use, which is one of the reasons that two scope are brought up time and again- they work.

Of the 17 game animals I killed, or those I spotted for killed- 14 had significant wind. And a lot were not at long range either.

Biggest issue is accurately reading the wind. Most folks that can do that won’t be concerned about their reticle (for the most part).

Outside a duplex reticle, your reticle choice in and of itself shouldn’t be causing an issue with wind.l (at least those with windage marks). This may be an over generalization on my side.

Lack of knowledge on how to use your reticle may apply but using a reticle preferred by the “more enlightened” won’t magically change that fact.

Give your perfectly dialed-in rifle and scope, with your perfect for wind shots reticle, to someone who is clueless and see how they do. This includes reading the wind on their own. Then have someone who knows what they are doing, including reading the wind, and give them a dialed-in rifle with the “wrong” reticle and see how they do. My money is on the person that can accurately read the wind.

Wind is a booger.

 

[Formidilosus]

Biggest issue is accurately reading the wind. Most folks that can do that won’t be concerned about their reticle (for the most part).

Wind calls are important, but there is a difference in making wind calls and holding correctly between the different options and technique.

Outside a duplex reticle, your reticle choice in and of itself shouldn’t be causing an issue with wind.l (at least those with windage marks). This may be an over generalization on my side.

It is an over generalization. Do you believe that if you take one hundred shooters, and have them use all the different options in scopes and reticles, measure the results in hit rates- that they are all going to result in the same hit rates and success?

Lack of knowledge on how to use your reticle may apply but using a reticle preferred by the “more enlightened” won’t magically change that fact.

Nothing is magical. There are techniques and equipment that work better- things are only equal when they sit on the shelf.

Give your perfectly dialed-in rifle and scope, with your perfect for wind shots reticle, to someone who is clueless and see how they do. This includes reading the wind on their own.

How do you read the wind? How do you believe the best way to read the wind is? What is your experience with the three main ways to account for wind when shooting?

Then have someone who knows what they are doing, including reading the wind, and give them a dialed-in rifle with the “wrong” reticle and see how they do. My money is on the person that can accurately read the wind.

Wind is a booger.

Holding wind without a mark is an extremely poor way to deal with it and results in the most off call and off hits of any technique.

Dialing wind off a standard flat range on live animals that can move, and with wind that changes constantly (mountains/broken terrain) is worse than holding wind in a reticle. That’s easily provable and has been done over and over. Dialing wind for practical purposes is not the way. It’s slow, error prone, and there is no way to consistently and reliably work with changes in wind without redialing.


Holding MOA in the reticle works, can work well, yet is not as intuitive to use compared to Mils, and does not have the same capability in a quick, effective way to know your wind holds in the field, without a ballistic program and without ever having shot the rifle.


In actual tested field shooting for speed and hit rates, FFP mil/mil has no equal. I don’t even have to have ever shot your rifle to know what your wind holds are out to 600+ yards, or for most what your elevation holds are. You can make elevation and windage corrections on the fly, and do so quickly and intuitively.

This is not based on a limited sample size, or personal preferences or beliefs, but instead on hundreds of thousands of rounds fired by hundreds of shooters in all environments. It is such a dramatic difference between the techniques that it takes only a few minutes in the field to prove it to the most hardcore MOA shooter alive.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

So your “simple” solution is to use an app to show you were to hold on a certain power? That changes every single time you change power? That you must look at your app before you shoot, because you can’t remember what the lines mean, because they change constantly. And if you change your power it changes again.

Logically this makes sense to you? Would you accept a speedometer that only reads correct at 60mph but is incorrect at all other speeds? What if you had an app that you could input say 42mph, and it would convert it and tell you that you are really driving 57 mph?





And you believe this is quicker, less combersome and less error prone than a tape measure that reads correct at all lengths?







Tree reticles generally suck for general hunting, but every single person can learn to use them competently. One just has to shoot.

Yes it is fast and easy for the specific use case I wrote. I sit to glass. I range out to X number of yards. I update my app and look to see which hash mark to use at Y distance; I may cherry pick the magnification to more closely align with the hash marks. I don’t change the magnification for this setup while glassing; excludes shots that I have ample time or if it’s further than what I planned for on the hash marks. Hopefully this is not clear as mud.

Not used elevation hash marks outside this one use case while hunting.

If I had a FFP scope, it’s unlikely that I’d change my approach: hash mark for closer shots and dialing for longer shots (or shot opportunities with plenty of time no matter the distance).

 

[Don Qui Puncher]

I’m not, nor did I say that someone can’t kill truck loads with about anything. You can do so with irons as well- doesn’t mean that it’s as effective.




Just SWFA 3-9x and 6x. NF reticles are subpar for general work.

What’s up with the NF reticles? I’ve only used the 4-14 SHV and couldn’t find anything I didn’t like about it, but only have a few SWFA’s and LRTS/LRHS to compare too

 

[lyle_destroys]

My hunting partner missed a monster 6x6 bull this year because he wasn't on the proper magnification for the reticle holdover to be accurate.

 

[Formidilosus]

What’s up with the NF reticles? I’ve only used the 4-14 SHV and couldn’t find anything I didn’t like about it, but only have a few SWFA’s and LRTS/LRHS to compare too

They just cross into the too thin without illumination realm. The MIL-R (except for the increments) is best of them currently available, but in broad use in varied environments and foliage they are too thin without the illum. The outer posts on the milquad act as a guide to bracket at close range.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Do genuinely appreciate the info on FFP.

 

[woods89]

My hunting partner missed a monster 6x6 bull this year because he wasn't on the proper magnification for the reticle holdover to be accurate.

I really like most things about my SHV but this thought scares me a lot. I don't use the reticle for holdover but it sure could mess up a wind hold for me.

 

[amassi]

My hunting partner missed a monster 6x6 bull this year because he wasn't on the proper magnification for the reticle holdover to be accurate.

Didn't practice enough to be accurate

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[freddyG]

Which ones are the right ones? I've had 2 SWFAs and neither were great in low light with low magnification in the timber.

My favorites are NF beast/ATACR mil-r, and nxs f1 with a mlr2.0 reticle. Reticle thickness is very well matched to the mag range.

Swfa mil quad is a good reticle, but swfa glass sucks. You don’t need great glass to hit a target, but I would rather drive with a clean windshield, rather than a dirty one. Same with using a scope.

 

[mississippilpj]

For hunting SFP, I have FFP Target Scopes but I am not in love with them. Try both and see what you like.

 

[lyle_destroys]

Didn't practice enough to be accurate

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Exactly. I told him this going into season too.