Why the big fascination with First focal plane

[markg]

I recently put up a thread selling a tactical scope. Every person that was interested in it asked if it was FFP. I don't understand why anyone would want FFP. Accurate shooting is about consistency and I don't think having a reticle that changes size as you change magnification helps. I understand that the reticle can be used for range finding but so can a laser and well frankly the latter does it a lot more accurately and faster. Lastly using the reticle requires math and I think that I could use the parallax on the scope to find the range as accurately and as fast as doing formula computations on my reticle.

Is there something I am missing as to why people like FFP? Where am I wrong?

[Lefty-Canuck]

Using a BDC reticle with a FFP scope with variable power magnification you do not have to correct the BDC based on the power of magnification your scope is set at.

Non FFP scopes will be calibrated only to a single power setting, if the scope is not always set to that power you need to recalculate your BDC based on the magnification power the scope is set at.

LC

[SkytopBrewster]

Or a mil-dot, you can actually use the dots to adjust POI without worrying about what mag setting you are on. IMO mildot reticle useless unless it's in the first focal plane.

[catnthehat]

I've always found it much easier to simply range the target then dial the scope or hold on the hash mark i want to, regardless of first or second focal plain.
Cat

[markg]

I think the same way you do Cat. But I do appreciate the other two comments regarding there preference. With a Bdc reticle it makes sense. But using it for range finding when a person can buy a laser seems to complicated to me.

[markg]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Using a BDC reticle with a FFP scope with variable power magnification you do not have to correct the BDC based on the power of magnification your scope is set at.

Non FFP scopes will be calibrated only to a single power setting, if the scope is not always set to that power you need to recalculate your BDC based on the magnification power the scope is set at.

LC

If my understanding is correct the Zeiss BDC reticle a are second plane and there web site has a calculator that tells you what magnification you should be on for your specific cartridge and bullet weight. If I am wrong please correct me

[markg]

Originally Posted by SkytopBrewster

Or a mil-dot, you can actually use the dots to adjust POI without worrying about what mag setting you are on. IMO mildot reticle useless unless it's in the first focal plane.

I would agree with u.

[Lefty-Canuck]

For the record I don't use a BDC or a FFP scope

Was just offering the reasoning behind it.

I either shoot educated-instinctively (meaning I know where my rifle shoots at the range I shoot ) or I dial up and down....again knowing where my rifle shoots because I have practiced at those distances.

LC

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by markg

If my understanding is correct the Zeiss BDC reticle a are second plane and there web site has a calculator that tells you what magnification you should be on for your specific cartridge and bullet weight. If I am wrong please correct me

I do not have a Zeiss so likely you are correct....the fact remains as the power changes so does the calculation witn nonFFP scopes with a FFP the calculation remains constant.

LC

[SkytopBrewster]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

For the record I don't use a BDC or a FFP scope

Was just offering the reasoning behind it.

I either shoot educated-instinctively (meaning I know where my rifle shoots at the range I shoot ) or I dial up and down....again knowing where my rifle shoots because I have practiced at those distances.

LC

Yes, its the same practice with a mil-dot system except you can hold over accurately using the mildots instead of having to adjust the turrets, you still need to know where your gun shoots at the different yardages. It makes it real easy and fast once you get the mil system figured out.

[DaleJ]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

I've always found it much easier to simply range the target then dial the scope or hold on the hash mark i want to, regardless of first or second focal plain.
Cat

Might need to use FFP scope so I can see the reticule on the 300M F-class target. My tiny target dots work great on white, and okay on black if its past 300 M. I don't want to rely on LED's to light my way. With the FFP at a given range you know the amount of correction needed if a condition switch didn't catch you. That may be easier to deal with than the 2nd FP scope that usually requires max magnification for hash mark/dial calibration.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by DaleJ

Might need to use FFP scope so I can see the reticule on the 300M F-class target. My tiny target dots work great on white, and okay on black if its past 300 M. I don't want to rely on LED's to light my way. With the FFP at a given range you know the amount of correction needed if a condition switch didn't catch you. That may be easier to deal with than the 2nd FP scope that usually requires max magnification for hash mark/dial calibration.

I dunno, I don't use a target dot on my Fclass guns, but in Fclass we are also shooting at know ranges, I think the OP was asking about a hunting scope.
Cat

[markg]

I may be over thinking this a bit. I wonder if part of the preference comes from where you shoot? I am a prairie shooter (southern Alberta) and as such my scope is usually on maximum magnification. I shoot targets (max helps) i shoot gophers (small target max helps) and deer on the plains. (max mag helps).

A first FFP reticle is quite large on maximum magnification and it covers up alot of the target and therefore not great on long range targets. I guess my philosophy is aim small miss small.

Three of the four people who were interested in my scope where from Newfoundland. I think there is alot of bush and forest hunting in that province and therefore you change up magnification alot.

This begs the question, would there be a difference in reticle preference between northern Alberta and Southern Alberta? Your Thoughts?

[tchardy1972]

I don't see the benefit of a ffp scope myself. The retical covers the target on high mag and on low mag you just can't aim tight enough.

[SkytopBrewster]

Originally Posted by markg

I may be over thinking this a bit. I wonder if part of the preference comes from where you shoot? I am a prairie shooter (southern Alberta) and as such my scope is usually on maximum magnification. I shoot targets (max helps) i shoot gophers (small target max helps) and deer on the plains. (max mag helps).

A first FFP reticle is quite large on maximum magnification and it covers up alot of the target and therefore not great on long range targets. I guess my philosophy is aim small miss small.

Three of the four people who were interested in my scope where from Newfoundland. I think there is alot of bush and forest hunting in that province and therefore you change up magnification alot.

This begs the question, would there be a difference in reticle preference between northern Alberta and Southern Alberta? Your Thoughts?

ie. If you have a 10x scope and it has to be on 4x for the reticle to work, it's kind of a useless gimmick IMO. Much better off going mildot in the FFP.

[Cappy]

I have shot a few FFP scopes, Vortex, S&B's and Nightforce. If you are a tactical style shooter it is a must. As it is accurate to range with and use for hold overs regardless of power setting. This is very helpful when you are moving rapidly from close range to far range targets. Some of the reticles do block out a small target at higher powers however I have used them successfully out to some extremely long ranges on what would be an approximate deer sized target. Typically I power down because of mirage etc and it doesn't matter, the reticle is still an accurate way to call a correction or use as a hold over

For hunting it would be a nice to have not a need to have. I usually have time to power up on the long range shots to use my hold overs.

[markg]

I guess the thing i dont understand with FFP reticles is why use them at all when you can use the clicks on the tactical scopes? My guess would be that a 1/4 moa on the turret would be much more precise then a dot or line on a reticle? Add to this the mathmatical computations needed to determine range vs using a laser and frankly to my point of view they make FFP reticles somewhat archaric and slow.

Is using a FFP kinda like shooting black powder, there is a bet of historical romance attached to it shooting like the old school snipers of the 1969's and 1970's? Once again i understand my comments come with there bias. Since i dont shoot in forrested areas maybe using your reticle is faster in those environments. I dont know.

[markg]

Originally Posted by SkytopBrewster

ie. If you have a 10x scope and it has to be on 4x for the reticle to work, it's kind of a useless gimmick IMO. Much better off going mildot in the FFP.

I wouldnt use the reticle i would use the clicks on the turret. I use a ballistics program and it tells you how many clicks you need at a given distance. You memorize common distance and click values and adjust accourdingly to your specific shooting conditions, its pretty easy really. If you have a poor memory you can always print off a range chart and refer to it as needed. Even this in my mind is faster then trying to do math computations in the field. This statement is an inditement of my math skills, i am definately math challenged.

[skidderman]

Trying to learn about this as well. Very confusing. Could the problem be that not one scope can fit all needs? i.e hunting vs long range target; small game vs big game? Is there a long range scope that is good close in for big game? I'm scared to buy one because of all the variables; no pun intended.

[DaleJ]

Originally Posted by tchardy1972

I don't see the benefit of a ffp scope myself. The retical covers the target on high mag and on low mag you just can't aim tight enough.

If the hash marks are the size fence posts I agree with you. I don't own an FFP, yet, but I will seriously consider one. Its worth a look. Maybe a tri-focal scope would help my deteriorating eyesight. I'm running out of things to blame.

[SkytopBrewster]

Originally Posted by markg

I wouldnt use the reticle i would use the clicks on the turret. I use a ballistics program and it tells you how many clicks you need at a given distance. You memorize common distance and click values and adjust accourdingly to your specific shooting conditions, its pretty easy really. If you have a poor memory you can always print off a range chart and refer to it as needed. Even this in my mind is faster then trying to do math computations in the field. This statement is an inditement of my math skills, i am definately math challenged.

Yes correct, you can still have your little cheat sheet. I don't use my mildot reticle for ranging, I use it to take shots without adjusting the turrets, could I just adjust the turrets, of course, my scope is mil/mil. So for example if my rifle iz zeroed at 300m and at 550m I am 2 milliradians low, Just hold on second mil on target, no math involved. Only math come into play is when ranging. That's the I personally like it. For extended range shooting you have to crank the turrets up to reach out there, that's when you use the turrets. On my .234 WIN and S&B PMII I can hit anything from 100-600m without touching the turrets, just bang, bang, bang as long as you have your little cheat sheet or remember how many mils at different yardages, forget MOA, mil system much easier. If you need further understanding there is a very good long range tutorial on scope options etc on youtube called sniper 101

[SkytopBrewster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTca3wF35Og

this should answer a couple of your questions, this lad can shoot!

[elkhunter11]

All of my scopes are SFP, and I have no use at all for a FFP scope. I am not in the military, or with the police, and I have no desire to pretend that I am, so I don't own tactical scopes. When target shooting, I dial turrets, as I have plenty of time. My big game rifles have scopes with BDC reticles that match the trajectory of my loads at maximum magnification, so for close range shots, I use the main crosshairs, and for longer range shots, where I have more time, I dial the magnification to max, and use the appropriate hash mark.

[wally338]

I love ffp mil/mil scopes. I find them much less complicated to use for long range shooting, no matter what magnification the scope is set at the clicks on the turrets always match the mils on the crosshairs. I always range my targets with a laser rangefinder and dial the required correction.I only wish I had understood the advantages of the ffp mil/mil system years ago,I could have saved myself a lot of frustration and ammo.
Edit: Just because one owns or uses a "tactical" scope does not make one a wanna-be cop or sniper. There is a good reason most snipers use ffp mil/mil scopes.....they work very well!

[gitrdun]

SFP for me all the way. I don't like busy reticles. My come ups and windage corrections are done with turret adjustments or hold over, much quicker.

[wolfkiller]

I strictly run FFP Vortex PST 6-24x50 mrad reticle on my wolf rig, cant be looking at charts for different magnification and what my subtension lines are. At all power magnification settings all my subtension lines are always the same yardage. Never know exact yardage that there gonna step out at and im not messing with dialing the scope. Just range, aim and shoot, got all my subtension lines memorized and a nice little chart on side of gun incase someone else is shooting one of my guns. SFP guys will be still "dialing" there scope and my animal will already be down.

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by wolfkiller

I strictly run FFP Vortex PST 6-24x50 mrad reticle on my wolf rig, cant be looking at charts for different magnification and what my subtension lines are. At all power magnification settings all my subtension lines are always the same yardage. Never know exact yardage that there gonna step out at and im not messing with dialing the scope. Just range, aim and shoot, got all my subtension lines memorized and a nice little chart on side of gun incase someone else is shooting one of my guns. SFP guys will be still "dialing" there scope and my animal will already be down.

Not if you learn correct hold over they won't.

[wolfkiller]

So a SFP scope is faster than a FFP? Okay so you got a 6-24 power scope with mil reticle, and a deer steps out at 600yds, and your on 9 power whats the mil holdover, oops you adjust to 22 power, oops your mil holdover just changed again, boy that's handy. SFP scopes are a waste of time, while your still looking at all your charts for your different magnification settings I will already be at my animal taking photos.

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by wolfkiller

So a SFP scope is faster than a FFP? Okay so you got a 6-24 power scope with mil reticle, and a deer steps out at 600yds, and your on 9 power whats the mil holdover, oops you adjust to 22 power, oops your mil holdover just changed again, boy that's handy. SFP scopes are a waste of time, while your still looking at all your charts for your different magnification settings I will already be at my animal taking photos.

For me, yes it is. I don't look at charts in the hunting field. But I memorize my hold overs before hand for my specific caliber and load before going afield. And I do know what 12" or 24" looks like in my scope using the animal's body cavity. It has worked very well for me for many years. Much like archery hunting, many pins on my bow only served to confuse me. Thus, I learned to use a single pin and use good field judgment. Same goes with all those reticle dots. But hey, that's my way and I don't put down yours. Whatever works for you .

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by wolfkiller

So a SFP scope is faster than a FFP? Okay so you got a 6-24 power scope with mil reticle, and a deer steps out at 600yds, and your on 9 power whats the mil holdover, oops you adjust to 22 power, oops your mil holdover just changed again, boy that's handy. SFP scopes are a waste of time, while your still looking at all your charts for your different magnification settings I will already be at my animal taking photos.

On second thought. You really ought to put those skills to the test at a rifle rodeo such as the one in Drayton Valley. You get to shoot a wolf in the vitals within 5 seconds at a range which you must estimate by your own skills not using a range finder. The last rodeo had the wolf at 470 yards if I remember correctly, the vitals were 4" diameter. But as destiny would have it, most "talkers" were a no show. You also gotta drop $20.00 per shot, again making it so that all can put their money in place of their words.