Rifle Scopes Dumb question on Second Focal Plane scopes

[redhead522]

Hello everyone,

I know that the vast majority of long range tactical shooters prefer first focal plane scopes, but will a high quality second focal plane scope actually change the point of impact through the various magnification ranges, or is the only different the reticle size through magnification ranges?

The reason I ask was I was dead set on the Nightforce Beast, but that was over a year ago and I'm still waiting for it to come out. However, the Nightforce ATACR is almost $1,000 cheaper, and the only difference is it's second focal plane, whereas the BEAST is first focal plane.

To be perfectly honest, I plan on buying a high quality rangefinder, and probably won't use the reticle to determine the distance. If this is the case, do I really need a first focal plane scope for anything?

Thanks all!

 

[Quickdraw40]

Tough always shooting at the highest power at tactical-type matches.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

 

[Km22]

You should be fine if you always dial. It will be off if you hold on anything other than it's noted magnification.

 

[Quickdraw40]

You should be fine if you always dial. It will be off if you hold on anything other than it's noted magnification.

Even if you dial for ele, most people hold for wind which will be off at all magnifications except max.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

 

[rainshot]

Another stupid question, Why would it be off if it is moa/moa/sfp?

 

[Quickdraw40]

Because the magnification changes and the reticle stays the same size.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

 

[roggom]

Subtension for any SFP reticle is at its given 1:1 magnification, be that max or any other point designated by the manufacturer.

Now SFP is not the end all, it does have the benefit of a fixed reticle size and as you found are less expensive than FFP.

The key is the "real world" intention for your rifle.

Many shooters read through the hide and determine:

- they must have a 1000Y rifle
- they must have mil/mil or moa/moa
- they must have FFP
- they want to "run" their rigstick to .25 moa all day by doing their part.

Ok, that is fine if someone has the funds and is a proficient shooter that can either, spot their own shots or has a spotter.

I am not knocking all of those features and goals but I feel many new shooters really dont know what they do not know.

FFP/SFP - will you ever shoot comps? No, really, ever?
- Do you have a caliber/ chambering and can you load the bipod enough to spot your own shots?
- Will you have a spotter?

1000Y
Nothing wrong with planning ahead, but study the ballistics to ensure your barrel length, load and twist can keep the projectile stable and supersonic past your intended target. Also attention to energy for ethical harvest ranges (i/e 1000 ft lbs for CPX2 and 1500 for CPX3).

Mil/Moa - It is in every shooters best interest to know both methods and how to easily convert back and forth. With todays smart phones or ballistic software, its as easy as adding another column to your drop card.
- but what if someone is calling out mil numbers? Mark your scope turret with mil increments, or hold with your mil reticle.

Accuracy
Sure we all want a rifle that shoots cloverleafs, but this is not benchrest. Guys are quick to post up their 10 shot groups that can be covered with a tactical quarter, but who knows if those were obtained by using a lead sled or some other monstrosity. What is more impressive are those same 10 shots on a dot drill from various positions. For most scenarios, only the first round counts.

So Op you may know this already, I only post as there are new shooters logging on every day. This is just my opinion and take it for what its worth.

 

[Caliper]

I know that the vast majority of long range tactical shooters prefer first focal plane scopes, but will a high quality second focal plane scope actually change the point of impact through the various magnification ranges, or is the only different the reticle size through magnification ranges?

If you are aiming center, the POI for a SFP scope should not change as magnification changes. Some low end scopes will change POI as you zoom, but that is due to being a low quality scope, not due to SFP.

OTOH, if you are using a holdover point on the reticle, the POI WILL change as magnification changes with SFP due to the change in relative size of the reticle.

If you never intend to range with the reticle and always dial your corrections, save the $1k and go SFP. Heck, there are many nice FFP scopes available for that $1k if you want to try one and try what all the cool kids use.

 

[sib1948]

If you never intend to range with the reticle and always dial your corrections, save the $1k and go SFP. Heck, there are many nice FFP scopes available for that $1k if you want to try one and try what all the cool kids use.

Take a look at the new Vortex Razor HD 4.5-27X 56mm FFP and mil/mil. Get the EBR-1 or 2C reticle. 34mm tube. Locking elevation and windage knobs. Weighs 4 pounds! $2500. What's not to love?

 

[One Holer]

If you're only talking about tactical application of scopes, I definitely agree that ffp is way easier and should be the preferred choice. However, on low magnification or hunting scopes I prefer sfp. Ever try to use a ffp reticle on low power? The reticle is small and it is very hard to use the subtensions. Now on low power you probably won't need to use them as the target will more than likely be close, but why make it harder than it needs to be? My hunting rifles are lightweight and have scopes that top-out at 10 power, helping to keep the weight down. I like sfp scopes for hunting as the reticle stays the same size throughout the power range, making it easy to see the reticle on low powers. Food for thought.

 

[997/2man]

If you're only talking about tactical application of scopes, I definitely agree that ffp is way easier and should be the preferred choice. However, on low magnification or hunting scopes I prefer sfp. Ever try to use a ffp reticle on low power? The reticle is small and it is very hard to use the subtensions. Now on low power you probably won't need to use them as the target will more than likely be close, but why make it harder than it needs to be? My hunting rifles are lightweight and have scopes that top-out at 10 power, helping to keep the weight down. I like sfp scopes for hunting as the reticle stays the same size throughout the power range, making it easy to see the reticle on low powers. Food for thought.

There is a lot of good dope, right here.

Hunting, benchrest, action shooting, are all different.

Targets-as much mag as you can get.

Hunting- at low power, a SFP scopes reticle may be easier to see at low mag than a FFP with a fine target reticle design. I had one scope that I put on a hunting rifle, had to run the illumination almost all the time a low mag., the only way I could see the reticle a 1-3 or 4x.


Action shooting-Usually the ranges aren't too great, SFP isn't really a handicap.

Just bought a NF 2.5-10x for my son's CZ sportier. Weighs 20 oz. Last FL deer we shot weighed about 90 pounds and was about 75 yards away. We didn't do a whole lot of ranging...


If you do plan on doing a lot of shooting, targets, unknown ranges, long range, big rifle, etc., get a FFP.


Good Luck.

 

[KYpatriot]

The center point of the reticle will remain true to a dope setting but as the magnification setting changes the spacings change as well. So if you dialed a shot on properly calibrated magnification setting it will directly correspond to the turrets.

If your off that magnification setting you can no longer use the reticle as a ruler (which by the way is like a cheat sheet giving you the answers with no math whatsoever) and therefore have to figure out what the measured miss corresponds to in the angular adjustment your using which takes time which means your conditions may have changed in the field which likely make a follow on a less likely (but not impossible) strike.

Usually the "mil setting" is located at the max magnification so to be able to that magical ruler of easy answers is relegated to that particular magnification. Another option is to then find "half power" which is a 12X on a 24X top end magnification optic. Then the reticle subtention simply double (a 1 mil spacing becomes 2 mils per spacing) at which point you can then easily measure and dial corrections.

A side benefit of "half power" is now that the subtentions are now doubled....you can effectively hold over greater distances because a 5 mildot reticle becomes 10 mils worth of holds. FFP scopes cannot do this as the reticle always subtends what it says it subtends.

So a SFP isn't a total wash. If you want ease of use over all magnification ranges...the FFP has it in spades. You teach an individual to run a FFP mil/mil or moa/moa scopes in mere minutes. But the practical useage of a SFP over all magnification ranges requires knowing more math to convert fractions of subtention as well as converting visual impacts into angular adjustments which is a lot of pain and heartache that simply doesn't need to be. And why relegate your useage to two magnification settings to practical "on the fly" scenarios. Especially if your paying that much even for a SFP. You could get an older Nighforce scope that does the same for alot less and theoretically more magnification if you so choose.

This is a good post. I have both, and there are things I like about both. To me the only advantage FFP has is that your reticle is always accurate for your wind holds you don't even have to think about it. I find that I can be more precise on a SFP scope though because the reticle is thinner at the higher magnification. This is a big con for the FFP scopes to me.

Buy the highest quality scope you can, and choose a SFP scope over the FFP if the extra money for FFP is driving you to a lesser quality scope. Otherwise, you can't go wrong with either really. I always check any scope at 100 yards with a big piece of cardboard with heavy lines drawn on it in measured mils. I check that the sub tensions are accurate on the reticles, and on a SFP scope you can calibrate and mark on your magnification ring exactly where the reticle is subtending double and quadruple as the mag rings are usually only approximately marked.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

there is no such thing as a dumb question. FFP is best for range finding at any magnifaction and the subtensions also stay the same at any magnifaction (even though the reticle changes in size) and the latter is important. SSP is good if you know the magnification that the subtensions are set for when it comes to range finding and subtensions of the reticle. SSP is also good on a variable scope for determing hold over and hunting type reticles. Example, the Leupold LR Duplex and Rifeman Ballistics Reticle are the actually the same thing. But you can determine at what magnification are good for each holdover given a vital zone type accuracy. Example, a 3-9x40 Rifleman using a .308 @2600 fps will set at approx. 6.5x to use the reticle holdover marks at 200, 300, 400, 500 yards. If you are going to use a rangefinder I would also take the time to reconcile the range to the reticle as a tool to learn how to read the reticle.

 

[Rob01]

FFP is best for range finding at any magnifaction and the subtensions also stay the same at any magnifaction (even though the reticle changes in size) and the latter is important.

No it's best for using the reticle at any power range. Ranging is way down on the list.

Also the reticle doesn't change size. It stays the same size in relation to the target which is why the reticle subtends correctly on any power. The reticle appears to get larger and smaller but so does the target. Saying it changes sizes is what people read and continue to repeat when it's not true.

 

[redhead522]

Thanks for all the awesome replies guys! It's very informative.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

No it's best for using the reticle at any power range. Ranging is way down on the list.

Also the reticle doesn't change size. It stays the same size in relation to the target which is why the reticle subtends correctly on any power. The reticle appears to get larger and smaller but so does the target. Saying it changes sizes is what people read and continue to repeat when it's not true.

That is more better. Thanks.

 

[nfoley]

I notice a lot of people take issue when someone says the reticle changes size in an FFP scope. Sure it's an 'apparent' change in size, but so is the size of the target. I think most would understand and agree with the statement the target increases in size when you crank up the magnification. So does the reticle in FFP scopes.
I only bring this up cause I was talking with someone who ordered an FFP scope after being told the "reticle stays the same size," and he was disappointed with the fact that the line thickness increases in size at max magnification.
Rob's description above is excellent - likely this guy would have known exactly what to expect with that more complete description.

 

[roggom]

The reticle in a FFP scope remains constant to the target but changes in reference to the 2nd focal plane. All scopes have both, the second focal is where the image is focused after inverting. So yes it does change/ Mag factor.

 

[Rob01]

I only bring this up cause I was talking with someone who ordered an FFP scope after being told the "reticle stays the same size," and he was disappointed with the fact that the line thickness increases in size at max magnification.

No the reticle didn't get thicker at max magnification. It's the same thickness and covered the same amount of the target as it is at it's lowest power. It grew in relation to the target just like the mil sub tension. It comes down to reticle design.

 

[Beiruty]

The center point of the reticle will remain true to a dope setting but as the magnification setting changes the spacings change as well. So if you dialed a shot on properly calibrated magnification setting it will directly correspond to the turrets.

If your off that magnification setting you can no longer use the reticle as a ruler (which by the way is like a cheat sheet giving you the answers with no math whatsoever) and therefore have to figure out what the measured miss corresponds to in the angular adjustment your using which takes time which means your conditions may have changed in the field which likely make a follow on a less likely (but not impossible) strike.

Usually the "mil setting" is located at the max magnification so to be able to that magical ruler of easy answers is relegated to that particular magnification. Another option is to then find "half power" which is a 12X on a 24X top end magnification optic. Then the reticle subtention simply double (a 1 mil spacing becomes 2 mils per spacing) at which point you can then easily measure and dial corrections.

A side benefit of "half power" is now that the subtentions are now doubled....you can effectively hold over greater distances because a 5 mildot reticle becomes 10 mils worth of holds. FFP scopes cannot do this as the reticle always subtends what it says it subtends.

So a SFP isn't a total wash. If you want ease of use over all magnification ranges...the FFP has it in spades. You teach an individual to run a FFP mil/mil or moa/moa scopes in mere minutes. But the practical useage of a SFP over all magnification ranges requires knowing more math to convert fractions of subtention as well as converting visual impacts into angular adjustments which is a lot of pain and heartache that simply doesn't need to be. And why relegate your useage to two magnification settings to practical "on the fly" scenarios. Especially if your paying that much even for a SFP. You could get an older Nighforce scope that does the same for alot less and theoretically more magnification if you so choose.

To solve the problem of the SFP and my Bushnell Elite 4.5-30X50 with DOA 600. I use Strelok+ on my Samsung smartphone. I can enter distance, wind and I got dope with Reticule view and Mag slider. By varying the magnification slider I can calibrate the hold over line to exact shooting distance. Try it and you would love it.

Note:
1) Select your rifle
2) Select your scope and its reticle
3) Select your Ammo
4) Enter distance and wind estimate
5) Compute solution
6-a) Dial your turrets if you are using scope with dial turrets, or
6-b1) Go to the Reticle view, slide the mag rules to line-up your target to nearest hold-over line.
6-b2) Dial your Magnification as suggested
7) Aim
8) shoot
9) Verify

 

[nfoley]

No the reticle didn't get thicker at max magnification.

When you go from 5x to 25x in an FFP scope the target gets bigger (appears to). Similarly the reticle gets bigger (appears to).

 

[Rob01]

When you go from 5x to 25x in an FFP scope the target gets bigger (appears to). Similarly the reticle gets bigger (appears to).

Big difference between appears to and actually does. Explaining to people the fact that the reticle is covering no more of the target at 5x or at 25x when it appears bigger is better than letting them actually believe it is, which it is not.

 

[mdmp5]

You should be fine if you always dial. It will be off if you hold on anything other than it's noted magnification.

If you hold for a seen miss, you can use any magnification. If you want to hold for a specific value, you use the specified magnification. Nightforce scopes range on either max mag or 22x. My Hensoldt ranges at 12x even though it is a 6-24. To avoid having to shoot at 22x on my NF at all times, I shoot at 11x, and double the value of each mark.

 

[Km22]

If you hold for a seen miss, you can use any magnification. If you want to hold for a specific value, you use the specified magnification. Nightforce scopes range on either max mag or 22x. My Hensoldt ranges at 12x even though it is a 6-24. To avoid having to shoot at 22x on my NF at all times, I shoot at 11x, and double the value of each mark.

Correct. I was implying that the subtensions are off on everything except the noted power, not that it was completely unusable.

 

[mdmp5]

Correct. I was implying that the subtensions are off on everything except the noted power, not that it was completely unusable.

Oh I know what you meant, and you are correct. I just wanted to add some more clarification.

 

[Aries64]

FFP reticles grow or shrink in direct proportion to the target area!

FFP is best for range finding at any magnifaction and the subtensions also stay the same at any magnifaction (even though the reticle changes in size) and the latter is important.

No it's best for using the reticle at any power range. Ranging is way down on the list.

I agree here. While being able to range with a reticle (whether FFP or SFP), is a good skill to have just in case use of a rangefinder isn't possible, I'll bet that the majority of shooters who use scopes with ranging capabilities range with a laser rangefinder instead of a scope whenever possible.

Also the reticle doesn't change size. It stays the same size in relation to the target which is why the reticle subtends correctly on any power. The reticle appears to get larger and smaller but so does the target. Saying it changes sizes is what people read and continue to repeat when it's not true.

Actually Rob, the reticles in variable FFP scopes' do change size as magnification is adjusted up and down. The reticle grows or shrinks as the magnification is increased or decreased. This is obvious to anyone if they look through a FFP scope while running the magnification up or down. The key is that everything within the field-of-view (the reticle and target area), grow and shrink in direct proportion to each other. As you know, maintaining correct reticle-to-target size is what allows FFP reticles to subtend correctly regardless of their magnification settings.

Saying the reticle doesn't change size (when it actually does in direct proportion to the target area) is what continues to confuse people.


Keith

 

[Aries64]

FFP scopes aren't just for "ranging"

Hello everyone,

I know that the vast majority of long range tactical shooters prefer first focal plane scopes, but will a high quality second focal plane scope actually change the point of impact through the various magnification ranges, or is the only different the reticle size through magnification ranges?

FFP (First Focal Plane) scopes aren't just for long range (to me, "long range" starts at 600 yards for center fires), or "tactical" shooting. With the advent of "affordable" laser rangefinders' the main advantage of FFP scopes' is that their reticles can be relied upon to make elevation and/or windage corrections because the subtensions are accurate at any magnification. You hold and/or dial corrections based on what you see through the scope without worrying about what magnification setting the scope is on. With SFP (Second Focal Plane) scopes' you have to be conscious of the magnification setting (the reticle subtensions are only accurate at the magnification that the reticle is calibrated at).

The reason I ask was I was dead set on the Nightforce Beast, but that was over a year ago and I'm still waiting for it to come out. However, the Nightforce ATACR is almost $1,000 cheaper, and the only difference is it's second focal plane, whereas the BEAST is first focal plane.

If you want a FFP Nightforce and the F1 doesn't cut it for you I guess you'll have to wait.

To be perfectly honest, I plan on buying a high quality rangefinder, and probably won't use the reticle to determine the distance. If this is the case, do I really need a first focal plane scope for anything?

Thanks all!

As I stated above, the advent of "affordable" laser rangefinders' the main advantage of FFP scopes' is that their reticles can be relied upon to make elevation and/or windage corrections because the subtensions are accurate at any magnification. You hold and/or dial corrections based on what you see through the scope without worrying about what magnification setting the scope is on. With SFP (Second Focal Plane) scopes' you have to be conscious of the magnification setting (the reticle subtensions are only accurate at the magnification that the reticle is calibrated at). Of course, being able to range using the reticle isn't a bad skill to have either. The battery in your rangefinder could die, and certain stages in tactical matches forbid the use of rangefinders (that may or may not be your bag).


Keith

 

[Rob01]

Actually Rob, the reticles in variable FFP scopes' do change size as magnification is adjusted up and down. The reticle grows or shrinks as the magnification is increased or decreased. This is obvious to anyone if they look through a FFP scope while running the magnification up or down. The key is that everything within the field-of-view (the reticle and target area), grow and shrink in direct proportion to each other. As you know, maintaining correct reticle-to-target size is what allows FFP reticles to subtend correctly regardless of their magnification settings.

Saying the reticle doesn't change size (when it actually does in direct proportion to the target area) is what continues to confuse people.


Keith

In relation to the target is all that matters. Anyone who worries more about the reticle appearing to get larger or smaller is missing the whole point.

 

[KYpatriot]

In relation to the target is all that matters. Anyone who worries more about the reticle appearing to get larger or smaller is missing the whole point.

Unless you are shooting at submoa targets. The FFP reticles can get thick and aren't best for everything. For hunting at closer range the FFP reticles can be harder to see. Bottom line, I use both but SFP will be better in some limited circumstances. On the whole though, being able to use your wind holds immediately without worrying about math or remembering what magnification you are at (assuming you have calibrated the reticle at those mags) gives FFP a distinct advantage which I think is Rob's point. If you are using a reticle for holdovers, adjusting magnification for mirage, etc you have to think about the reticle for every shot with the SFP...

 

[Rob01]

O

Unless you are shooting at submoa targets. The FFP reticles can get thick and aren't best for everything. For hunting at closer range the FFP reticles can be harder to see. Bottom line, I use both but SFP will be better in some limited circumstances. On the whole though, being able to use your wind holds immediately without worrying about math or remembering what magnification you are at (assuming you have calibrated the reticle at those mags) gives FFP a distinct advantage which I think is Rob's point. If you are using a reticle for holdovers, adjusting magnification for mirage, etc you have to think about the reticle for every shot with the SFP...

When did I ever say FFP is best for everything? I was just trying to get the info on FFP correct.

Why do I get sucked I to these same posts over and over?

 

[Aries64]

In FFP the reticle and target grow and shrink in direct proportion to each other

FFP is best for range finding at any magnifaction and the subtensions also stay the same at any magnifaction (even though the reticle changes in size) and the latter is important.

No it's best for using the reticle at any power range. Ranging is way down on the list.

I agree here. While being able to range with a reticle (whether FFP or SFP), is a good skill to have just in case use of a rangefinder isn't possible, I'll bet that the majority of shooters who use scopes with ranging capabilities range with a laser rangefinder instead of a scope whenever possible.

Also the reticle doesn't change size. It stays the same size in relation to the target which is why the reticle subtends correctly on any power. The reticle appears to get larger and smaller but so does the target. Saying it changes sizes is what people read and continue to repeat when it's not true.

Actually Rob, the reticles in variable FFP scopes' do change size as magnification is adjusted up and down. The reticle grows or shrinks as the magnification is increased or decreased. This is obvious to anyone if they look through a FFP scope while running the magnification up or down. The key is that everything within the field-of-view (the reticle and target area), grow and shrink in direct proportion to each other). As you know, maintaining correct reticle-to-target size is what allows FFP reticles to subtend correctly regardless of their magnification settings.

Saying the reticle doesn't change size (when it actually does in direct proportion to the target area is what continues to confuse people.

In relation to the target is all that matters.

Not for every type of shooting or situation so I can understand concern about FFP reticles' shrinking down at low magnification. Kypatriot mentioned shooting sub-MOA targets (most of what I do) and hunting (shooting at low magnification and/or in low light conditions is to be expected). The P4F is a great reticle, but try to use it at 3X and/or in low light and it's pretty damn hard to see even for young, strong eyes. That's a legitimate concern and something that anyone considering a FFP scope should be aware of in order to avoid frustration and disappointment in with their expensive purchase. In a hunting-specific PMII I'd go with a 3-12X[50] LP with P3L reticle or see if S & B could install a P4L (same line width of .24" at 100 yards) in it, or maybe a 3-20X[50] with a P3L or P4L reticle. I own both FFP and SFP scopes as they each have their own advantages and disadvantages - it's just a matter of choosing the right scope and rifle for the type of shooting involved.

Anyone who worries more about the reticle appearing to get larger or smaller is missing the whole point.

Actually, you're missing the point Rob. Telling people that FFP reticles don't grow or shrink as magnification is increased or decreased is inaccurate as well as being a disservice to them. Everything seen in the FOV of a FFP scope increases or decreases in size proportionately as magnification is increased or decreased. That is a fact whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. "No", you say? How can an image that is magnified not increase in size? How can that magnified image not decrease in size when magnification is decreased? The effect of magnification on a FFP target image is obvious to anyone that looks through a FFP scope while running the magnification up or down. Since the reticle and target area are part of the image seen through the scope and under the same magnification they grow or shrink in direct proportion to each other. That's why the subtensions are correct at any magnification setting on FFP scopes.

It seems obvious that you'll never concede (oh, no - that would make you wrong about something!) that the image seen through FFP scopes grow or shrink as magnification is increased or decreased. As an example to the less-entrenched and/or people new to FFP scopes below are some of your own photos you shot through a PMII 5-25X[56] showing the H2CMR at 25X, 20X, 15X, 10X, and 5X, as well as some that you shot through a PMII 5-25X[56] showing the P4F at 25X, 15X, 10X, and 5X. The photos clearly demonstrate the (proportional) growing and shrinking of the reticle (and everything else within the scope's FOV) at different magnifications.

Sorry it took so long but I finally got out to zero my 5-25x with the H2CMR and took some pics on 25, 20, 15, 10 and 5x. The overall appearance of the reticle is basically the same as the P4F as far as thickness. It's a very usable reticle and even down to 5x as you can see from the pics. The dots help to make it easier to see.

I will go down from 25x to 5x showing the H2CMR first and then the P4F pic so you can compare. It's out to 400 yards and the round steel is 8" for anyone who didn't see the other pictures. And again don't hold the image against the scope as I suck at taking through the scope pics.

25x

20x

Didn't have a pic of P4F at 20x

15x

10x

5x

</graemlin_url>

Keith

 

[Rob01]

No need for the wise ass "that would make you wrong or something" comments. Does the reticle appear to get smaller? Yes but it comers no more or less of the target at the lowest power than it does at the highest power. That was one of my points. It's not getting larger or smaller in relation to the target which is the most important part of the FFP reticle and being able to use it on any power.

Is a FFP scope perfect for every situation? No of course not. You need to pick the right tool for the right job. You need to see the reticle at 3x for a hunting situation then you better have an illuminated FFP or a SFP would be better.

I posted those picture for people to see and learn from at to what the reticles look like at all powers. They are the same size relative to the target. As the target grows in size so does the reticle to subtend correctly. The reticle is not just growing and shrinking randomly. That's my point but people new to this need to learn and realize that and when people say they change size they need to be specific in why and how they are doing it in relation to the target. No need to bold something I know and use and have already stated in this thread like you are telling me something new.

 

[sscoyote]

I love the inversely proportional nature of reticle subtension vs. magnification in SFP reticles--dang fun to play with IMO especially in 22 rimfires when shooting at various distances out to 300 yds. or so.

You know what I think is the reason so many folks have problems with this concept is that it's INVERSELY proportional instead of directly proportional, and therefore harder to understand/calculate.

 

[Aries64]

Unless you are shooting at submoa targets. The FFP reticles can get thick and aren't best for everything. For hunting at closer range the FFP reticles can be harder to see. Bottom line, I use both but SFP will be better in some limited circumstances. On the whole though, being able to use your wind holds immediately without worrying about math or remembering what magnification you are at (assuming you have calibrated the reticle at those mags) gives FFP a distinct advantage which I think is Rob's point. If you are using a reticle for holdovers, adjusting magnification for mirage, etc you have to think about the reticle for every shot with the SFP...

When did I ever say FFP is best for everything? I was just trying to get the info on FFP correct.

I've been a forum member for seven (7) years now and lurked and read for a while prior to joining the Forum and I don't recall you ever saying that FFP is best for everything. On the other hand, you quoted KYpatriot, and while said quote does not state that you said that FFP is "best for everything", the tenor of your reply to him/her implies that he/she stated that you did say that FFP is best for everything.

Why do I get sucked I to these same posts over and over?

(a) Because very similar questions are asked over and over and over

(b) Because you like to

(c) Because you're trying to be helpful

(d) Because you're bored

(e) Because you're a glutton for punishment

(f) Because the idea of getting to 10,000 posts gives you a woody

(g) A combination of two or more of the above


Soon enough someone will bring up the horrible "tunneling" between 5X-7X on PMII 5-25X[56]s', how S & B should be sued for falsely advertising the PMII 5-25X[56] as a 5-25X, yada, yada, yada...


Keith

 

[Rob01]

It was a case of reading and writing and thinking not coming together. Came across harsher then meant to KYPatriot. Wasn't meant to be so. Apology to him.

 

[Aries64]

No need for the wise ass "that would make you wrong or something" comments. Does the reticle appear to get smaller? Yes but it comers no more or less of the target at the lowest power than it does at the highest power. That was one of my points. It's not getting larger or smaller in relation to the target which is the most important part of the FFP reticle and being able to use it on any power.

It was a single comment, and while it may seem a bit harsh it isn't without merit. The image seen through a FFP scope does grow or shrink as magnification is increased or decreased. That is an incontrovertible fact, yet for some reason or another you will not or cannot understand or accept. The fact that the reticle in a FFP scope doesn't occlude (cover) more of the target image at the scope's highest magnification than it does at the scope's lowest magnification does not disprove the fact that the image seen through a FFP scope grows or shrinks as magnification is increased or decreased. The reason that the reticle in a FFP scope doesn't occlude (cover) more of the target image at the scope's highest magnification than it does at the scope's lowest magnification is because the image seen through a FFP scope grows or shrinks in direct proportion as magnification is increased or decreased. Again, hence the reason that FFP reticle subtensions remain accurate at any magnification.

Is a FFP scope perfect for every situation? No of course not. You need to pick the right tool for the right job. You need to see the reticle at 3x for a hunting situation then you better have an illuminated FFP or a SFP would be better.

If this was directed toward me you're preaching to the choir and either intentionally or unintentionally taken some things that I said out of context. I've already said that I own both FFP and SFP scopes because they each have their own advantages and disadvantages and addressed the importance of picking the right scope and rifle for the type of shooting involved. Indeed, if you read my second to last reply to you in this thread you know all of that, including the fact that I mentioned the (FFP) PMII 3-12X[50] and PMII 3-20[50] because they're excellent examples of FFP reticles that get very small and hard-to-see at low magnification.

I posted those picture for people to see and learn from at to what the reticles look like at all powers.

Understood, and once again my point that FFP target images grow or shrink proportionally is driven home by your photos.

They are the same size relative to the target. As the target grows in size so does the reticle to subtend correctly. The reticle is not just growing and shrinking randomly.

Again, if this was directed toward me you're preaching to the choir. It's old new to me, but I have always made it a point to make sure that I state that the reticle grows or shrinks in direct proportion (relative) to the target. But since everything within the scope's FOV is magnified the exact same amount (and thus everything grows or shrinks proportionally as magnification is increased or decreased) I think it's more clear to just say that the image grows or shrinks proportionately as magnification is increased or decreased.

That's my point but people new to this need to learn and realize that and when people say they change size they need to be specific in why and how they are doing it in relation to the target.

I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately there just isn't a more simple way to explain it accurately than saying that everything within the scope's FOV grows or shrinks proportionally as magnification is increased or decreased. It's not up to me, but if someone truly can't understand that phenomenon maybe they shouldn't be handling firearms.

No need to bold something I know and use and have already stated in this thread like you are telling me something new.

My use of bold and/or italics is normally reserved for when I want to clarify and/or highlight a crucial principle or concept. I also use bold and/or italics when it's clear that one or more people don't fully understand something in the hope that they'll take the time to re-read what I've said, and contemplate it. If the reader(s) take the time and they're able to understand the concept(s) the light bulb typically comes-on for them. I used bold and/or italics in my replies to you for this reason.

Case-in-point: You understand and explain to people that in FFP scopes' "as the target grows in size so does the reticle to subtend correctly" (i.e., the reticle grows in direct proportion to the target thus the reticle subtends accurately at any magnification). Further, down that accurate subtension road the reticle occludes/covers the same area of the target whether at maximum or minimum magnification. However, you've consistently (and incorrectly) told people that FFP reticles don't change size. (The reticle size changes as magnification is increased or decreased but it does so in direct proportion to the target). Again, the effect of magnification on a FFP target image is obvious to anyone that looks through a FFP scope while running the magnification up or down. Forest for the trees, Rob. Forest for the trees.


Keith

 

[Rob01]

I am not going to argue this any further. I stand by what I have posted. The simple scopes 101 answer is it grows and shrinks but the reason it appears to do so is the important part which anyone actually wanting to learn about optics and their use should be looking at. Getting people to realize that it is more in depth than that is what is important. It's a step above simply saying that FFP reticles grow and shrink and SFP stay the same size, which is very simplistic in thought.

As I said I am done. Quote away.