First or second focal plane

[My 3 sons]

I have been debating on the scope to buy for my Armalite AR10 in .308. I have decided the best value for the money I am willing to spend is the Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50. My concern is which version either the first focal plane or the second focal plane. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Secondly, I have found these for sale at about $750 on Amazon. Is it possible they are older models or refurbished though they are not advertised as such?

Read More

 

[No_Regerts]

How far do you plan to shoot and how small are the targets?

Also, do you intend to use a ranging reticle?

If I were hunting, Id go 2nd focal plane and never look back. As magnification increases, the target appears larger bit the reticle does not "grow". This makes it more precise.

If I wanted to use a ranging reticle, front focal plane is the way to go because the size of the reticle increases proportionately with the target as magnification increases. This allows your reticle to subtend equally throughout the magnification range. A 2nd focal plane scope is set for a ranging reticle to be accurate at max power.

 

[edslhead]

I prefer second. I don't like the reticle getting bigger as you power up. You should really go to a shop and check them both out for yourself before you decide.

 

[Joe13]

You should really go to a shop and check them both out for yourself before you decide.

May as well copy that advice and post it on every thread asking for an opinion

Great advice!

 

[bolus]

First focal plane for me. If you use the reticle to determine range and hold over you want it to change with the magnification so everything stays the same despite the magnification.

 

[My 3 sons]

How far do you plan to shoot and how small are the targets?

Also, do you intend to use a ranging reticle?

If I were hunting, Id go 2nd focal plane and never look back. As magnification increases, the target appears larger bit the reticle does not "grow". This makes it more precise.

If I wanted to use a ranging reticle, front focal plane is the way to go because the size of the reticle increases proportionately with the target as magnification increases. This allows your reticle to subtend equally throughout the magnification range. A 2nd focal plane scope is set for a ranging reticle to be accurate at max power.

I guess the best answer is my rifle isn't well suited for carrying while hunting at least in the traditional sense. However is ideal for stationary placement. My end goal is to be able to shoot paper at 600 yards or more as accurately as possible.

I prefer second. I don't like the reticle getting bigger as you power up. You should really go to a shop and check them both out for yourself before you decide.

This is really my problem. I've been to the stores and seen both. It's practical application for me that makes me question which will be best. Ideally going to the range with both scopes would be the best solution.

First focal plane for me. If you use the reticle to determine range and hold over you want it to change with the magnification so everything stays the same despite the magnification.

My son and I were discussing this last night and are leaning this direction for this reason. Now the choice between MOA and MRAD sub tensions becomes the question. I have not done any reading on the difference between them. I am familiar with MOA only through conversations regarding variations in hand loads and how it impacts accuracy expressed in MOA.

 

[CHLChris]

I'd buy a scope on Optics Planet. I love Amazon, but I love OP a whole lot more!

 

[My 3 sons]

I'd buy a scope on Optics Planet. I love Amazon, but I love OP a whole lot more!

I looked there first but they are $200 more. I can justify paying a little more for better service but that's too much to ignore. Heck it will be getting the cantilever mount for free plus $50.

 

[bolus]

My son and I were discussing this last night and are leaning this direction for this reason. Now the choice between MOA and MRAD sub tensions becomes the question. I have not done any reading on the difference between them. I am familiar with MOA only through conversations regarding variations in hand loads and how it impacts accuracy expressed in MOA.

Do you think in yards or meters? If your brain works best with yards and inches get MOA. If meters and centimeters then MIL.

 

[CHLChris]

Most items are not that big of a difference, @My 3 sons, I totally get it. That difference would make me just a bit wary of what you're getting. Granted, Amazon is not like eBay, with Chinese knockoffs all over. But caveat emptor is probably the rule of the day when spending that much for an optic you want to keep for life.

 

[No_Regerts]

Whatever you do, dont get an MOA reticle and MIL turret or vice versa. Pick one system and go with it.

 

[SmawGunner]

Wind and elevation holds. I do alot of holds for windage and elevation with my FFP. I dont see how this is possible with SFP.

Subtension size for ranging. There is a limit to how far you can accurately range with a given reticle. Its around 800 yards for reticles with the smallest subtensions. As the subtensions get bigger, the accuacy of your ranging estimate decreases. Most people that learn the skill of reticle ranging or milling dont actually do it anymore after learning it because they use a range finder which is way more accurate and has a much longer range capability. If you ever get into sniper matches, they usually have a stage that requires this skill and they dont let you use the rangefinder.

Units. moa, mils, and smoa. Most people I shoot with use mils. You should go with whatever the group your with is mostly using because they will all be talking back and forth in mils and if you have moa, then you will have to convert from mils to moa. Sucks at first but it doesnt take long before you can convert from mils to moa in your head.

 

[Boboclown]

I vote for FFP, but it really depends. Unless you need the consistency for ranging and holdovers, it isn't all that useful. With some scopes it can be a hassle to find the reticle at the lowest setting against a dark target, not true for every scope I'd imagine.

With SFP, ranging and holdovers have to be used at the highest setting (always read the manual to be sure). If just hunting or plinking at known distances without holdovers it isn't too bad. Also extra math if you want to range your target without going to the setting its correct for.

Keep in mind you'll pay more for FFP, and the glass would likely still be the same. But after trying SFP and FFP, I can tell you that almost every scope I get from now on will either be a fixed power scope or a FFP scope.

 

[My 3 sons]

Thanks to all for your input.

I finally decided on the ffp ebr-2c mrad reticle.

I will post and let you know how it goes.

 

[bolus]

Thanks to all for your input.

I finally decided on the ffp ebr-2c mrad reticle.

I will post and let you know how it goes.

That's what I have on my Ruger Precision Rifle. I'm very happy it.

 

[My 3 sons]

Finally got the scope mounted and took it out to the range. Very happy with the quality of the glass and the performance of the reticle. Cantilever mount was suggested by Vortex rep and definitely glad I went with it. Shot 1/2" go up at 100 meters on second third and fourth rounds. Went to 200 meters and shot a 1" group which is my personal best, limitation is now definitely the shooter not the weapon. Thanks again to all for your input. Would definitely recommend Vortex Viper PST for anyone looking for a great value for their money.

 

[Boboclown]

Grats. You got a nice scope. Can't go wrong with the Viper PST.

 

[Goosebrown]

I like FFP but best advice is to go try before you buy