First Focal Plane VS Second Focal Plane

DaveCervo72

DaveCervo72

Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Location
Caledon, Ontario
Hi Nutz,

When I heard Nikon had recently released FFP scopes I was pretty excited as I have been hunting for a scope to mount on my Weatherby Vanguard Series 2 .270 for quite some time.

So I rushed to Sail cause they were having one of their store wide sales, but when I got their to check these out unfortunately that is where the excitement ended.

I really liked the concept of the reticle adjusting in size relative to the magnification setting, but when the scope is fully zoomed the reticle is just far too thick and obstructs a lot of the view. I was looking at Nikon 4-16 x42 Monarch 3's and my sole use would be for hunting purposes only and I would only be using the BDC at full zoom.

For me this is an issue as I would be using the BDC reticle at max power when going after targets that are pretty far and targets that are that far (lets says 3-500 yard range) are pretty small targets. The reticle would just obstruct too much off the animal for me to feel comfortable taking an ethical shot.

I ended up grabbing the SFP Monarch 3, 4-16 x42 Side Focus BDC and couldn't be happier. I like the reticle better at full zoom and they are cheaper!

Has anyone else had this issue with other scope brands? Are Vortex reticles really thick too at full zoom?

I just don't see a purpose for FFP scopes intended for hunting. I would love to hear some feedback from other nutz and what their take is on this especially with other brands and different uses other than hunting.

cheers
 
I had a vortex HS 6-24 ffp scope for a short while. At max zoom the reticle was still fine enough for long range but and lower power it was so fine that it was almost invisable. The lowest power setting where the reticle was accually usable was 12X. So it is a trade off, if you want a useable reticle at low power it will be to thick at high power then if you want a usable reticle for long range it will to fine at lower power.
 
I just picked up a Bushnell LRHS with the G2M reticle and while I haven't hunted it yet, it is very usable at low power and fine enough to accurately shoot out to 800m (farthest I've shot it). This is my first FFP scope but I could see reticle layout being vital to being usable at both low and high power. I think bushnell got it right with the G2M reticles
 
From a hunting perspective, I think the value of FFP vs SFP would be very situation dependent. While I don't hunt (yet??) I can't think of very many hunting use-cases where practical hunting accuracy in a given caliber would not typically be achieved with a relatively narrow range of zoom. When shooting in a small zoom range, FFP has less value and the trade-off cost-wise seems moot.

I'm interested to see what others think. I recently became very interested in FFP due to more involvement in Tac rifle competition where one can be shooting from 15 to 200 yards with a fairly small v-bull. SFP makes it a nightmare to remember hold-over points at differing zooms. Of course reticle design is always important.
 
The beauty of the ffp is that the reticle can be used as an approximate range finder. Out to 300 yards there wouldn't be a lot of difference unless you were dialed up to full magnification. When purchasing such a scope you would take a piece of cardboard 1 meter x 50 cm. and set it out at different ranges say 50 meters apart. Get to know which setting on your magnification set ring the thickness of the cross hair covers at each distance. It actually works very well if you do your part.
 
Some of the older European variable FFP scopes used a reticle that tapered towards the center. It helped a little and was ok with 3x zooms..but the newer high ratio zooms are a problem
 
dfrombc said:
I just picked up a Bushnell LRHS with the G2M reticle and while I haven't hunted it yet, it is very usable at low power and fine enough to accurately shoot out to 800m (farthest I've shot it). This is my first FFP scope but I could see reticle layout being vital to being usable at both low and high power. I think bushnell got it right with the G2M reticles
Click to expand...

I also have one of the Bushnell LRHS scopes with the FFP G2M reticle and it is nice at the maximum magnification and also at low power as the reticle has an aiming circle incorporated in it that is easy to use. I think they call it the "circle of death". I kind of like that name!
 
" Originally Posted by r204
I had a vortex HS 6-24 ffp scope for a short while. At max zoom the reticle was still fine enough for long range but and lower power it was so fine that it was almost invisable. The lowest power setting where the reticle was accually usable was 12X. So it is a trade off, if you want a useable reticle at low power it will be to thick at high power then if you want a usable reticle for long range it will to fine at lower power."

Makes perfect sense. I'll stick with the SFP scopes cause I like the thin reticle at Max Zoom
 
Last edited:
If you buy a ffp scope with a choice in reticles (like a mid to high end vortex) a lot of the reticles never actually intersect at the centre. So your target picture is never really obstructed. Just google Ebr 2c vortex reticle and zoom in on the centre
 
Bearhunter is right about the rangefinding capabilities of an FFP at any mag, but there is also the fact that your holdovers (vert for drop or horiz for wind) are always true in an FFP scope.

This time 3 years ago I though FFP was the be all and end all. I was wrong.

I've not looked through an FFP scope where the reticle is too thick, but what pisses me off is that you lose the bottom of the reticle so you lose some of your hold-over ability.

All of my target/LR scopes will be SFP from now on. I'm still an FFP fan for hunting (which I don't do much) or a comp like PRS (which I'd like to try). My Bushnell 3.5-21 HDMR FFP with the G2DMR is going on my Modern Hunter when it arrives
 
Last edited:
3of30 said:
If you buy a ffp scope with a choice in reticles (like a mid to high end vortex) a lot of the reticles never actually intersect at the centre. So your target picture is never really obstructed. Just google Ebr 2c vortex reticle and zoom in on the centre
Click to expand...

This is how all FFP reticles should be with nothing obstructing the centre of the cross hairs
 
As has been pointed out there is a lot of misunderstanding. I have both, typically SFP on my hunting rifles and FFP on tactical rifles. The most important factor in this is sub tensions at all ranges for FFP being important for fast ranging unknown distances and matching loads to reticles. SFP with BDC at known ranges, ranging based on a specific magnification is a real pain. Within 300 the drop for effective hits (not paper punching) the difference is almost moot, depending on your need and reticle design.
 
Bile said:
You lose that anyway with all 2FP scopes unless you're at (usually) max magnification. Your reticle sub tensions are only accurate at a single magnification, where as FFP it is accurate at all magnifications.

So, since this thread is spreading an increasing amount of false information one note about this "reticle's too big" misinformation:

If you have 2 scopes side by side which are exactly the same except that one is FFP and the other is 2FP the reticle size on the 2FP reticle is actually bigger than the FFP except at max power (or where ever else the manufacturer decided to make it correct to the ground) where they are the exact same size.
Click to expand...

Buuuuutttt....you can see the entire reticle at full/true ranging power on a 2FP. That's my point. On an FFP you lose the bottom part of the reticle.

I own both as well.

I don't see any misleading info on this thread, from me or anyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom