FIRST Focal Plane scopes

[Dano3467]

Let's try this here. Can anyone tell me how and why, a FIRST Focal Plane rifle scopes would Have a real benefit for a medium to long rang shooter. Have you used one of these ? this is new to me, so asking here...

[crob]

The way I understand it is, that the size of the reticle adjusts in relation to magnification. So if the size of a target is known to the shooter, he can then use the markings on the reticle to formulate distance on any magnification as opposed to a set magnification like second focal plane scopes

[bombadillo]

The biggest benefit is for ranging targets as Crob said. I prefer the thinner lines of a fine reticle so you don't cover as much of the target up at distance, but generally I am shooting 600 or less yards and don't need it. I have a rangefinder and know the distances that I am shooting at, and often it is a bench. I can understand the up side of it if you are shooting a match, and have targets at various unknown ranges, or are out in the field shooting at distance, as you can become very proficient in doing this and increase your hits.

[huckberry668]

crob has it right. 2nd focal has the substension set at usually higher if not highest magnification of the scope. High magnification is usually harder for fast targeting of closer objects.

the practical benefit of front focal is that you can use lower (or any) magnification but still get the correct recticle substension for bullet drop calculation.

[russ69]

I think the main reason for this design is that the relative size of the reticle and the target stays the same, you instantly see if you are dialed up to a high power setting or a low power setting. It also shows how hard it is to make a long shot when the reticle covers half of the target, it shows that you don't have much room for error.

[FMJBT]

For a shooter that tends to use the variable magnification a lot, the FFP design is extremely useful as it maintains it's calibration across the entire magnification range. This allows for using the same holds and mil values for ranging and tractory compensation regardless of magnification setting.

I've found that the FFP function makes reticle design a rather critical aspect of how useful the scope will be. Most standard mil dot reticles translate badly into an FFP scope, as they end up being either too thin to see well at low magnification, or too heavy for use at max magnification. Scopes with a wider magnification range like the newer generation of 6X and 8X multiplier scopes tend to make this issue even worse as the reticle now increases in size by 6 to 8 times instead of 3 or 4 like more traditional scopes.

One of the better reticle designs currently available for FFP scopes is the GAP designed G2DMR used in Bushnell scopes. They use this reticle in the 3.5-21X HDMR scopes (6X multiplier), and it seems to work well at both ends of the magnification range without being too thin or heavy.

[postal]

Agree with FMJ.

The MAIN benefit though, is elevation and wind holds will be accurate at any power setting.

The mil dots are worthless if you arent on the correct power range on a 2nd focal plane scope.

Also understand, that if you spend the money on a FFP scope, you ***SHOULD*** be looking at one that is mil/mil or moa/moa.

Meaning, a mil/mil scope, has some sort of mil based reticle like the G2 DMR FMJ mentioned, but also the scope adjustments are in .1 mil. You ONLY use mils. How screwed up is that to mil with a reticle and make adjustments in MOAs????

MIL/MIL is going to be so much faster and a straight forward to either dial, or hold a correction.

Compared to look at your chart and dial moa, or hold mil, or worse yet, have to use a mildot master to convert mils to inches to moas...

This is the HUGE benefit of ffp and mil/mil.

When I can pick one up in a couple months, I would never go back.

[Dano3467]

Internet been down. What I fail to mention is FRONT focal plane scopes, saying instead first Focal plane, was my mistake. There is now a FRONT focal plane scope. It is this That my questions are for. Any good, or great benefits over FFP. ??? And yes would like to have good hold over capabilities...

[FMJBT]

Internet been down. What I fail to mention is FRONT focal plane scopes, saying instead first Focal plane, was my mistake. There is now a FRONT focal plane scope. It is this That my questions are for. Any good, or great benefits over FFP. ??? And yes would like to have good hold over capabilities...

Front Focal Plane = First Focal Plane = FFP. All the same thing. On an FFP scope, the reticle is located at the objective end of the erector tube, and typically is just forward of the windage/elevation knobs. This allows the image of the retical to be magnified along with the image viewed through the scope as it is located prior to the magnification lenses in the scope body.

In a Second Focal Plane or SFP scope, the reticle is located at the occular (eyepiece) end of the erector tube. Since it is located after the series of lenses that magnify the image seen through the scope, the reticle stays the same size regardless of the magnification.

[Dano3467]

OK good to know, thanks. trying to get all the ducks in a row, before I pull the trigger on this. So much to consider before laying out this much cash for a single item...

[postal]

The cheapest and best for the price FFP mil/mil scopes I know of are the bushnell line.

Apparently primary arms is now importing a cheap ffp-mil/mil which I have not seen, nor anyone *I trust* give feedback on.

If you go this route, Bushnell or vortex are the cheapest quality products I'm familiar with. I would recommend both, but lean toward the bushnell At the $800-$1,300 range. Spending more opens more doors to more brands, but the bushnell will do almost everything at about $1300. They have cheaper models but be carefull it's a mil/mil FFP with a usefull reticle. Many cheaper models appear to have the same specs but read closely, they show they are 2nd focal plane.

[bombadillo]

The cheapest FFP scopes would be the primary arms or Barska, and of the two, I would go with the PA scopes in a heartbeat.

Next up would be Falcon Menace scopes. They are a decent deal at around the high 300 dollar mark, mil lines, and generally are well respected by folks just getting into the ranging game.

Vortex would probably be next up with the HS line or the PST line. Those are upward of 700-1100 or so for one of those.

Then the bushnell line would probably come next and they are competitive in the 1k ballpark up to 2k or so and there are a TON of options at those prices.

[Metal God]

also shows how hard it is to make a long shot when the reticle covers half of the target,

Although this is true when trying to hit very VERY small targets at very long range . the reticle really does not cover that much of the target .

As the reticle above shows , the cross hairs are .18 MOA or just a bit bigger then 1/8" of an inch at 100 yards . At about 700 yards the reticle would cover about 1 inch of the target . If your trying to hit a 12" gong at 7 or 800yds it should not be an issue . If your shooting 1k comp it's a big problem .

For shooting 1k competition , the reticle would be way to big

For your sniper rifle and wanting to shoot minute of --- they are perfect . you have the ability for a quick adjustment for wind and hold over using the reticle at any magnification .

EDIT : Check out this video at about 2min 30sec on . the roof looks about 200 yards away . The pipe is about 6" wide . the reticle is quite small and you would have no problem with precise accuracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llGng9YkUJE

[damndave]

If you aren't using the reticle for ranging/wind it makes no real difference. A SFP reticle is only accurate at a specific magnification where a FFP reticle changes when you zoom in and out.