First Focal Plane scopes for hunting

[jrebel]

I have only hunted with second focal plane scopes but am now looking at a first focal plane.  Other than range time, all my scopes are for hunting purposes.  Most the people I talk to are very biased and probably not well versed in first focal plane as they don't own any....LOL  The responses I get are "the retical will cover the entire animal when at full zoom due to the increased size."  I have a hard time believing this....but also don't know.  It appears these are very popular for long range shooters but are they with hunters?  I know the pros and cons based on my reading.  What I don't know is....does the retical really cover the animal to the extent you can not place your bullet accurately...especially at ranges 300-500 yards?   

Anyone in the Wenatchee area willing to meet at the range so I can take a look at a first focal plane scope at different ranges?  I am considering a nightforce shv 4-14x50 f1...any others I should look at? 

Thanks

Jrebel

[supagoose]

Personal opinions might very but here's my personal experience. I went from a Leupold MK4 in SFP to a Vortex PST Viper in FFP and currently have a NF NXS in SFP. I personally didn't like FFP for hunting. I either shoot on the lowest setting or highest setting. When I'm walking around I like to have my magnification set to the lowest setting or close to it. I found that with the FFP reticle in  the lower settings the reticle would be to small and made it difficult to find the reticle and it was more difficult for me to find the reticle if the game was amongst some brush . I bought the Vortex to try the FFP reticle out and didn't like and don't think it is worth the extra money. I don't do rapid engagements and I don't use the reticle as a hold over. I range my target and dial my dope.

[Timberstalker]

I feel that the reticle in FFP is far too small at lower magnification for my hunting use. Not saying it doesn't work for others but for me the reticle is damn near invisible under 8x.

Take a look and see how it is for you.

I'll stick to SFP for now.

[jrebel]

I have looked at a few in the stores.....The problem being they look great in well lit areas against nice reflective white walls.   . I don't think the fine reticle would bother me because I am a huge fan of fine reticle in the first place.  More concerned about the reticle covering game on higher powers. 

[Reidus]

I think the burris veracity ffp would be an awesome hunting scope. I have a sightron ffp 6-24 that i like. Crosshairs are pretty fine at 6x but still useable.

[usmc74]

If your ever back on this side, I have a ffp vortex 4-16 we could go shoot, or just hit the woods to see what you think.  Also have a matching sfp to compare with

[horsehunter509]

I have a ffp scope and you are welcome to have a look thru if you venture north. Im in winthrop.

[royalbull]

I have a FFP in a Swarovski pv3x12x50 with the TDS system furthest elk was taken at 835 yards, for the TDS system to work properly it must be on the highest power, I've never had an issue with the crosshairs being so large that they covered the animal, took a mulie at 727 smaller target and was still able to see it just fine

[j_h_nimrod]

It seems there is a bit of a misconception with ffp vs sfp scopes. With a ffp the reticle does not change in relation to the target, but to the shooters perception. At low Mag the reticle covers the same as it does at high mag. My center dot is ~1" at 250 yards, so unless I am trying for golf balls at 500 I should be fine. I can't remember the subtensions of the reticle on my sfp scopes off the top of my head but don't think any are finer than 1/4 minute.

If you are used to using sfp scopes it can be a bit disconcerting but I like mine.

Anymore price is pretty much a non-issue, you are generally spending so much on gear (and gear is so expensive) an extra 5-10% is nothing.

[Biggerhammer]

Tried a FFP Vortex Long Range 4-16x50, XLR MOA reticle on a 6mm Creedmoor. I shot it for two Range trips and dumped it. Couldn't  stand how small the reticle was at lower powers.

[yorketransport]

If I were planning to use a FFP scope on a hunting gun I'd be sure that it had an illuminated reticle. I'd be more worried about the reticle being too fine and hard to see on low power than having it be too thick on high power.

I love the idea of the FFP scopes, but the reticles are so hard to get right. The only FFP I've kept is a Mk4 with the TMR reticle. The others were all too heavy at max power for long range target shooting. I've had FFP scopes from Vortex, Leupold, NF, Burris, Bushnell and Sightron, the one Mk4 TMR is the only one still with me.

[jrebel]

Well, just purchased the rifle today.  From what I am reading, sounds like a second focal plane will be the way to go.  Now I have to decide on how much power / zoom I need.  Planning on making this rifle a 600 yard rifle....so maybe a 4-14 or 5-20 ish.   How do people like the higher power scopes 5-20 ish??  Never had anything bigger than a 14 power which has usually been great plenty. 

[Magnum_Willys]

4-24 vx6 is great up to 600 yards for me.   Couldnt go back to anything less.

[jrebel]

4-24 vx6 is great up to 600 yards for me.   Couldnt go back to anything less.

How do you like the dial / adjustments on the leupold.  I have played with a few other scopes and the Nightforce has nice crisp clicks while the sworavski has soft, sometimes hard to feel clicks.  I like the nightforce between those two.  Is the leupold clicks / adjustments crisp?  I am a leupold fan...every rifle I have has a leupold. 

[Magnum_Willys]

They work great. Yes i would like a little crisper but buddy and I both dialed 460 and 680 on elk for one shot perfect shots last year .

Problem is we got our 4-24's for $1199 but now the 2017 model is $1999.  Crazy.