I've been looking at long range scopes for my 7mm. for months now and have finally decided on a Vortex Viper PST. Now I can't decide between the FFP or the normal one. The FFPs are @ $300 more. What do you guys think?

Going with the 6x24 x50

It's my belief that the modern scopes labelled "first focal-plane" are just image-movement scopes with the reticle at the front of the erector tube instead of the back. So, though the growing reticle may have application in range-finding and give a warm fuzzy to old timers, it really is part of the modern decadence.

If there are any non-tactical scopes still being made with the old reticle-movement system, I'd love to hear about it. How would you know? Well, if you crank one of the knobs 30 or 40 clicks in one direction and the reticle is then out of centre, it would appear you have the real deal. I know this sounds crazy in North America, but that denotes reliability, field of view and field blending that dangerous-game hunters, at least, should want.

I went with the second focal plane with the moa reticle. The thought of the cross-hairs getting bigger and thicker as you zoom in was just weird to me. I use a ballistics calculator for long range shots anyway. The scope should be here by Wed., can't wait.

Most of the older fixed power scopes were "FFP". Of course, since there was no variation in the magnification, the reticle stayed the same size. But as Sambarman observes, the old scopes had the distracting phenomenon of the crosshair often being out of the center of the sight picture and were eventually replaced by scopes advertising "constantly centered reticles" (SFP).

I had a friend looking for a period Weaver to mount on an older rifle and had to warn him about the oldest ones.

Placing the reticle in the first focal plane on a variable magnification instrument would seem to largely negate the purpose of increasing the magnification since the reticle continues to cover the same amount of the target regardless of whether the scope is at minimum or maximum magnification.

There are only SFP and illuminated reticles today.

Forget ancient technology.

I have LONG advocated fixed power scopes ( more reliable and less lenses ) and no illumination.

But i´ve seen the light since ( sic! ;-)).

There are only SFP and illuminated reticles today.

Hermann

Of course you're being rhetorical, Arminius, but as you know, various brands still make scopes with the reticle at the front of the erector tube ('First Focal Plane') and there is a place for the fattening reticle. Also, a Romanian maker, at least, still makes tactical scopes with reticle movement and no erector tube - for reliability. When my old reticle-movement scopes finally cease to work, I might look into them.

Of course it was meant rethorical.

I only wanted to accentuate my opinion.

FORGET FFP, for Years US made scopes ( or scopes for the US Market ) were SFP, and the Europeans had better glass quality, but stuck with FFP.

Now the Europeans changed their mind, back comes the FFP from the US ...

IMHO it´s only for range measurement, that FFP has merits. That´s ridiculous. Laser rangefinders are cheap, and up to 250 m range estimation is not THAT difficult. And a Laser rangefinder might help to "finetune" that before and during any hunt. If I am at a Blind, I make a quick check of some easily seen landscape features, and I know my ranges.

Once you aim through a THICK central wire at some small game or same small spot to hit, you are cured.

But YMMV.

Hermann

Well, Hermann, I happened on a modern scope yesterday that almost meets my requirements - a Zeiss Diavari Victory 1.5-6x42 T* with fine field blending, good field of view and adequate eye relief, and the ocular housing is not too big. I see OpticsPlanet are selling them for about $900 - but not internationally It seems they charge another $1800 to add illumination but I don't really care about that.

My only reservation would be that they still probably have the moving erector tube and, without Swarovski's coil springs, it's more likely to move off zero if you bump it than the old reticle-movement scopes were.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Most of the older fixed power scopes were "FFP". Of course, since there was no variation in the magnification, the reticle stayed the same size. But as Sambarman observes, the old scopes had the distracting phenomenon of the crosshair often being out of the center of the sight picture and were eventually replaced by scopes advertising "constantly centered reticles" (SFP).

I had a friend looking for a period Weaver to mount on an older rifle and had to warn him about the oldest ones.

.

I have an old Weaver KV with post reticle and thought it might be a quaint match for a classic 35 Whelen. But when sighted in the post off to the side of the tube was certianly an obnoxious distraction. It sits in the cabinet.

Conversley, I just purchased a fixed 10X mil dot for my 260 remington. Although I would be just as pleased without the mil dot (it was a deal I couldnt pass on), I expect they may prove usefull. It seems to me that doping a shot with a mil dot as opposed to turret adjustments may be a more practial tool in a hunting situation. As in much faster, albiet not as precise. But as Arminius pointed out 250 or so yds is easy enough with no adjustment whatsoever.

Getting those old scopes' reticles in the centre isn't rocket science, Wstrnhuntr. Wind it back so it appears to be centred, then put it in some mounts with lateral adjustments, like the Leupold bridge mount. Boresight it to line up using the mount adjustments. If the elevation is way off, see if you can put shims in somewhere: under the bridge or even the scope are the most obvious places but sometimes you can get one in where the rings join the base.

To me image-movement is just smoke and mirrors. Just because it looks right, doesn't mean it is.

Thanks but no thanks, Im pretty content with the scope and mounts I have now, but if I ever decide to give that relic of a scope a new lease on life Ill keep that in mind.

Hell, the first varible scopes we ever had, the cross hairs got bigger and smaller, The masses rebelled and the experts said shame on them and the manufactures worked, studied, ripped their clothes off, nashed their teeth and finally devised a method to fix'um....Now we want to regress??

The only thing I want with the focal plane is for my POI to be in the center of it and not out on the edge where it won't hold zero and won't shoot as tight groups..I do this by fitting bases to a perfectly square, to the world, receiver. or if your receiver or bases are out of wack then it can be done with shims, made by Buehler, or out of beer cans.

Did you ever see the Bausch & Lomb 'Custom' scopes with the tapered reticles, Atkinson?

They used the first focal plane but as you wound the power up, the reticle stayed the same. They gave a fine centre and thicker outer part in a time before plexes etc were common and never went out of centre because they did not move. They really were a beautiful, light and reliable scope and had an ingenious mounting set up, though it was a bit on the heavy side. I wish they still made the mounts so I could get the scopes I've got going again.

ffp is nice if you are using mil holdovers throughout different magnification ranges. If you are using second focal plane, your hold overs will only be accurate at the designed magnification/reticle coincidence.

quote:

Originally posted by NC Mike:
ffp is nice if you are using mil holdovers throughout different magnification ranges. If you are using second focal plane, your hold overs will only be accurate at the designed magnification/reticle coincidence.

And if you're using something like a Nikon Monarch 4-16 with BDC, that magnification needs to be 16x because anything less makes the circles and intersection points too far away to be any use. As I recall, the first step down at 4x zeroes half a mile out.

quote:

sambarman338

sambarman338,

You may be referring to the Kuharsky (sp)mount made the the Kuharsky gunsmiths in Erie,PA circa 1950's. They were QD and had adjustments in the mount.

If that is what you are looking for the name may help you find something used.

I'm not sure which of my posts you are referring to, WY. Was it the one about shimming mounts to keep the reticle centred?

I know about Kuharsky Bros. mounts, though, a concept I would like to see brought back. Why they bothered to compete with Bausch & Lomb in making mounts for their scopes is a bit of a mystery to me but, since Erie is not too far from Rochester, I wonder if they originally made them for B&L and then sold some under their own name.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Hell, the first varible scopes we ever had, the cross hairs got bigger and smaller, The masses rebelled and the experts said shame on them and the manufactures worked, studied, ripped their clothes off, nashed their teeth and finally devised a method to fix'um....Now we want to regress??

this.

Hermann

I didn't write that, of course, but I'm not with the masses, I like it the old way

B&L had a neat answer of course: wires that tapered into the middle. You could wind the power up and they appeared to stay the same size.