1st focal plane vs. 2nd focal plane?

[outerlimits]

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

[Graham Smith]

I have so far been unable to come up with a suitable go fast cool guy name for this revolutionary new optical product...

A-Wipe Optics ?

[bigbrowndog]

What's the dot size

Is it daylight illum able

What's the field of veiw

Can I get it in moa/mils

Will it be as good as a leuswarobushy voropta

Will it cost more or less than a leuswarobushy voropta

Will MGM make a switch veiw for it

[Stlhead]

I have so far been unable to come up with a suitable go fast cool guy name for this revolutionary new optical product...

A-Wipe Optics ?

While I appreciate the effort, that name just does not impart the sort of high speed low drag take no prisoners spirt that this product screams. I think what we need is some thinking that is a bit further "outside the box".

[Steve RA]

Thru with paper - on with tube ??

[Steve RA]

Or maybe - "No MAG Optics" ??

[Steve RA]

Slogan could be "Glass, don't need no stinking Glass" ??

[zhunter]

As the original poster, I think the early posts in this thread were and are very helpful to me, and might be to others in the future.

Can a Mod please clean this thread up to get rid of all of this crap, pun intended

Thanks

[carbon9]

CanDoo Optics - Stink Eye to Pink Eye with just one shot. Make sure it comes with one free tube of Pink Eye Ointment Extras available for purchase.

apologies zhunter, couldn't pass up a chance to have some fun

[Stlhead]

zhunter, I am sorry if my sarcasm has offended you. You asked a common question that has been answered many times, and was answered very well in the first page of this thread. Like most of the equipment related questions asked on the internet, the "tell me about" or "school me on" XXX thread ends up turning into an emotional "what I think is best", or "This is what I sell" thread. After some beers and discussion with some very knowledgale drinkers, (who also shoot pretty well ) I realized that many of my posts lately have been sarcastic or joking in an effort to get my point across. While I enjoy good sarcasm, I think that my efforts have not been effective nor entertaining. For that I apologize, From now on I am going to try a more direct approach. Clear and plain direct communication. Unfortunately, as this is the internet, I may not be a very reliable source of information so I suggest you consider what you paid for the information I offer and use it at your own peril.

As such this is my answer to your original question.

The differences between first and second focal plane optics as they relate to the low power adjustable magnification scopes typically used in the scope tactical division of 3 gun or multi gun matches are as follow:

First focal plane: Reticle grows as magnification is increased, ranging features or hold over information on reticle is usable at all magnification levels without applying a correction, but at low powers the reticle can be difficult to use because it is too small or not visible at all. Some optics use the disappearing reticle of first focal plane as an advantage by adding a secondary reticle that is visible or illuminates only at low power.

Second focal plane: Reticle stays the same size at all magnification settings, thus the ranging or hold over features of the scope can only be used without corrections at a single point of the scopes magnification adjustment. That is the inherent flaw of the second focal plane, but also the benefit, the reticle always looks the same to the shooter no matter the power, if only the center aiming point is used at all powers other than the power that the reticle is calibrated for then there is no drawback.

Those are the mechanical difference in the two options, but the real answer to the question is that for three gun the best choice is the one that works for you. You do not NEED a first focal or a second focal plane scope to play our game, or even to win. The best optic is the one that you are using when you do your best, if you like one better than another then fine, but don't get trapped into thinking that any piece of equipment is more important that the shooter who uses it. Pick a serviceable optic, or even no optic at all, and do your best, time spent improving your shooting will result in more rewards than getting wrapped up in the optics arms race. My entire response could be summed up as "It don't matter just pick one and shoot it".

[zhunter]

Thanks Head

[bigbrowndog]

this topic just lost my interest, thanks a lot Stlhead.

trapr

[goat68]

Make some friends at a match and look thorugh their scopes and see what you like. I still use a TA11 3.5 fixed power. I've been contemplating going to a 1-6 power scope but don't have the bucks for one. Equipment aint everything. There is also the other skills that go with rifle shooting like trigger control, breathing, picking the most stable shooting postion for the stage, and confidence with what you have and know what you can do with it. I keep getting beat by this kid who's dad taught him how to kick a#$ with an eotech!

[AlamoShooter]

I just happen to have some photos the first in the 1-4 Razor FFP scope at 4X on targets 250 yards away

hand held photo with the camera just held up behind the scope

The next one is a SFP Razor the new 1-6 at 6X 250 yards from the steel

The photo is shrunk up for the forum

At 1 x and 12 yards from the scope it looks like this SFP 1-6 Razor GenII

The 1-4 Razor FFP scope = the kind of scope that some say is too hard to see at 1X

paper target 30 yards from the shooter

The camera is off center to the scope and the reduction to fit the forum the reticle is still easy to see

Edited August 17, 2012 by AlamoShooter

[kurtm]

Jamie, I think you are missing the point. Yes we can see the reticle on 1X...but at what power does the reticle on the FFP scope become useful. For example on 1X you are putting the whole thing in the middle of the target and blazing away...12 yards was your example I believe, but could you decern your hold over cross hairs on a 400 yard flash target at 1X? Could you range any size target out to 600 yards on 1X?, 2X? etc.

The reticle, for the intended purpose which is ranging and B.D.C. , becomes too small at the lower powers to fullfill this purpose. All the scopes I have played with of the low powered FFP tend to be useless for the intended purpose untill around 3X so if you have a 4X scope the reticle doesn't work except for 3-4X. On a 6.5 it would only fullfill it's purpose from 3-6.5X. I am not knocking ANY scope maker's product, it is just a fact of life that low powered FFP scopes really don't do what they should untill the power is almost at max anyway so why worry about FFP? I still feel that a second focal plain for a low powered scope is better. Now as the power goes up...heck yes, they become very useful, but untill you reach a power on the low end that you can use the reticle for the intended purpose a second focal plain scope seems to make more sense.

Hope your wife is doing well and hope to see you on down the shooting trail soon amigo. Kurt

[carbon9]

.....and I was just hoping for my 50% discount, maybe more with a core exchange

[wgj3]

Id like for this thread to pick up discussion of the "Poop Shooter" Ultimate sight again. Do we have any reviews of the prototypes. Does it pass the sniff test?

[outerlimits]

Id like for this thread to pick up discussion of the "Poop Shooter" Ultimate sight again. Do we have any reviews of the prototypes. Does it pass the sniff test?

It's the shnitz.

[warpspeed]

OK, what is the difference?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

Thanks

There is a lot of info over at Snipershide.com including a video right on their home page.

Like others have said, for precision tactical rifle stuff, I can see an application but usually a FFP is more expensive and I just don't see any usefulness in 3 gun.

[bigbrowndog]

Kurt and I sat in the Bushnell booth at SHOT 2011, and tried to explain the concept that he just posted to some military brass who I believe came from a precision rifle shooting background and it was difficult for them to understand the issue as well. FFP scopes have become the "rave" here in the states in recent years, they have been in use overseas for longer than most of us have been on this earth. The Europeans have also used very thick coarse crosshairs on the scopes so that they would be easily discernible at the lower powers, we are trying to use fine crosshairs to range with and they become unusable at lower powers. As usual, too much of a good thing (FFP) is thought to be better when it is actually worse, SFP is much better for our purposes.

Trapr

[AlamoShooter]

I still like FFP for 3 gun more than SFP . its not just one thing for one power setting that draws me to it. To me the Reticle is "honest" it does not lie to me when I want to use 1/3 power.

some like Ford some like GM both will deliver the driver if he does his part.

[shooterready]

Its all in the reticle.

[Graham Smith]

I still like FFP for 3 gun more than SFP . its not just one thing for one power setting that draws me to it. To me the Reticle is "honest" it does not lie to me when I want to use 1/3 power.

Please explain. How does a SFP lie? Regardless of focal plane, the crosshairs are going to be accurate at all powers unless you have a really cheap scope.

[Religious Shooter]

SFP doesn't like to you. It's just more complex when it comes to hold-overs.

[AlamoShooter]

I still like FFP for 3 gun more than SFP . its not just one thing for one power setting that draws me to it. To me the Reticle is "honest" it does not lie to me when I want to use 1/3 power.

Please explain. How does a SFP lie? Regardless of focal plane, the crosshairs are going to be accurate at all powers unless you have a really cheap scope.

The Lie

Is close to what Religious Shooter says the center does not lie = its the hold overs. I can use the Razor 1-4 FFP efectivley at 2 power or 3 power on a stage with 90% close targets and thin with out changing the power transition strait out to the longer shots that require hold over.