At what magnification are you seeing the reticle in a second focal plane scope ?

All of them. The reticle is visible through the entire range of magnifications.

Let me ask this another way .
One of the disadvantages of a FFP scope is how small the reticle appears at very low power in a variable power scope. The reticle in a SFP scope doesn't appear small and Of course doesn't change size, so it must be magnified to a certain extent ?

It just is what it is. Any further questioning, discussion, or anaysis is pointless.

In a SFP scope the reticle is between your eye and where the magnification occurs. Making it static. In a FFP it’s after the magnification so it changes sizes with the magnification.

I get that it is static . So a SFP scope has a reticle magnification of zero and a target image of whatever power the magnification ring is set on ?

Say what?

The reticle is not magnified. The size of the markings (subtensions) on the reticle is set by the manufacturer, usually at max power.

You read it right .

At all magnifications. It just never changes size with variable magnification, unlike with a FFP scope.

I get that too .
If a FFP scope reticle is too small to be useable in timber because it gets "lost" at say 2 power , why is a SFP reticle not too small at zero magnification ?

Good luck fellas.............

You guys aren't getting what I'm asking, or I'm just messing with you ?

Because it is a fixed size from the start.


Hold a toothpick between you and a magnifying glass. No matter what magnification the glass is the toothpick looks the same. (SFP).

Hold the toothpick on the other side of the magnifying glass and it changes with different magnifications.

If that don’t help, I can’t help.

You’re making my teeth hurt.

Maybe this will help? If you taped 2 match sticks in an x in front of the ocular lens they would be pretty thick. If you took 2 toothpicks and made an x on an identical scope the x would be less thick. If you changed the magnification of the scope it would do nothing to the size of the crosshairs. The crosshairs will cover more area on low mag than high mag but the crosshairs are not a certain mag just thick or thin and they stay that way. That wasnt great but might help?

What wr75169 said

Yep somewhat . So the reticle in SFP would be the same size whether looking at it through the scope or laying in your hand , correct ?

Possibly. I don’t know if the ocular lens has any magnification to it. But you’re on the right track.

Well I tried to attach a photo but it appears our system hasn’t changed in ten years so you get what you get. I’m not pulling out my abacus to get it done.

Now we're getting somewhere !

A BDC on a SFP scope is typically only “accurate” at max power so I suppose ultimately that’s your answer.

The Reticle on a 2nd FP always stays the same for the shooters eye.

Nice and bold at low power and very precise at high power.

It's the reticle that God and Baby Jesus would use.

Quit sinning, go SFP.

10 years? Haha. At least 20. This is the most antiquated forum on the internet. Pretty sure Fred Flintstone uses it too. The photo and search functions barely work at all. It’s all been brought up ad nauseum. The powers that be obviously don’t care.

To the OP’s question, for me it is 6x. I love my Zeiss 1.5-6x42 as a woods scope because the first focal plane reticle is sized perfectly with heavy side bars and a narrow center that works well at my woods hunting ranges. My western rifle has a Swarovski 2.5-10x42 and that first focal plane reticle is looking pretty large at 10x even though it covers the same amount at all variable settings though I don’t remember using 10x to shoot an animal.

Now to my varmint and rimfire variables… Because the animals and targets are smaller, those rifles get the higher magnification and second focal plane variable scopes. Works well for me.

I have lost the crosshair in a 2.5-8x36 Leupold second focal plane scope at first light on an over cast morning shooting a deer under an evergreen canopy. My back up rifle has a 1.5-5x20 with the heavy duplex for a woods scope and that works well too.

the physical reticle size used is a function of the variable scope erector range magnification. Fixed powers being the easiest. Also the size is determined by the type of reticle. The more information (grids) the more difficult.
these variables are affected mostly by the price range. so the magnification of the reticle will be different for SFP 3 x 9 scope versus 2 x25. the composition of the reticle also comes into play. etching, vs. wire., projected etc.
FFP usually cost more because the erector assembly costs more.
Usually in SFP scopes the reticle has its optical center at the max. magnification power. However the magnification relationship is linear with the adjustment. EX. a 3 x 12 has a range of 12-3=9 powers. 1/2 of this is 4.5 Assume you have a reticle with 2 Moa grids and sighted for 100 yds at highest power now go to 7.5 power. the 2 Moa mark is now 4 moa. and you can verify this by watching the reticle drop below the target as you rotate the power. This causes the lowering of the muzzle so when you do use the grid mark it raises to 4 Moa and shoots high. Obviously this is too much BS for the average hunter. so they just dial in the difference and stay on the highest power, which isn't always good because most scopes have most distortion on the highest power.

FFP just magnifies the reticle to compensate for the magnification increase. You've probably read that a 1000 times, not true actually. the ratio of the reticle size to the target size stays the same. so in relation it does not magnify the image. Its an eye trick

Thank you for the insight and thoughtful reply.

What does that Zeiss FFP reticle look like at 1.5 power and how useful is it ?

What color is the taste of good whiskey?

Now we're cooking !
That was the answer I was looking for . It might be useless information but my inquiring mind wanted to know.

Thank you sir .

Depends

What does a Zeiss FFP reticle look like at 1.5x and how useful is it?
To be honest that is lower on the variable range than I’ll typically use. 2x is what I’ll dial down to when I’m walking in the woods because it gives some magnification along with a huge fov. That Euro reticle is a #8 if I remember and the side, top and bottom heavier outside cross hair sections bracket the center thinner crosshair sections such that just centering between those heavy sections hits the center.

That 1.5-6x42 is on my woods rifle which I think is ideal for a sitting in a stand combination. Last year’s buck was a good example. The scope was set at 3x for a possible close shot. The deer showed up about a hundred yards out and I turned it to 4x. When he went down I turned it to 6x to watch for any movement. I’m sure if I’d had a scope with more than 6x I would have dialed it up and lost fov if I had to shoot again.

In very low light, there is no missing a FFP reticle. It is an optical illusion, but to my eyes in VERY low light, my minds eye fills in the thinner center crosshair section with the thicker outer crosshair diameter. I’ve not seen that stated anywhere and I’m reluctant to write it here, but it happens to my eyes with my FFP scopes.

Nice post. I found the ending quite humorous.

Just the same, I'll keep using FFP's and deal with any theological implications.

Still have a few different SFP's and have had good success with them; however, for all around big game use I like a LRHS or "doughnut or diamond of death" style FFP. You get a dot for fast aim at low X and unchanging subtensions for whatever higher X fits a given situation.

Might add this for original posters question

SFP with ballistic reticles are not evenly spaced. the distance or Moa increases as you go down the grid to account for drop. Basically cartridges are slow, medium and fast , and certain groups across a range of calibers will shoot to the same point of impact
as an example the hold over say on the second reticle may work at 200 yds for a variety of cartridges
Scope makers had programs on the internet allowing the input of your cartridge information which would correlate with the hold overs distances on the reticle. by placing the top of the target below the main reticle and the bottom of the target at the first grid one can determine the distance
.on FFP this is much easier and just involves a little math.

My point is that in order to make these measurements the size and magnification of the reticle in both cases is very critical. and is dependent on the range of the magnifications.

with the advent of laser range finders, shooters found it easier to just dial the drop,

Close. SFP scope has a constant reticle magnification of one and a target image of whatever power the magnification ring is set on

I don't know, but does it smell as good as it looks?

In a riflescope there are essentially two points where riflescope makers position the reticle. The first focal plane is located at the front of the erector tube usually somewhere around where the turrets are located. This image comes directly from the objective lens and it's of course inverted and left to right. The image then goes through the erector lenses to reverse them, so you don't have to stad on your head to look through a riflescope, and the zoom lenses or some combination of these lenses and the image is formed at the rear of the erector tube, at the place called the second focal place (or sometimes the rear focal plane). The eyepiece is then used to transmit this image to your eye.

Whichever place you have the reticle located. the purpose is to merge the image of the target with the reticle in the same focal plane. If the reticle is in the first focal plane, the merged image of the target and the reticle will be subjected to whatever occurs in the erector tube. The image will be flipped, and it can be zoomed in and out (change in magnification). Therefore, the FFP reticle will magnify and minimize along with the remainder of the image at the first focal place. If the reticle is in the second focal plane (all SFP scopes and fixed power scopes,) the image of the reticle will be merged with whatever image comes out of the erector tube. But since all the zooming and flipping will have already be done, the reticle in the SFP will be merged with the final image. so to speak and the reticle will not change in size, ever.

There is also the case of dual reticle riflescopes, with one aspect of the reticle being located in the second focal plane and thus unchanging, while the other aspect of the reticle being located in the second focal plane and thus being subject to the zooming effect of the erector tube. These reticles are amazing to use, and they are rare as they are incredibly difficult to assemble.

There are two types of reticles; wire and etched. The wired reticles, sometimes with center dots, are just that, very thin wire in a circle, usually located at the SFP. They used to be hair at some point in the past, hence the term crosshairs. The etched reticles are etched on a piece of glass, which is then located at the FFP or SFP, and in some cases, both locations. These etched reticles can be quite complex and useful at either location.

Great summary thanks.

From a personal point, and doing a lot of long range precision rifle, I like higher range of magnification, either SFP or FFP so I can turn the power down, and get less distortion, at the edges, also helps with mirage more which is a big problem in the west Utah desert.

I agree with that. As my screen name implies, I am a F-class shooter and spend my time at 1000-yard competitions. I use SFP scopes exclusively in that discipline, my current one is the March-X 10-60X56 HM which I use at 50X all the time, regardless of conditions. The Super ED glass is more resistant to the IQ degradation caused by mirage. I shoot all over the country with that setup, always at 50X. I am now waiting for the next iteration of this optic, the March-X 8-80X56 HM with the F-class reticle designed to be used at 40X and 80X.

60-80 that is high power ,

Mine are more like IPSC 3 gun, and movement and barricade long range at 25x, as well as AR 3gun at 1x - IPSC steel at 1000
Zeiss
Nightforce
Vortex

Should add that its multiple target engagement at variable ranges.

I also use the lower powers to increase the depth of field, and dial with both to keep optical center of the scope.

Also notice mirage is less with the Zeiss, and florite lenses

There are no riflescopes with pure fluorite lenses*, only spotters like the Kowas. The Super ED glass has an Abbe number almost equivalent to pure fluorite and that's why I believe the riflescopes with this type of glass do better in mirage.

I completely understand your choice of optics. 25X is definitely all you really need for that. It's funny to think that F-class shooters with lesser optics usually power down to the low 30s or high 20s when the mirage dominates.

*I think there was one such riflescope, an Hensoldt with lower magnification and extremely high price.

Thought Zeiss and Canon were both using florites in their camera lenses also.

Whoa, you're jumping tracks on me. Yes, there are several camera lenses with fluorite (notice the spelling) glass elements. Nikon (Nikkor), Canon and some others. These lenses are extremely expensive, I have seen some Nikkor telephoto lenses with fluorite elements at $12,000. Sometimes they combine ED, Super ED and fluorite elements in one lens. I'm not familiar with Carl Zeiss telephoto lenses.

That said, I do not believe that having fluorite elements in a telephoto lens will help with mirage unless it's the objective lens at the front.

ya confusing on the spelling - seen it both ways. My understanding was that they could be made aspherical, which corrected problems in the light bending. So I have to ask, which part of light the wave part or the particle part. Get no answers, so I guess it makes the lens slicker so the light slides through easier. Sort of like putting like polymerizing carbon with fluoride to get Teflon.

If you see it both ways, one of them is wrong; it's fluorite, CaF2 (Calcium Fluoride), a mineral made up of two parts fluorine, atomic number 9, and one part calcium, atomic number 20.

The quality of the glass made with this material is that it does not disperse the focus of the various wavelengths that make up visible light after bending it. This prevents color bleeding (CA) and enhances the sharpness and contrast of the image. This type of glass is expensive, difficult to make, fragile, and subject to changes in various temperatures. Glassmakers first came up with an ED (Extra-low Dispersion) material in the late 1960s, to control CA better than current glass but it was not as good as CaF2 glass. A while later, Super ED glass became available and that contains a great deal of CaF2 and other stuff. Glass makers are very secretive about their process. The Abbe number of Super ED is very close to CaF2 glass, but it's expensive, of course.

Anyway, we are far beyond the intent of the thread and for that, I apologize.