First Focal Plane vs Second

[Wrongside]

Hunting and competition are potentially time sensitive environments, with high value targets. I prefer to keep my systems simple, but options to dial/hold ele or wind open. So a well designed reticle, in FFP MRAD for me. Every single time.

Wind also becomes a LOT less voodoo with a straight forward setup and practice.

 

[Manakh]

Ffp for me assuming the reticle is usable at lower mag, some scopes are better then others. I have my hold over/dial for elevation and 90 degree wind memorized out far enough to not look at my cheat sheet. Any shot on an animal on the back end of what I've got memorized or beyond what I remember is far enough that a snap shot is what I consider unethical and wether I know the numbers or not perfect form, rest, and wind reading must be had.

This is easier for me because until this coming year I've only ever used my 7mag for everything. Now I'll be adding a 300 PRC numbers to remember and we'll see if I can mess this up.

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

SFP scopes are accurate at all powers, however, the hold values are simply no longer 1:1.

If you memorize your reticle in mils, rather than yards, you can use a simple formula to determine your values:

(Value in Scope)(Max Power)/(Current Power)=Value at Current Power.

For a 10x scope, that works like this:

10 Power, 1 mil:

1x10/10= 1 Mil.

5 Power, 1 Mi:

1x 10/5 = 2 mils.


In general, memorizing your drop (or having a qb sleeve) for every 50 yards and understanding your reticle will enhance your experience with a SFP Scope.

On a FFP scope, illumination becomes a substitute for a thicker reticle in low light at low power.

Shooting mils makes everything better.

 

[KoolBreeze]

Anyone here use a FFP scope in thick timber where most shots are less than 100 yards on low power and a lot in low light situations? If so, which scope? That's 90% or more of my hunting. Never had a FFP scope but not against trying the "right" one for that situation.

 

[TaylorSnipesOutside]

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.

Hi Form, I've been reading through the forum and you seem to be highly respected and competent. I'm a beginner-intermediate shooter (newbie hunter pretty psychotic about it and coming up on my 6th season), starting to dive deep into the long range stuff. I've been sticking to MOA because the inches and yards thing is intuitive and simple to me, but I have never heard this point made regarding quick wind holds using mils. Would you be willing to explain or point me in the right direction to learn more? I'm still early enough in this that I could switch to mils without much harm. I'm fast with math so I'm sure I can learn and memorize either one competently... TIA

 

[Formidilosus]

@TaylorSnipesOutside

Search for “wind brackets”.

 

[Mike Islander]

Anyone here use a FFP scope in thick timber where most shots are less than 100 yards on low power and a lot in low light situations? If so, which scope? That's 90% or more of my hunting. Never had a FFP scope but not against trying the "right" one for that situation.

I use a 6x42 FFP on all my centerfire rifles. I practice close stuff by using my squirrel gun in thick woods with the same 6X scope. Doesn't take long to be proficient as close as 20 yards, and even less. Basically starts with a quick barrel point.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

I use a 6x42 FFP on all my centerfire rifles. I practice close stuff by using my squirrel gun in thick woods with the same 6X scope. Doesn't take long to be proficient as close as 20 yards, and even less. Basically starts with a quick barrel point.

How’s it work on mature black bear at that distance? Not a color phase bear but a true black one.

Last time I checked out FFP scopes the reticles all washed out at low power on a tent screen inside the store. Because of that I’ve held off on buying a FFP a scope since there’s no point if you can’t see the reticle against the target.

Just curious how folks address that type of scenario without having to rely upon illumination.

 

[Macintosh]

Have not used it much, but ffp P3 reticle at 3x and at 12x below—first ffp reticle ive found that works for me for hunting. not sure how “standard” this is as far as mildot reticles, but for hunting in the woods its worlds better than any of the ffp christmastree reticles I have used. So far it is NOT as good as a standard 2fp duplex-type reticle in the woods, but its not far off. Squirrels are a far cry from a running deer (squirrel is twitchy but never moves far across your field of view, whereas a deer will move from your 9-oclock to your 2-oclock in an instant so its much easier to lose it in your field of view), so I will not use a scope with higher than about 3x low end in the woods, and being able to easily use the reticle in the woods at lowest power is probably the single most important feature of a scope to me after holding zero. This is not my primary woods rifle so its ok so far.
A lighted reticle as a substitute for a useable reticle at low power works, but ONLY if its on. To me that is not a solution as I dont like relying on batteries for function especially in the cold.

 

[Denisver]

I always prefer NF scopes, but for long-range shooting between FFP vs SFP I much prefer SFP. I like it because the reticle isn't too thin at low power. I've never faced any problem to finding the crosshairs and the always accurately calibrated reticle is something I really appreciate and have used.

 

[Nickburke84]

So, if your shooting a plex reticle with no hashmarks FFP is of no use, correct? Thus, holding over or dialing on said reticle SFP would be best?

 

[ropeup79]

So, if your shooting a plex reticle with no hashmarks FFP is of no use, correct? Thus, holding over or dialing on said reticle SFP would be best?

Finding a reliable dialing sfp scope that has a plain plex reticle is the problem.

 

[Macintosh]

A plex reticle has one subtension in each direction-where the thin center meets the thick outer bar. In a ffp scope this is always the same regardless of magnification, so its useable. My brother uses that as his 300-yard hold on a scope, for instance. In a sfp scope that is only useable at highest magnification, so to me thats only realistic in a scope with max magnification of around 10-ish or less—any more and its too much magnification for any hunting I’ll do so the reticle becomes effectively useless to me. If the scope dials then the only thing missing is a way to hold accurately for wind, which is perhaps the next most important consideration at any range long-enough to warrant dialing. For me, a 2fp plex or duplex reticle is markedly better for a point and shoot scope that will only be used inside of 300-ish yards, and mostly 200 or less. Once I want to be proficient with a gun past that range, I prefer a ffp scope with a simple, bold hashmarked reticle such as a mil-dot or similar.

 

[Formidilosus]

Finding a reliable dialing sfp scope that has a plain plex reticle is the problem.

NF SHV 2-10’s are available everywhere.

 

[Article 4]

Sure this will fire some folks up, but I wanted to start a thread to start compiling opinions and information on when first focal plane and second focal plane are advantageous. To date, I have had various levels of scopes but all were second focal plane. I am now looking to start shooting further distances and am interested in getting a first focal plane. Looking for pros and cons of both, cost aside.

I agree with a lot that has been written in this thread. This is my thing for your consideration:

I run all FFP scopes on my rifles. Not for ranging per se, or the ability to range based on the equal and static measurements that can be attained through the FFP function at any power and range. Nor the ability to adjust elevation based on FFP at shorter yardages.

Most scopes these days dial. I rely on that function for hunting at distances that I have to hold off meat. Usually around 300 yards. After that I dial accordingly so the sub tensions would have less bearing.

Where I do use the sub tensions is with windage. If I have a steady wind at short to medium distances with less than 2 Mils correction, I use the FFP sub tensions for my wind calls with high success rates. Any more wind or distance and I will dial, if i have time.

Time can also be a consideration. If you don't have much, having the FFP sub tensions can save a ton of it if you are proficient with using them

Second focal plane can be more clear and allow the hunter to see more animal with the smaller reticle but leaves you completely dependent on dialing for elevation and windage at most distances past 350 to 400. Fine, but I prefer to have the option of both with a FFP scope.

 

[ropeup79]

NF SHV 2-10’s are available everywhere.

Agreed, and a great scope, but with exposed elevation turrets and 3-15ish power would be an awesome scope IMO.

 

[Grundy53]

Agreed. Too bad they can't make an after-market exposed turret that you could replace the covered turret with. @Formidilosus @Unknown Munitions

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

Agreed. Too bad they can't make an after-market exposed turret that you could replace the covered turret with. @Formidilosus @Unknown Munitions

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Why don’t you leave it uncovered?

 

[Grundy53]

Why don’t you leave it uncovered?

That works. But it would be nice to have a bit larger nob for my fumble fingers to grip. Plus if someone could make an after-market turret maybe they could incorporate a zero stop.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[oldmanschild87]

I agree with a lot that has been written in this thread. This is my thing for your consideration:

I run all FFP scopes on my rifles. Not for ranging per se, or the ability to range based on the equal and static measurements that can be attained through the FFP function at any power and range. Nor the ability to adjust elevation based on FFP at shorter yardages.

Most scopes these days dial. I rely on that function for hunting at distances that I have to hold off meat. Usually around 300 yards. After that I dial accordingly so the sub tensions would have less bearing.

Where I do use the sub tensions is with windage. If I have a steady wind at short to medium distances with less than 2 Mils correction, I use the FFP sub tensions for my wind calls with high success rates. Any more wind or distance and I will dial, if i have time.

Time can also be a consideration. If you don't have much, having the FFP sub tensions can save a ton of it if you are proficient with using them

Second focal plane can be more clear and allow the hunter to see more animal with the smaller reticle but leaves you completely dependent on dialing for elevation and windage at most distances past 350 to 400. Fine, but I prefer to have the option of both with a FFP scope.

Makes sense. Do you have a hard time using the reticle on the low magnification range?