First focal plane versus second

Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
512
Aging eyes are upon me. I’m in my early fifties and I’m fighting off the bifocal demon.
That being said, how fine are the first focal plane MOA reticles on Nightforce scopes ?
I’m looking at those for a hunting rifle. Want to shoot out to 500 yds out west and closer here at home in Wisconsin.
 
OP
Buckshot85
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
512
Hello?
Is this on?

No one has experience with older eyes and first focal planes?
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
3,078
I don't have old eyes but the FFP scopes I've looked through are tough and I have 20/15 vision. In dark or heavy timber I'm not sure I could make a shot quickly because on the lower power range end the reticle is faint. Generally I have to be around mid power range before I feel like I can really see the reticle well. Now nightforce could be different but I highly doubt it since the concept is the same for all FFP scopes and reticle thickness is a factor of magnification range and making sure at high power the reticle isn't too fat. That said I am looking for a FFP scope for predator hunting strictly because the holds and subtensions are consistent across the power range.
 
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,071
I’m in my 40s and have great eyes. Never bought into the FFP deal for a couple reasons... first, I don’t take long shots on animals (typically within 300). Second, the minuscule hairs on low magnification is too much for me. Third, if I’m using any of the BDC sort of features, I’m on full magnification anyhow (for most calibers, point of impact is within a couple inches for the first couple hundred yards). My suggestion is to stick with SFP, especially if your eyes are fading.
 

WCB

WKR
Joined
Jun 12, 2019
Messages
3,275
I cant even understand why anyone would want the first focal plane!

Because if I am using sub tensions in the reticle it stays the same at any power? I have both First and Second Focal Plane scopes and I really could take or leave either one. I personally think way too many people make a big deal about at minimum magnification the reticle getting to small....But, I also never have my magnification close to minimum.

Now for the OP and his situation if he uses it on very low magnification especially potentially in the brush/woods of WI then I would say get a SFP scope.
 

JimGa

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Feb 10, 2018
Messages
194
I have both. Not all FFP reticles are created alike, just as not all SFP are created alike. I have SB, LRHS and 5-20 SWFA, and I really don't like any of the reticles in the woods until you get to 8x. For a dedicated woods gun, I like SFP, for an all arounder/LR rifle, I like FFP. I also wish more companies would make a GOOD number 1/4 reticle.
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2018
Messages
1,104
Location
Pennsylvania
I only have 1 FFP optic and it's on a target plinker. For hunting I stick to SFP for the reasons you stated. If I dont use a reticle for hold overs, I just dial anything past about 300 so having an accurately sized reticle at different mags doesnt make any difference to me.
 

Thor45

FNG
Joined
Oct 30, 2019
Messages
13
Hunt animals... SFP. Hunt men... FFP.
Agree, unless you needing to use your reticle to range go SFP. I have good vision, do have a tactical setup with FFP, and do not like it all for hunting. Plus I almost always shoot on max power, which for most scopes at max power it where your MOA marks in the reticle are actually an MOA.
 

Mike 338

WKR
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
619
Location
Idaho
FFP offers certain tactical features which are of some use in more urban environments. For hunting animals, you almost never use or simply can't use those features and they may compromise what you always use on the scope. The shrinking reticle comes to mind. Warfare and hunting are not the same pursuit.
 

SCHEZSHEK

FNG
Joined
Apr 5, 2019
Messages
26
(FFP) Hardly need the Subtensions @ CloseRange/ LowMag, ...and ain't unsimilar to the Nazi 4/ generic Plex

Non Register on Needle of Difficulty Meter
 
Last edited:
Top