First Focal Plane vs. Second Focal Plane Scopes

[larryschwartz]

Which do you prefer? Please post your reasons why.

 

[copemech]

I really like FFP if you are using a MIL DOT scale as everything stays proportional as one zooms.

FFP is an option on many high end scopes it seems, yet it can be had in a moderately priced scope like the Primary Arms 4x14 with good glass. $229 best spent!

I am old, and glass nowadays is soo much better than decades ago that even a basic Nikon or Vortex or whatever is hard to beat, and better than anything I could ever afford back when.

Mil dot thing is cool once you understand it. The scale will only apply to max magnification setting in a non FFP scope with dots it seems.

 

[larryschwartz]

ttt for more comments. please make sure to enter your choice in the poll.

 

[MistWolf]

It depends. On variables like a 1-6x, a FFP reticle ends up being so small as to be unusable

 

[2cants]

FFP all the way.

I'm lucky enough to have Schmidt Benders on all my rifles (including my Magnum Research 22). Once you have exceptional glass it's hard to go back.

I use the MP10 for operator matches and seeing the misses in mRad at any zoom is important for corrections.

I particularly like the side focus.

 

[bergermeister]

Ref:[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5AGsHSIsVo[/ame]

I was holding my tongue till I watched this lecture. About half way through it makes it obvious which is best and why! No brainer if'n you understand

 

[BB57]

FFP scopes are a hot item and all the cool kids have them, but there's no free lunch as it comes with some significant limitations.

On the one hand it's nice to have the reticle expand and contract as the magnification is adjusted - ensuring that each mark on the reticle (whether it's in MOA or in Mils) subtends the same angle regardless of power.

On the other hand it's something of a one trick pony and the ability to range a target at any magnification comes at the cost of needing reticle lines that are thick enough to see at the lowest magnification, which makes them larger than optimum at maximum magnification.

In the dark ages before reliable, compact, and affordable laser rangefinders were available, ranging a target with a mil dot reticle or a stadia wire of some sort was one of the better ways to range a target at an unknown distance, especially over uneven terrain or an intervening ridge that made other range estimation techniques difficult. Now however with laser range finders in common use, ranging via the sub tended angle of the target in the reticle is not the most accurate method you have available.

And if needed, you still have the ability to do that with a SFP scope with a mil dot or MOA reticle, the only limitation is that you have to do it on the single power where the reticle subtends one MOA or one Mil. That's usually the maximum power of the scope. In some cases you'll have two magnifications that are usable. For example on a 4-14x SFP scope with an MOA reticle, you'll be able to range at 14x, where the space between two hash marks equals 1 MOA, or you can adjust the magnification to the 7x mark where the space between each hash mark equals 2 MOA.

With a SFP scope, regardless of the magnification, you still have a reticle that will be easily visible - neither so thick that it obscures the target at long range at high magnification, nor so thin that it's hard to see at low magnification and/or in low light.

Finally, FFP scopes cost comparatively more money and you can get an SFP scope with better optics than a FFP for the same total purchase price - and given a choice I'll take better optics in an SFP scope rather than the FFP feature with lower quality optics every time.

------

The choice between Mils and MOA is something else that also comes with pros and cons.

If you're an imperial unit kind of guy trained in yards and inches, then an MOA reticle offers some advantages for reticle ranging as the math is simpler with an MOA reticle than a mil dot reticle. many people uses yards and inches with a mil dot reticle, but it's not optimum.

Also, 1/4 MOA adjustments are slightly more precise than .1 Mil adjustments.

Finally, a Mil is 3.38 MOA so when ranging in Mils you have 3.38x more distance between dots than you have between hash marks in an MOA reticle. That either requires a separate ranging element in the reticle, or it requires more subjective extrapolation of how many mils you are measuring.

On the other hand writing or relaying Mil sight corrections is easier and can be done with less space and fewer digits. For example, "11.6" Mils is one digit shorter to write or say than "39.25" MOA.

 

[bergermeister]

Thanks for weighing in here BB57

Very cogent points of discussion. I am no authority on the subject even though I first delved into benchrest about 20+ years ago. Not even sure I possess a FFP scope unless it would be the Leupold 6x20 EFR. As 100 yard ranges were about all that was practiced the thought never came into play.
I recalled this thread when trying to understand 'why' I was having so much difficulty with adjusting/correcting scope adjustments at varying ranges on several different scopes, and thought some more input might help others with the same issues.
You make some great points, and I obviously am out of the range of my expense account when visualizing a high-end FFP fixture. In reality, I will make do and strive to better understand the SFP's I possess.
Thanks again and have a GREAT day

 

[msinc]

I am not really a fan of variable power scopes, so I could really care less about FFP. I have many variable scopes but like most people that wont admit it...I never use it. I always just set whatever scope I have on the highest power and go. If I am going to use the variable power I don't like the way the reticle gets so tiny I cant barely see it to make a quick snapshot on low power anyway, then you zoom it up and the crosshair is so big it obscures the target...so I'd just as soon not have it.
All that said, I do like Mil/Mil scopes...it is nice to make a very long shot, see the impact and know instantly how to adjust the scope for a hit.

 

[sgtsandman]

Very cogent points of discussion. I am no authority on the subject even though I first delved into benchrest about 20+ years ago. Not even sure I possess a FFP scope unless it would be the Leupold 6x20 EFR. As 100 yard ranges were about all that was practiced the thought never came into play.
I recalled this thread when trying to understand 'why' I was having so much difficulty with adjusting/correcting scope adjustments at varying ranges on several different scopes, and thought some more input might help others with the same issues.
You make some great points, and I obviously am out of the range of my expense account when visualizing a high-end FFP fixture. In reality, I will make do and strive to better understand the SFP's I possess.
Thanks again and have a GREAT day

Like stated before, second focal plane scopes are in essence a fixed power scope when it comes to the reticule. Usually, the manufacturer tells you to use the highest power to sight in your scope since that is the magnification that the reticule is set for. You can adjust some at certain magnifications, like also stated before and still be accurate, like half the power that the maximum magnification is. The other magnifications are basically to find the target (lower) and to identify the target (higher) and that is about it. I found that to be true with my Nikon M-308 scopes. Not bad scopes but you just have to understand the limitations of your equipment since like you, I don't have the money to buy a FFP scope. Not to mention, the price mark for some of my rifles would make the price of such a scope way out of line for tool being used. ie, a $1500 scope on a Marlin 336 would be insane IMHO.

 

[lrrifleman]

I have only 1 variable scope, a Vortex Viper 6-24x that is on my Remington 700 Long Range in 7mm Remington Magnum that I use almost exclusively for 1000 yard F class matches. Since 99.9% of the time my shooting is at KD, I don't bother with ranging. For my use, a FFP scope would have been a waste of money, especially on fixed income.

For the remainder of my scopes, they tend to be fixed power, and not involved in this discussion.

 

[Rastoff]

I've learned that variable power scopes are not the right tool for me. I bought an FFP scope and I really like it, but if I had it to do all over again, I'd just get a fixed power. I put mine on the max setting and never move it anyway.

So, yeah, the FFP is nice, but not necessary if you understand how it works. Besides, who uses their reticle for ranging these days anyway? The extra money is better spent on a laser range finder.

 

[larryschwartz]

any other thoughts or comments?

 

[sgtsandman]

I think it's all pretty much been covered. First focal plane scopes are better and the reticule scales with the magnification adjustment but are usually expensive.

Second focal plane scopes are essentially fixed powered scopes as far as the reticule is concerned, usually it is scaled to the max power setting. Though there optional considerations at various specific magnifications where the reticule is still accurate.

I think that pretty much sums it up in a nut shell. Did I miss anything?

 

[Rastoff]

Did I miss anything?

Yes...

FFP is not necessarily better. They are only better if you're using the reticle for ranging. Of course, you won't find a FFP scope in the discount bin. So, yeah, they are generally better.

SFP scopes are not inferior if you buy a quality product. The ranging is only good at one magnification, but not necessarily the max magnification. When it is not set at the max, it will be marked on the barrel what magnification matches the reticle. The SFP scope must be zeroed at the magnification that matches the reticle.

 

[tcon]

In some applications SFP might be preferable. In choosing an optic for my custom .308, I decided on the NightForce 2.5-10x42mm NXS Compact w/MOAR reticle. Not a cheap optic.

I love the NightForce MOAR reticle and I did not want the width of the lines to change at differing zoom levels. I definitely wanted this nice reticle's lines to stay fine at 10x but also visible at lower power settings. 10x is where I shoot anyway and any reticle ranging I might do is at that power.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[sgtsandman]

Yes...



FFP is not necessarily better. They are only better if you're using the reticle for ranging. Of course, you won't find a FFP scope in the discount bin. So, yeah, they are generally better.



SFP scopes are not inferior if you buy a quality product. The ranging is only good at one magnification, but not necessarily the max magnification. When it is not set at the max, it will be marked on the barrel what magnification matches the reticle. The SFP scope must be zeroed at the magnification that matches the reticle.

So, I got the general gist.

There is one FFP scope that I've seen that makes me question it's quality. The NRA Store is selling a scope described as a FFP scope with no mention of who makes it for about $150. I've never seen a FFP sell that inexpensively.

I agree on the SFP scopes and don't discount their value. Everything I have and plan to get are or will be better SFP scopes or fixed power scopes. While the more expensive scopes may be nicer in some way(s). I'm not a competition shooter or make my living as a sniper, so the added value and quality those scope would/could provide are of minimal value to me. That could change in the future (competition) and will be addressed then.

Until then a good quality mid-line brand is good enough for me.

 

[Rastoff]

There is one FFP scope that I've seen that makes me question it's quality. The NRA Store is selling a scope described as a FFP scope with no mention of who makes it for about $150. I've never seen a FFP sell that inexpensively.

Neither have I. At that price, the FFP part is fluff to get people to buy it. Just like optics with 20 different colors that run about $80. All it does is put you further away from an optic you really want.

I learned this lesson the hard way. I've owned many sub $100 optics. They were all garbage. Once I finally ponied up the $$$ for a real scope, the target showed what I'd been missing. With my AR I went from 2"-3" groups at 50 yards to sub 1" groups just by changing the scope.

 

[Engine Earl]

My 2¢:
If reticle is a simple crosshair type or dot with no measuring graduations then SFP. Crosshairs stay the same size during range of magnification.

If the reticle has measuring graduations such as a MilDot or BDC, then FFP. Reticle size stays in proportion during range of magnification.

 

[sgtsandman]

My 2¢:
If reticle is a simple crosshair type or dot with no measuring graduations then SFP. Crosshairs stay the same size during range of magnification.

If the reticle has measuring graduations such as a MilDot or BDC, then FFP. Reticle size stays in proportion during range of magnification.

I can't really disagree with that, except say with a fixed power scope. Then the first or second focal plane issue is no longer an issue.