I’m looking at an IOR Valdada, which will be my first one of these scopes if I get it.
My question is about the usefulness and pros/cons of FFP (First focal plane) versus SFP (second focal plane). The IOR scopes I’m looking at have both FFP and SFP versions.
As I understand it, SFP is what most of our U.S. scopes already are. When you use a variable with a mildot reticle, for instance, the reticle is going to only be accurate at one power setting, and it will not change size or obscure your view as you change the power settings. With an FFP, it’s exactly the opposite. With a variable scope and a mildot reticle, the reticle can be used accurately at the different power settings, and will actually change size as you change powers.
I understand all this, but without trying an FFP for several outings, I am not sure what would be the practical differences or whether I would really gain from having one of these. I’ve heard that one issue SOME shooters don’t like is, the reticle in an FFP can sometimes get so large that it obscures parts of your target, as you resize. On the other hand, it would be nice to be able to use the reticle at any setting.
Any thoughts on pros/cons between FFP and SFP? Which way should I go?
The primary advantage to FFP reticles is the ability to do holdovers at any magnification. If you shoot that way, then you should get a FFP reticle scope. For example, if you shoot tactical rifle competitions where targets are at unknown distances and you looking to make hits rather than just getting the smallest group possible, the ability to hold for change in point of aim or impact at any magnification will be very advantageous.
If you tend to do more target type shooting at known distance targets, then the finer reticle size at higher magnification offered by an SFP reticle will help you with achieving a more precise point of aim. F Class or benchrest competitors will probably benefit more from this type of setup.
That makes sense. Sounds like FFP may be a bit more flexible if you’re in shooting situations (hunting or tactical) where you don’t already know the distances you’ll be shooting at.
In general, is IOR Valdada a good “mid-tier” scope maker? Obviously they’re not S&B, but would they be up in the quality range of Leupold and the like? I REALLY like their reticles and features better than Leupold.
IOR Valdata had some teething pain when they first introduced their FFP scope but seems to have gotten things settled down. It’s a good choice. I personally think they are a better choice right now than Leupold.
There are situations where a FFP is superior, and times that a SFP is better- just like when there are times that a variable is superior to a fixed, and times that 10X is better than 4X. Application determines decision.