first or second focal plain?

[lyon]

Hi
looking at scopes and to see if any one uses scopes with the first focal plain, and the benefits. Or stick to second focal plain.
​Thanks

 

[long_range_rob]

I use as S&B. The only true advantage is your holdover remains the same throughout the zoom range so if you have mil dots you can use them to hold over at different known ranges without having to be at a particular zoom setting.

​Other than that good glass is good glass

 

[Paul 600]

If you use a mil dot reticule in the FFP range estimation is constant at all magnifications.

 

[Dalua]

I have three variable mag scopes.
The stalky-type one has the so-called TDS Reticle for holdover at different ranges, which is the kind that usefully stays true regardless of mag setting. The down side it that at high mag, the reticle is fairly thick: but fortunately, so are hinds. The scope isn't on a rifle at the moment anyway.

The foxy/vermin and the target scopes are the kind where the crosshair (plain in both cases) stays super-fine despite high mag. The fox one is illuminated so you can still see it in the dark.

 

[Vipa]

Hi
looking at scopes and to see if any one uses scopes with the first focal plain, and the benefits. Or stick to second focal plain.
​Thanks

FFP is necessary for range estimation accross the zoom range.. if you aren't going to range find with it, or as someone else mentioned, use the reticle scale to give accurate holdover values, then you will probably find it more of a hinderance than a benefit.. at full zoom you mey find the target obscured..

If there is no ranging scale in on the reticle FFP is pointless

 

[Sharpie]

FFP is necessary for range estimation accross the zoom range.. if you aren't going to range find with it, or as someone else mentioned, use the reticle scale to give accurate holdover values, then you will probably find it more of a hinderance than a benefit.. at full zoom you mey find the target obscured..

If there is no ranging scale in on the reticle FFP is pointless

I have a FFP scope with a true mildot reticle and very fine central crosshairs.

At high magnification it is a very useful precision reticle, and the mil dots and other gradations allow accurate holdover.

At low magnification the central part of the reticle becomes almost invisible, but then wide outer posts come into view, like a german reticle, good for close range low light.

Its a very useful characteristic, like two reticles in one.

Something not often mentioned is that FFP is pretty much immune to zero shift with magnification, and more tolerant of parallax shift when improperly focussed at eyepiece or objective, due to the way the optics work.

2nd FP scopes have to be precisely made to avoid small (or large) zero shifts as mag. is altered. These can be very obvious if you look at a collimator reticle. I've seen (and rejected) some quite expensive 'scopes due to this problem, which only gets worse as the scope mechanism wears.

Many will never notice, because they always zero at full mag, and the wandering zero usually returns to the same place at max (or min) magnification.

 

[bewsher500]

If there is no ranging scale in on the reticle FFP is pointless

Agreed, but people often overlook the little known dimensions of the bars and spaces on a 4 or 4a reticule
not a commonly used "range finding reticule" like a mildot but the width of the bars and the space between cross hair and bar edge are significant
more often than not the width of the bars are 1/2 the space between the cross hair and the end of the bar
add that to the half width of bar dissected by the cross hair and you have a "mildot-esque" range finder

I have a 4a FFP S&B (whilst I personally never range find with it!)

 

[sir-slots-alot]

I prefer second focal plane. Simply because the cross hair doesnt block out as much of the target.
This probably wont matter on large quarry such as deer - But on small vermin - At high mag it does.


Personally, I wouldn't use the reticule for Gestimating the range - I would either use a range finder , and know precisely what range I am shooting. Or use my senses and experience to estimate the range.

FFP does have its uses - but not for me.

regards
Alan

 

[lordy]

I prefer second focal plane. Simply because the cross hair doesnt block out as much of the target.
This probably wont matter on large quarry such as deer - But on small vermin - At high mag it does.


Personally, I wouldn't use the reticule for Gestimating the range - I would either use a range finder , and know precisely what range I am shooting. Or use my senses and experience to estimate the range.

+1