What seems to be the preference when dealing with ffp vs. sfp?
What seems to be the preference when dealing with ffp vs. sfp?
A lot...Originally Posted by breakingtime91
A 7.62 1.5/6x SpecterDR is around $2500.
"For a moment he felt good about this. A moment or two later he felt bad about feeling good about it. Then he felt good about feeling bad about feeling good about it and, satisfied, drove on into the night."
-- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy --
Check out supersetca on youtube, he's has really good videos on variable optics
! Let us know how it rus
Here's a quick but effective explanation I found.
Retrieved from http://www.sniperforums.com/forum/op...-question.htmlFFP (First Focal Plane) scope
In a FFP scope the reticle shrinks and grows in direct proportion to the target as you change magnification settings (the reticle subtensions are thus always accurate). This allows you to estimate the range to target at any power, unlike SFP (Second Focal Plane) scopes, which have to be dialed to a specific magnification setting in order to range accurately. (The reticle subtensions in SFP scopes are only accurate at one magnification).
Because FFP scope reticles "grow" as power is increased and "shrink" as power is decreased reticles must be chosen with care. At high magnification certain reticles may appear "thick", obscuring the target, while very fine reticles may seem to dissappear at lower magnification.
SFP (Second Focal Plane) scope
In a SFP scope the reticle size remains constant as you change magnification settings. Thus no worries about the reticle appearing too thick at high magnification or too fine at low magnification. However, the trade-off is that in order to "range" accurately the scope magnification must be dialed to a specific setting (whatever magnification the reticle subtensions are calibrated at). Again, the reticle subtensions in SFP scopes are only accurate at one magnification.
If you're going to be using higher magnification, hold overs (like you might in action shooting) with a reticle, and broadly varying distance shots. I would think FFP would be ideal.
Any SME's see how practically SFP vs. FFP plays in the real world?
For those of you that run variable powered optics on Carbines; what eye-relief range do you guys prefer?
I'm thinking rather than discussing only Optics we like or have experience, open up the discussion to talk about what qualities are most desirable.
I also heard in the lighter/smaller scopes the 32mm seems to give better ambient light (ETAgathering capabilities versus 25mm; any first hand experience with this?
I'll just go ahead and say; I'm a laymen.
Last edited by BWT; 06-11-2015 at 11:59 AM.
From what I've heard/ read guys with the Trijicon tr 24 love the 4 inch eye relief they are supposedly getting. The trade off is the reticle is just two lines with a luminated triangle at the top, which is obviously not ideal for ranging/hold overs
For low powered scopes, unless the reticle is very well designed, I prefer SFP. Most FFP scopes that go to 1x have a reticle that is too small to be usable at 1x, and I only use the reticle features at max magnification, so there really isn't a benefit of FFP. There are exceptions to this, the older 1-4 SWFAs had great FFP reticles that worked really well at 1x.
josh have you ever messed with the accupoint at all? I am on the fence between it and the accupower (mil square reticle) or a scope that has exposed turrets.
I used a TR24G for a few 3 gun seasons. I still think it is one of the best 1-x scopes on 1x. The eyebox is very large and the reticle works well. I did feel it was kind of limiting for shooting smaller targets if I had to hold over, so I often used a 300 yard zero since it was easier to hold under rather than hold over. I didn't look at the Accupower at NRAAM, but I did like the new 1-6 Accupoint. I've seen exposed turrets cause a lot of issues in matches. I prefer either capped turrets or some type of locking turret like the newer Leupold Mark scopes use.
Reply With Quote