first focal plane scope

[Microgun]

i have been thinking about trying a ffp scope for my airguns. the only thing holding me back is from what i have seen the crosshair and mill dot look hardly usable at lower powers. can anyone elaborate on this. what has been your experience with that

 

[DeutschKSK]

At the lowest magnification, I wouldn’t say it’s useless. At long range sure yeah you cant make out the reticle, but once you get to 6x or so it’s perfectly fine for me. I wear glasses and I can see the reticle clearly. For me FFP will be my go to from now on. 

 

[JCD]

Have to share a little different opinion.... 

Keep in mind that the only reason I personally tried FFP is that I would love to use the lowest (or close to it) power to plink short range with the same hold points as adjusted back to higher power for 50-100-150 yard target shooting. I DID find the reticle very difficult to use in that way. Lowest power - i can barely see the reticle, highest powers - the far top/left/right/bottom of the reticle is lost from the sight picture. So with the scopes I've tried going from 4/6x to 25/30 x is too much to expect. But going from 10-20x might be fine... just not how I used (wanted to use) those scopes. I still have 2 Discovery FFP scopes but the FFP feature does me no good as I never adjust the magnification on those.

FFP offers a nice advantage but it has limits, at least for me.

 

[IraLite]

At minimum zoom, probably yes. I don’t use mine that zoomed out anyway, and I only use mil/hash marks when I zero. I prefer my turrets to be zero stop so I can just dial for windage and elevation. All the optics I use except digitals are FFP, however now that I discovered strelok pro, I can venture into SFP, hopefully saving weight and opening up more options.

 

[biohazardman]

You don't need your mil-dots at lower powers/closer ranges. The whole concept of the mil-dot is for long range shooting. The crosshair/reticle is still useful for close range shooting at lower powers without the use of the dots. Or, you can turn the power up as most airgun scopes focus to 10 yards at higher powers it is not a problem. I have no troubles with first or second focal plane scopes and use them both. Fist focal plane scopes make it easier to range things at any distance and at any power on the scope than second focal plane scopes. That is the only advantage I see.

 

[Doug-T]

The reticle all but disappearing at 3x or 4x is the main disadvantage of FFP. If you're shooting off a bench at something light colored it's visible, barely, now shoot into trees or near dusk and good luck. A digitally projected reticle where the crosshairs would stay the same thickness but the dashed/dots would move like FFP would be awesome.

 

[Microgun]

for me i would be shooting rabbits or squirrels at 25-50 yds normally. a few times a season i may be able to stretch it out to 100 yds. so i guess i don't really have need for the advantages of a ffp scope. in fact im thinking it would be a handicap, since my average magnification is probably less than 6x. thanks for the responses

 

[steve123]

Micro, the average dope in mils from 25-50Y in my 19.5fpe FT rifle is .6 mils or 6 clicks. That's a top of back aim on a squirrel at 50Y if holding over.

100Y on the other hand is 3.6 mils and the wind could blow the pellet 1-2 mils in not very windy condition's. I just range the distance with my laser RF, look on the dope sheet or app for holdover and holdoff on "any magnification" the FOV is the most favorable at the time and fire. 

SFP is definitely better if mostly on low magnification for the simple fact it's easy to make out the reticle. Though if one has illumination it can be helpful seeing the reticle of a FFP scope on low mag. 

With SFP scopes people assume when the scope is put on whatever magnification that that magnification will be correct or true in the reticle, that's not always the case especially with cheap airgun scopes. In other words 6x on the mag ring could be closer to 7x, or the other way like 5x, depending which way the error is. For holding over or off, if there is error, it won't matter much at closer distances but it will at some point farther out. 

I have a 1-8x28 FFP scope on my AR-15. I can plainly see the reticle circle on 1x but more so if I have the daylight bright illume on. I can begin to see the holds by 4x and the mil hashes are easy to see on 8x for hitting steel 800 yards away using holds. The scope was designed this way so FFP can be awesome at low mag as well.

When I was a kid all I used was a Weaver 4x scope and killed all kinds of stuff but 99% was closer in shots at small game, and I didn't know about using wind holds or holdovers, I was fine! 

Pick whichever works for you.

 

[Jshepherd70]

I tried an ffp and still have it but the next scope I bought for my impact I went with a frontier sfp. I have learned to just use clicks. I know that 30 yards is 0, 60 yards is 13 and 90 yards is 37 and I find that easier as I can put turret stickers on. I 

 

[L.Leon]

You can't expect to use the hold overs or hash marks on the lowest setting on a FFP scope. On both of my FFPs 6-24x50. At 6x I just use the center point of the reticle when shooting at closer targets.

 

[Smok3y]

I think everyone has summed this up pretty well. I think you have to find a store with any options and look at them for comparison. 

If you are hunting close up like that on low power, SFP is probably better. Because you are hunting, you won’t be zooming in far and will be keeping the zoom low, and the FFP reticle won’t be very useful. Now, that being said, if you are going to be moving from various distances while hunting, the FFP could become useful. You can see the reticle enough for hunting at low power as you don’t need the hash marks. Then you will get to take advantage of the FFP reticle as you zoom in at the further distances. 

I usually only use SFP on some bench rifles that are for a fixed distance, or some powder burner hunting rifles that I don’t need a nice scope for. Everything else is FFP. 

 

[AirSupply]

The zoom power (ratio)and reticle are the things to consider. The higher the zoom ratio the smaller the reticle will become. A 6x room ratio the reticle becomes 6 times small ect. 
3x18 is a 6x scope so the reticle becomes 6x smaller. 
On most 4x scopes the reticle is usually usable at the lower magnification. On that magnification you are probably more wanting to see hash marks to help as a lead on a moving target rather than hold off for wind. Things are likely to be close.

6x24 is a 4x scope. 
FFp is the way to go just don’t go for the very high power ratios.

 

[jps2486]

I usually set my scopes to the upper end of the magnification range. I just don't understand the appeal of FFP scopes. I bought one and promptly returned it.

 

[L.Leon]

I usually set my scopes to the upper end of the magnification range. I just don't understand the appeal of FFP scopes. I bought one and promptly returned it.

It’s not about “appeal” it’s the practical aspect of being able to use the same holdovers at various magnifications. In the field I take my shots anywhere from 10x to 24x. Sometimes I’ve shot critters at 10-15 yards at 4x (crosshairs on target, no hash marks or holdovers needed). For me for hunting or pesting FFP all the way. 

 

[steve123]

I usually set my scopes to the upper end of the magnification range. I just don't understand the appeal of FFP scopes. I bought one and promptly returned it.

The main appeal to me is not having to think when using holdovers and holdoffs (no halving or doubling holds based on magnification/SFP), this on whatever magnification the FOV is the most ideal for the occasion. 

Many target or benchrest shooters use the rings on the target as their holdoff's and they dial their dope, so the advantages of a FFP scope aren't necessary.

Twice I won a long range Field Course Steel Series with FFP scopes using mostly holdovers and holdoffs in very dynamic circumstances, including short time constraint's. I can pretty much say that it would have been impossible to do the same with a SFP scope. 

 

[Centercut]

One thing I didn’t see mentioned is the way you use your scope. Are you a “clicker” or are you “holdover”? If you use holdover, then the FFP is a definite advantage since the subtensions on the reticle are calibrated at all magnifications. However, if you adjust the elevation turret (clicker) then it doesn’t really matter if SFP or FFP. And in fact, since the reticle remains the same full size all the time, it makes it easier to use your scope on lower magnification levels. So I prefer SFP if I’m setting up my scope for dial-a-yardage, and FFP if I’m using holdover. 

 

[Jshepherd70]

One thing I didn’t see mentioned is the way you use your scope. Are you a “clicker” or are you “holdover”? If you use holdover, then the FFP is a definite advantage since the subtensions on the reticle are calibrated at all magnifications. However, if you adjust the elevation turret (clicker) then it doesn’t really matter if SFP or FFP. And in fact, since the reticle remains the same full size all the time, it makes it easier to use your scope on lower magnification levels. So I prefer SFP if I’m setting up my scope for dial-a-yardage, and FFP if I’m using holdover.

That's how I see it as well. I pretty much have set distances so clicking is easier for me to remember by using turret stickers. I have both and use clicks for both so I went back to SFP. Maybe someday I will try to use holdover and Ill regret that but I find myself zooming in on the FFP so I can see the crosshair better.

 

[AirgunBill]

One thing I didn’t see mentioned is the way you use your scope. Are you a “clicker” or are you “holdover”? If you use holdover, then the FFP is a definite advantage since the subtensions on the reticle are calibrated at all magnifications. However, if you adjust the elevation turret (clicker) then it doesn’t really matter if SFP or FFP. And in fact, since the reticle remains the same full size all the time, it makes it easier to use your scope on lower magnification levels. So I prefer SFP if I’m setting up my scope for dial-a-yardage, and FFP if I’m using holdover.

I use ffp and click on target. The advantage for me is in the windage hold off aspect. Once I determine the hold off in mils if I vary the magnification the mil hold off remains. Bill

PS Another advantage of the FFP is if you go out in the field and find your impact is off because of cold weather or whatever. If you see your impact just look at the mils difference on your crosshairs and dial the correction. I do this often when shooting off the silos and take a few test shots to confirm zero. You can not do this easily with a SFP as the value of the spacing changes as the yardages vary.

 

[AirSupply]

There’s a huge variation in zoom power scopes and the way they are used varies as well. Scopes like swap 3x15 is more for hunting. All of the zoom range is usable. You could take shots at 3 or 15 power. It’s light and is good for standing shooting at close range. Or lying prone and shooting long range

Most of the high magnification long range scopes like 3x27 or even 4x40 are bigger heavier scopes. The min magnification is usually used for observation. At low magnification you get a better field of view to find a target At max magnification you can identify your target or trace your shots. Spot for yourself. These are more bench rest or Sniper scopes. 
In these scopes the reticle is usually quite fine at the magnification you are likely to shoot at. 
The advantage of ffp is you can make an accurate correction by measuring your point of impact against your point of aim at any magnification or distance Then dial or click that correct into the scope. I like having the correction dialed in and using the cross hair rather than hold over. Ffp makes this much easier. With a sfp you can do this but only at the magnification the reticle is “true” and this isn’t alway the maximum magnification.
If you are always shooting the same distance like 100y then I suppose it doesn’t mater. You know the correction you need to make at that distance. 

 

[jcote258]

It seems like a lot of good responses here. I'll add one more. In my army days, I was the squad designated marksman, I had an M14 EBR with Leupold 3.5-10x40 second focal plane, and I had the opportunity to change the optic to a Leupold Mark series with the first focal plane. What I noticed immediately is being able to range at any magnification. See, with the second focal plane, you generally have to range at 10X to find the proper distance of a known object (using the height of a person, for example). With a first focal plane, because the reticle is etched on the first plane, the magnification of the reticle and object in site scale together, which means you can range your target at any magnification. As the magnification is increased, the reticle grows with the object. So if you need to magnify to say 18X, you can take an accurate range estimation at the magnification instead of having to dial the magnification down the 10X to do the math for range estimation with the second focal plane setup. I will say that the reticle on a first focal plane at low magnification can be difficult to use, but it shines above 10X when you don't need to change magnification to range estimate. In my personal opinion, it comes down to application. I found a first focal plane to be quicker than second when it comes to range estimation. If you are shooting known distances, you know your holds, generally shoot at the same magnification and don't want to move clicks for pellet drop/wind than I would stick with a second focal plane. At the very minimum, make sure you get a scope that is either mil to mil or moa to moa. Don't mix and match these two scales. If you ever decide to dope your scope on the fly, you are going to punish yourself with math.