Norcal, you have some homework that needs done.


    This thread was brought to my attention, wherein you stated:

    A second focal plane will generally have a thinner crosshair when the magnafication is turned all the way up.

    Untrue statement. The vast majority of FFP optics have reticle thickness which is equal to or smaller than most SFP optics. The truth is the opposite of what you are stating. SFP reticles cover MORE of the target at anything other than max magnification than most FFP reticles, which cover the same amount of the target regardless of magnification.

    If you disagree, do your research and show your work here regarding actual technical measurements of reticle thicknesses on some of the popular quality scopes of today. Most optic manufacturers of note have reticle subtension sheets available.

  • @orkan

    My understanding was that FFP scopes reticles grew bigger than SFP's and has always been of concern to shooters when doing bullseye shooting.

    I'll look up a few scope manufactor's subtenstions and share my findings.

  • So quickly I found these. Same scope, same zoom range. If I'm reading this correctly it shows the FFP is twice as think as the SFP.

    Just one I found real quick. I'll keep looking tomorrow when I have some more free time.



  • @norcal_in_az said:

    I'll look up a few scope manufactor's subtenstions and share my findings.

    I look forward to it. :)

    Here's a genIIXR in a TT525P

  • So here's the Stike Eagle, which is a SFP designed for the type of use I was speaking of.


    Here's the AMG Razor, looks like a .12 line thickness


    (also as a side note, Nightforce's website sucks)

    Nightforce ATACR SFP has a thickness of .140MOA at max power

    Can't find a brake down of their F1 scopes subtenstions.

    Burris XTRii


    I can see where this is going @orkan. There isn't much of a difference in the thickness of a FFP vs SFP. Even though that seems to be the common myth out there, that I feel under. What I should have said is some SFP scopes are designed for competition to have finer aiming points than that of FFP scopes. But not generally.

    Now do I believe that this is nothing a SFP scope can do that a FFP won't. I know the a SFP scope, can't do everything a FFP can. But my post to that guy was to point out the fact that some people still want and value SFP scopes.

    So I stand corrected.

  • Thank you for taking the time to go find the truth. I've said it for years, but it's apparent to me that it often doesn't sink in unless you spend the time required to find out yourself. For some reason some people just have a hard time taking things I say at face value.

    If you look at some better scopes you'll get an even better representation of what I was talking about. Kahles, USO, vortex genII razor, S&B, TT, etc. The moral of the story is exactly what I've been saying for years, in that quality FFP optics are capable of doing nearly everything a SFP optic can, and with an illuminated reticle the exceptions to that rule are very few and relegated to specific circumstances. Though just as you say, the SFP scopes can NOT do everything the FFP scopes can.

    There are specific models in each camp, SFP and FFP, which are designed around a specific purpose. Though the underlying trend remains the same: The intended application determines what is best chosen. Why spend $4000 on a top end FFP optic for a benchrest rifle which will only EVER be fired at fixed distances, with sighters allowed, on a square range? A cheaper SFP optic with finer adjustments would be the correct choice. Conversely, a field capable long range rifle of ANY variety will ALWAYS be best paired with an FFP optic.