Is FFP the new 6.5 Creed?

[ronsatspokane]

With SFP, the reticle covers more target on low power and less target on higher power. There is a magnification which FFP covers less and there is a flip point, but FFP is constant.

Say what? The reticle never changes on SFP. In many target SFP's some users cant even see the cross hairs they are so thin. Many competition shooters have either a 1/8 MOA dot or nothing. As in no hash marks at all, just very thin barely visible reticle lines. No need to measure the hold off in competition. You know where the last shot landed, you don't need hash marks to tell you were to hold off. If you don't know where the last one landed it does not matter whether you are running an SFP or an FFP with or without hash marks.

 

[drop_point]

Say what? The reticle never changes on SFP. In many target SFP's some users cant even see the cross hairs they are so thin. Many competition shooters have either a 1/8 MOA dot or nothing. As in no hash marks at all, just very thin barely visible reticle lines. No need to measure the hold off in competition. You know where the last shot landed, you don't need hash marks to tell you were to hold off. If you don't know where the last one landed it does not matter whether you are running an SFP or an FFP with or without hash marks.

See, you don’t understand it. A 0.125 mRad reticle will always cover 0.125 mRad. It stays the same relative to the target.

A 1/8 MOA dot is only 1/8 MOA on its calibrated power. You turn it down, the target appears to get smaller while the reticle appears to stay the same; the reticle is now larger relative to the target.

People don’t know what they don’t know about the topic, but they swear they are right.

 

[Bottom Fodder]

Maybe someone needs to fully explain the difference in a SFP and FFP and their differences
so ALL will know

 

[RegionRat]

What would you like to know?
In really basic terms, in a First Focal Plane scope the reticle is in the target's focal place which means it stays fixed to the size even when we zoom in. So, if the hash marks on the reticle are one MOA tick marks they appear as such no matter how we zoom. If you go to low mag, the reticle and target appear small, when we zoom in the reticle zooms in like the target.

In a SPF scope, the reticle always stays the same with respect to your perspective and the zoom only affects the target.

It looks like this:

And you can read a whole page explanation here.
https://e.ampro.co.nz/page/33/first-versus-second-focal-plane

 

[Bottom Fodder]

Thanks, So now people can look at this and make up their mind which fill their needs the best ( and put it on their Creed)

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Except your hold-over is inaccurate once you come off the power level it was calibrated for.

If you know the approximate size of the target, it's pretty easy to figure out a hold at any magnification, even with a straight duplex and no hash marks. Deer torso height is 18", Elk are about 24", etc. Not rocket science.

And again, it takes about 2 seconds to set the magnification to a level where holdovers on hash marks are trued up. Half the calibrated holdover magnification means a double hold. And you can do quick math in your head for most magnification settings. That's not rocket science either.

I just don't like thick reticles, and if a ffp is nice and thin on the highest mag setting in something like a 5-25x or 4.5-30x, it's pretty useless on 5-10x for any holdovers anyhow. So on low levels, all you have is a blurry reticle where only the center is usable as an aiming point. Holdover isnt even possible.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Maybe some of the top tier FFP scopes like the Kahles 5-25x have the reticles figured out and perform better due to a wider field of view, but I haven't owned one yet. The ffp scopes I've had in the $1k range or less didn't impress me enough to switch up my game. I zero at 300 yards and for anything past 500 yards, I go to turret dialing. So my need for a reticle with holdover marks is limited. I bet I can dial a turret faster than a lot of people can figure out a hold on a reticle. Range, dial, center hold, boom.

I think the new Swarovski DS Gen II 5-25x52 riflescope would Trump us all in speed of making an accurate hit on target in the field. All-in-one tool for sure.

 

[ronsatspokane]

See, you don’t understand it. A 0.125 mRad reticle will always cover 0.125 mRad. It stays the same relative to the target.

A 1/8 MOA dot is only 1/8 MOA on its calibrated power. You turn it down, the target appears to get smaller while the reticle appears to stay the same; the reticle is now larger relative to the target.

People don’t know what they don’t know about the topic, but they swear they are right.

That is not correct. In SFP the reticle never changes. You see the same reticle at all powers and the dimensions of the cross hairs and dot (if there is one) are always the same. You are not gauging them relative to the target or the power of the scope as you would in an FFP. You should look through one someday. SFP on the other hand, much of the reticle disappears from the field of view at higher powers and the reticle takes on the dimensions of a fence post. Feels like you need to look around the reticle to see your target on some of these FFP scopes. Ask me how I know.

 

[ronsatspokane]

Maybe some of the top tier FFP scopes like the Kahles 5-25x have the reticles figured out and perform better due to a wider field of view, but I haven't owned one yet. The ffp scopes I've had in the $1k range or less didn't impress me enough to switch up my game. I zero at 300 yards and for anything past 500 yards, I go to turret dialing. So my need for a reticle with holdover marks is limited. I bet I can dial a turret faster than a lot of people can figure out a hold on a reticle. Range, dial, center hold, boom.

I think the new Swarovski DS Gen II 5-25x52 riflescope would Trump us all in speed of making an accurate hit on target in the field. All-in-one tool for sure.

View attachment 1466780

I had a Burris Eliminator. It worked. Heavy bugger though. The Kahles is going to be a high quality offering and would be fun to play with.

 

[jimmymac]

I bet the OP is glad he started this thread.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

I bet the OP is glad he started this thread.

Yeah and I don't know why I let myself get sucked into these stupid debates...no restraint sometimes I guess. Always turns into a Jerry Springer show

 

[drop_point]

That is not correct. In SFP the reticle never changes. You see the same reticle at all powers and the dimensions of the cross hairs and dot (if there is one) are always the same. You are not gauging them relative to the target or the power of the scope as you would in an FFP. You should look through one someday. SFP on the other hand, much of the reticle disappears from the field of view at higher powers and the reticle takes on the dimensions of a fence post. Feels like you need to look around the reticle to see your target on some of these FFP scopes. Ask me how I know.

Wow. You really didn’t read what I said.

 

[drop_point]

1

If you know the approximate size of the target, it's pretty easy to figure out a hold at any magnification, even with a straight duplex and no hash marks. Deer torso height is 18", Elk are about 24", etc. Not rocket science.

And again, it takes about 2 seconds to set the magnification to a level where holdovers on hash marks are trued up. Half the calibrated holdover magnification means a double hold. And you can do quick math in your head for most magnification settings. That's not rocket science either.

I just don't like thick reticles, and if a ffp is nice and thin on the highest mag setting in something like a 5-25x or 4.5-30x, it's pretty useless on 5-10x for any holdovers anyhow. So on low levels, all you have is a blurry reticle where only the center is usable as an aiming point. Holdover isnt even possible.

Are you saying you assume how big an animal is in inches and guesstimate inches to hold over?

 

[whatsupdoc]

Here you go ladies, Dual focal plane its $4K but best of both worlds.

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Review: Steiner M8Xi Dual Plane Optic With Plumb Reticle

The Steiner M8Xi Dual Plane Optic is a low power variable optic with a unique reticle.

www.shootingillustrated.com

Bold for those reading challenged.

"One thing that sets this Steiner apart from other scopes in its class is the fact that the scope has a dual plane scheme. At lower magnifications, the reticle appears on the second focal plane which makes it quicker to acquire targets compared to its first focal plane only counterparts, but when adjusted to higher zoom levels it behaves like any other FFP optic."


Wut!!!!! but it dont have a target dot!!!!

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Here you go ladies, Dual focal plane its $4K but best of both worlds.

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Review: Steiner M8Xi Dual Plane Optic With Plumb Reticle

The Steiner M8Xi Dual Plane Optic is a low power variable optic with a unique reticle.

www.shootingillustrated.com

Bold for those reading challenged.

"One thing that sets this Steiner apart from other scopes in its class is the fact that the scope has a dual plane scheme. At lower magnifications, the reticle appears on the second focal plane which makes it quicker to acquire targets compared to its first focal plane only counterparts, but when adjusted to higher zoom levels it behaves like any other FFP optic."


Wut!!!!! but it dont have a target dot!!!!

Well there ya go. Case closed. Everybody can go home now.

 

[Bottom Fodder]

Well there ya go. Case closed. Everybody can go home now.

This thread should resurface in about two years

 

[Ledd Slinger]

This thread should resurface in about two years

LOL! That seems to be about right for the cycle times.

 

[ISS]

I have been shooting a 260 Remington for about thirty years now. I am still waiting for somebody to show me the real world advantage of the creedmore...

ISS

 

[Rob01]

I have been shooting a 260 Remington for about thirty years now. I am still waiting for somebody to show me the real world advantage of the creedmore...

ISS

For you there probably isn't any but for someone getting into long range shooting you get many rifles, ammo and a round that will easily fit in magazines even with heavier bullets. Ballistically they are almost the same. Lots of brass available for the Creedmoor with no need to size down. Just small things that appeal to some.

 

[whatsupdoc]

I have been shooting a 260 Remington for about thirty years now. I am still waiting for somebody to show me the real world advantage of the creedmore...

ISS

You may have been shooting it for thirty years but nobody else has, it was a flop for
Remington. Hornady made it a little shorter with much better bullets so it became
an instant hit.