First vs Second Focal Plane

[BlackDog77]

I put together a lightweight hunting rifle for elk and mule deer chambered in 7mm rem mag. I’ve decided to go with a Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50 scope, but am having a hard time deciding between first vs second focal plane. I’m leaning towards First in case I want to do some longer shooting on the range or at steel and feel that with the illuminated reticle I should be ok with the first focal plane at closer distances while hunting. I’d love to hear everyone’s experience between the two or if anyone has this scope specifically. Thanks in advance

 

[SDHNTR]

It boils down to this, imo... are you gonna dial or use reticle holdovers? Dial = SFP. Holdovers = FFP.

Reason being, holdovers on a SFP means you have to use max power. 20x at 400-500 yds means a pretty tight FOV. You won’t see your hits. That’s important. So a FFP would allow you to use something like 10-12x, which is plenty for that range and will give you a more generous FOV.

 

[jlaner0408]

Another thing to keep in mind- a lot of people who buy ffp complain about not being able to actually see the reticle if you have a large magnification range and have it set at the lowest range for still hunting timber, expecting close shots, etc. so make sure you see the reticle in person if you end up going ffp

 

[Flyjunky]

If you have the illuminated reticle I'd suggest going with FFP. With the SFP you have to be at max magnification, or on some models half, to use any holdover/windage on reticle without doing some calculations.

I went with FFP on all my scopes and I've never had a problem seeing the reticle at 3X in the woods. Although, I bought the scope and magnification I did because I don't plan on still hunting. If I'm shooting distance, I'm dialing.

 

[Marble]

It boils down to this, imo... are you gonna dial or use reticle holdovers? Dial = SFP. Holdovers = FFP.

Reason being, holdovers on a SFP means you have to use max power. 20x at 400-500 yds means a pretty tight FOV. You won’t see your hits. That’s important. So a FFP would allow you to use something like 10-12x, which is plenty for that range and will give you a more generous FOV.

This is how I look at it also.

If you are going to dial then just use the SFP.



Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[BlackDog77]

This is how I look at it also.

If you are going to dial then just use the SFP.



Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

That makes sense but couldn’t you just dial with a FFP and have the best of both? That would leave the only potential downside to FFP being the smaller reticle size a closer distances correct? I’m overthinking this probably

 

[wind gypsy]

Two main shortcomings of FFP- can be difficult to see in low power and too thick on high power. NF reticles aren’t very thick. The illuminated reticle takes care of the visibility at low power therefor I’d go FFP.

I hardly ever hold over with FFP scopes but I do hold wind and measure corrections using the reticle. A SFP scope that needs to be on 20x to use the reticle sucks for both of those things.

 

[Marble]

That makes sense but couldn’t you just dial with a FFP and have the best of both? That would leave the only potential downside to FFP being the smaller reticle size a closer distances correct? I’m overthinking this probably

I do t like the FFP For that reason. I'm sure I would get used to it but for me, I kill a lot of bulls sneaking through timber at nearly bow range. The regular Leopold heavy duplex type reticle the is fairly fine works for me. I don't and do not anticipate using anything but my dial for shots into the mid 400s and beyond.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[S.Clancy]

I went SFP on a 10x max mag scope. I dial and use drops. FFP isn't worth the money in my opinion, nor are high mag scopes. Cause more problems than they solve.

 

[Karson88]

I have the exact same scope you are looking at in FFP, with the illumination its really easy to pick up the reticle at 2.5x, works great for holding wind at distance when you have to crank up the mag and not worry about being at max. Heck I killed a Mule deer last year at 57 yards with my NF and the illuminated reticle acted more as a red dot then a magnified scope.

 

[Rock-o]

If you are going to dial then just use the SFP.

I dial my FFP.

Some make the argument of time. If time allows they'll dial otherwise they'll hold. But I'm not going to rush a shot.

 

[Tbonespop]

This is a way overrated issue IMHO (benefit or disadvantage, however one looks at it). My opinion is, It really doesn't matter. I zero my scope in at 200 yards. At 200 yards, I'm almost always at full zoom (it would be rare that I'm not), so it doesn't matter. Anything inside of 200 yards is only going to be off by ~1" if not fully zoomed. So, It just doesn't matter.

You're better off investing in a scope with a more versatile zoom range like a Leupold VX6 model (as an example). That covers the close up shots and gets it done just fine on long distance, which you will likely be fully zoomed anyway.

Again FFP versus SFP is way overrated. Invest in your optics based on zoom ratio and stop worrying about FFP vs SFP.

My $0.02.

 

[wind gypsy]

This is a way overrated issue IMHO (benefit or disadvantage, however one looks at it). My opinion is, It really doesn't matter. I zero my scope in at 200 yards. At 200 yards, I'm almost always at full zoom (it would be rare that I'm not), so it doesn't matter. Anything inside of 200 yards is only going to be off by ~1" if not fully zoomed. So, It just doesn't matter.

You're better off investing in a scope with a more versatile zoom range like a Leupold VX6 model (as an example). That covers the close up shots and gets it done just fine on long distance, which you will likely be fully zoomed anyway.

Again FFP versus SFP is way overrated. Invest in your optics based on zoom ratio and stop worrying about FFP vs SFP.

My $0.02.

I disagree and think zoom ratio is one of the lesser important aspects of a scope but it sure sells a lot of them. In many cases going to a higher zoom ratio comes with compromises to depth of focus, picky parallax, tight eye boxes. The Vx6 doesn't struggle in these areas but a lot of high zoom ratio scopes do.

If you have an animal milling around at 200 yards you're going to crank it up to 20x zoom? There's a bunch of videos and scenarios out there that illustrate why this is a bad idea.

1. Finding/tracking the animal in the scope - FOV @ 200 yards with 20x is small.
2. Shooting the wrong animal
3. Not getting a picture of what's going on in the periphery of the animal that might impact it's behavior

PRS shooters often keep their scopes in the mid teens shooting targets 400-1000 yards. Their targets don't move and they have time to plan for them before the stage.. That tells me going way over that in magnification probably isn't ideal for hunting scenarios either.

I'll concede that the majority of the people that have to ask about choosing FFP vs SFP either shouldn't be taking shots where they need to make a significant wind hold or wont need to hold for wind on an animal so that argument for FFP can be somewhat weak. For a shooter practiced enough in their use, FFP is a valuable feature.

 

[SDHNTR]

Related to the above, I think field of view is one of the most oft overlooked elements, and it’s critical imo. I take a lot of newer hunters out and the number one thing I see that leads to a failed shot opp is either not being able to get on the target animal fast enough originally, or after a miss. With excess mag, all you are doing is shrinking FOV. My scopes all generally live at 4x and get cranked to maybe 12x for longer range, even though I could go to 18x. For that reason alone, SFP for me.

Another seldom mentioned issue to be mindful of wrt to FOV, is really important if you hunt alone. Crank that scope up, shrink your FOV, and take a shot at that critter and you may not see what happens. Without a spotter, you just lost immensely valuable info. Did it go down? Did it run left or right, up or down? If alone, ample FOV and seeing the results of your shot could literally mean animal recovery or not.

 

[WCB]

Two main shortcomings of FFP- can be difficult to see in low power and too thick on high power. NF reticles aren’t very thick. The illuminated reticle takes care of the visibility at low power therefor I’d go FFP.

I shoot both and prefer FFP. I never got the "too thick on high power". If you have two scopes both top out at 20x...If the FFP reticle lets say is 1/4" thick @100 and a SFP on high power is 1/4" @ 100 yards they are equal. The FFP just covers the same 1/4" throughout its power range where the SFP doesn't. for guyst hat don't turn their scope all the way up at half magnification 8x (let us say 4-20x) will cover double which actually covers more of the target.

The low power thing I can agree with but my scope is never lower than 6x even when still hunting or stand hunting in dense brush.

 

[wind gypsy]

I shoot both and prefer FFP. I never got the "too thick on high power".

A hunting designed FFP reticle that is a little thicker for visibility like the G2H on LRHS is thicker than ideal at max power when punchin paper or shooting small targets at distance side by side with say the G3 on a LRTS and that is only with a 4x zoom ratio. The functional difference wouldn't come into play for any shot on animals I should be taking but I'd be lying if I said I don't prefer the G3 at the range.

Edit for illustration purposes: illuminated G2h reticle crosshairs at 300 yards will cover 1.08" of the target, non-illuminated G3 reticle would cover about 0.324" of the target.

The FFP reticle I had on a march 3-24x52 was definitely thicker than ideal for precise range work.

I'm pickin fly shit out of chili here but that's what we do.

 

[WCB]

A hunting designed FFP reticle that is a little thicker for visibility like the G2H on LRHS is thicker than ideal at max power when punchin paper or shooting small targets at distance side by side with say the G3 on a LRTS and that is only with a 4x zoom ratio. The functional difference wouldn't come into play for any shot on animals I should be taking but I'd be lying if I said I don't prefer the G3 at the range.

Edit for illustration purposes: illuminated G2h reticle crosshairs at 300 yards will cover 1.08" of the target, non-illuminated G3 reticle would cover about 0.324" of the target.

The FFP reticle I had on a march 3-24x52 was definitely thicker than ideal for precise range work.

I'm pickin fly shit out of chili here but that's what we do.

I get your comparison on the G2H vs G3 But that is just understanding sub tensions and differences in general of different reticles. I worked for an optics company and did a lot of tech work. I've seen guys complain about reticle thickness but when asked the sub tension of the reticle their face goes blank. Knowing what the reticle measures before you buy it is the only way to know. FFP or SFP really has no bearing on it.

But I agree we are splitting hairs on a gnat's a$$.

 

[eddielasvegas]

I'm pickin fly shit out of chili here but that's what we do.

That is some funny stuff right there. I have a new saying so thanks WG.


Eddie

 

[wind gypsy]

That is some funny stuff right there. I have a new saying so thanks WG.


Eddie

(source credit: @Aron Snyder via kifarucast or good ol days gritty, probably both)

 

[jlaner0408]

(source credit: @Aron Snyder via kifarucast or good ol days gritty, probably both)

Ha! I was about to accuse you of being Snyder’s burner account!