Focal plane + old eyes???

[Desk Jockey]

I am upgrading some glass. Also pushing 50 and using readers more often than not.

soooo… setting other considerations aside, is first or second focal plane better for older eyes?

 

[JFK]

It’s subjective but I’d say second is generally easier to see than first as the reticle remains the same size. On many first focal plane scopes the reticle scan be pretty small, to down right unusable on lower magnification.

 

[TNKnoxville]

I'm 62 and need glasses, mostly for reading. I tried first focal scopes for 2 years. Okay for distance but way too small a reticle at lower powers. Just switched this year to second focal scopes.

 

[TNKnoxville]

I shot an elk 2 years ago at 505 yards and the first focal plane was great. Then on the same hunt shot a mule deer at about 100 yards near dusk in trees and the reticle was nearly impossible to see. Same thing last year shot a cow elk at less than 100 yards near dusk. Had to crank up the power to even see the reticle. Shot was good but all I was looking at was a small patch of hair! That's when I decided to switch.

I also dial if needed and did not use the range marks, so didn't really give me any benefit.

 

[rootacres]

Depends on the application. I could make a strong case for either. Is this a western big game rifle where the likely shot distance is going to be north of 100 yds, 200 yds? Or is this a woods rifle where shots are likely to be sub 100 yds? For longer shots I wouldn't hesitate to use a first focal plane scope, especially if you plan to use the reticle sub tensions. If this is going to be a shorter distance case then you pretty much have to go second focal plane. All of my midwest whitetail guns have second focal plane scopes. My western big game rig had a second focal plane scope on it. I was very please. Being that it was a 15 power max the sub tensions worked great for me. I have since gotten rid of that scope and moved into a Mark 5 HD. Its a fantastic price of glass but I would never intentionally use it for shorter distance applications.

 

[Shraggs]

60 and glasses. Recently switched everything over to ffp and not going back.

I think comments are accurate that on lower power for timber hunting the reticle tends to be tough to see.

2 solutions: get illuminated reticle. With no need to dial this works very well on low power.

Second, if I have a set up for timber, and it’s a 400 yard gun tops, it will be wearing low magnification. 1-6 swfa specifically. Anything long is at 6x, anything else I keep it on 2-3 power and have zero issue seeing all the detail of reticle.

If it’s dual role long and short rig simply don’t over magnify if using ffp.

 

[cacklercrazy]

I shot an elk 2 years ago at 505 yards and the first focal plane was great. Then on the same hunt shot a mule deer at about 100 yards near dusk in trees and the reticle was nearly impossible to see. Same thing last year shot a cow elk at less than 100 yards near dusk. Had to crank up the power to even see the reticle. Shot was good but all I was looking at was a small patch of hair! That's when I decided to switch.

I also dial if needed and did not use the range marks, so didn't really give me any benefit.

I was thinking this last year also when I up graded glass on my 300 win. I went 2nd just for this reason.

 

[Bluegrassvw]

Go with second focal plane… I use to think I only wanted FFP for hunting, but with all the shooting I do do, second seems to fit the bill more and more. It’s not often I ever need to hold wind or use holdovers for hunting scenarios. Only time that matters is on distance shots in which case I’ll be on max magnification using sfp and I can the use the reticle just like ffp. Other than that, I prefer the thickness the sfp provides especially in low light.