First Focal Plane- Downside?

[AKDaddy]

I understand the concept of a FFP scope, meaning that reticle subtensions are always the same no matter what power the scope is set at. (I learned this the hard way, when I missed a moose on the first shot since my scope was not set at full power and I was using the first mark below my crosshairs. Got him later though!) In that sense, a FFP scope would be nice: the 300 yard aiming point is on at 300 yards no matter what the scope setting.

I noticed that Vortex is offering a tactical FFP plane scope this year, but that it's also available in a 2nd focal plane model. This begs the question: Is there a downside to a FFP scope? Is price the only reason to pass up a FFP option?

 

[memilanuk]

Generally speaking... since the reticle is magnified along with the target image in a FFP, the reticle covers the same amount of 'real estate' on the target regardless of the magnification. This can be both a boon (reticle subtension remains the same throughout the power range) and a PITA (its difficult to hold any 'finer' with higher magnification, since increasing the power just makes the x-hairs look like telephone poles covering the target). I've been told that the second effect can be minimized somewhat with specific reticle designs though I've not looked through one to be able to say one way or the other. For tactical & hunting situations, the ranging aspect probably takes precedence. For target shooting and perhaps small game/ varmint hunting, the ability to hold finer with increased magnification the way you can with a SFP scope may be preferable. Me personally, most of the time I dial up the magnification I want to be able to see more detail and hold on a smaller spot on the target whether its fur or paper. Being able to 'see' and hold finer doesn't necessarily guarantee being able to shoot better, though.

YMMV,

Monte

 

[AKDaddy]

Hmmm, I think I get it. What you are saying is that in a FFP scope, the reticle will look "thicker" as you dial up magnification, and this would mean that at high magnification the reticle would cover more of the target when using a FFP scope. I guess that means you would want your reticle in a FFP scope to be very thin at lower magnification.

It always seemed to me like the reticle in my non-FFP scopes looked thickest at high magnification. Too bad I don't have one of each to compare!

 

[Travelor]

When variable power scopes first came out, they were all FFP and we all thought they SUCKED as the reticles would get larger with increased power. When the manufacturers started making rear focal plane scopes we all loved them and dumped our old variables and were very happy.

Guess we are back to square one with the "new" FFP scopes.

Personally, I do not like FFP in case you missed that.

 

[tiny68]

I think the big push back to FFP is for Mil-Dot our other similar scope were the shooter utilizes holdover with the markings on the recticle of the scope. With the FFP, the holdover is the same regardless of the power setting of the scope. My first Mil-Dot was a 6-24x, but the Mil-Dot was accurate only at 10X. That was near worthless. I still have a couple of Mil-Dots,but they are all fixed power scopes. I believe simple is better. I personally prefer SFP. The growing crosshair/dot is something I don't like. Tim

 

[serial # 001]

I'm with travelor on this FFP crosshair thing. I much prefer the smaller crosshair when on higher magnification.

 

[RJinTexas]

The military and law enforcement uses FFP scope becaues the distance between the mil-dots stays constant allowing you to be able to range your target no matter what your magnfacation is set at. One mil is 3.6" @ 100yds and 36" @ 1000 yds no matter the power setting. Works great for man size targets.

Regards
RJ

 

[DukeDuke]

When variable power scopes first came out, they were all FFP and we all thought they SUCKED as the reticles would get larger with increased power. When the manufacturers started making rear focal plane scopes we all loved them and dumped our old variables and were very happy.

Guess we are back to square one with the "new" FFP scopes.

Personally, I do not like FFP in case you missed that.

Very funny!
I'd use a rangefinder RJ, just to be sure.

 

[223Rem]

Sort of ironic that there is a push back to FFP optics for Mil/Le applications. Considering most Mil/Le applications for such shooting deploys a two man team in which the spotter calls shot and the shooter makes the adjustments. Unless the shooters gear does not have enough internal adjustment to dial in he will not have worry about power setting in a SFP as his focal point will be the crosshairs, not hash marks or mildot. If he does have to use hash marks or mildots for hold over, that probably means he is far enough away to do a little more math.