I could be off but I think the idea basically is as follows...

FFP keeps the measurements the same regardless of the magnificstion settings by allowing the reticle to change with the level of magnification. With SFP the reticle remains the same size no matter what the magnification level I so you would have to adjust data and calculations and such accordingly to compensate for the differences between the reticle size and level of magnification.

So it's just kinda a KISS thing so you don't have to zoom in all the way to take advantage of the turrets or the recticle of the scope?

From my limited understanding of FFP vs SFP I think that is correct. It seems SFP scopes will have a reticle that is optimum at full power. When ranged properly FFP a MIL adjustment to your reticle is equivalent to a MIL on the target no matter if it's 25 yards or 250 yards.

I don't know... My wording may be wrong.

Here you go guys this is about as simple explanation as I could find.

Reticle placement within the erector tube determines if the riflescope is a First or Second Focal Plane. The erector assembly is a critical assembly within the riflescope and is what is responsible for magnifying or de-magnifying the image.

A reticle in the First Focal Plane is placed at the front of the erector assembly and remains in the same visual proportion to the target across the riflescopes entire magnification range. While the proportions of the reticle will appear to change when adjusting the magnification, in reality the reticles values are remaining in proportion to the target. This is beneficial for rapid ranging and holdovers at various distances and magnifications.

A reticle in the Second Focal Plane is placed at the rear of the erector assembly will appear to stay constant in size across the magnification range. The reticle subtensions are set at a pre-determined magnification change as magnification changes. Simple math can be used to determine the change in values, yet the reticle line size will remain consistent for a fine aiming point regardless of magnification.

Ok interesting. I'm considering what kinda optic to run on this rifle once built. I'm
Not sure if I want to run a 1-4 or a 2-7 or a 2.5-10
I've got the mark AR base 1-4 on my 15-22 and like its speed for aiming. But would like an illuminated rectical and thinking the 20 Sam-r barrel would deserve more zoom. So I noticed the leopuld mark 4 MRT and the vortex PST optics.
Batteries are a total down fall and trijicon beats that but at a big price tag.

But from tactical raccoon elimination in the dark I realized a lighted rectical is a must

You could always go for an IR scope.

yep with your soon to be AR I would go with at least the 2x7 but most likely the 2.5x10.

GD,

Greaser's definitions are spot on. In my experience, running at lower magnifications, I would go with a FFP scope, reason being: FFP scopes have a tendency to obscure the target at higher magnifications (it's often perceived that way, anyways). At a lower magnification (I've used them up to 10x and loved them), it will allow you to dial in your dope without having to add another factor to the equation, which is at the least more work, and at worst allows for yet another error to throw the shot. You can't miss fast enough to win a gunfight. (raccoons, you'll probably live another day, though.)

-however-

In my experience, if you run a higher magnification that 10x, an FFP becomes unwieldy, while the SFP optic continues to offer a finer aiming point at any magnification. I can't recall seeing a FFP optic with more power than 12x, but I don't research optics as often as other things. I'm sure they exist. Anyway, the Wally World special I was running on my M14 ran up to 16x, and is a SFP optic. The subtensions for the reticle were calibrated at 10x, so around that magnification my dope was usually on (there was no detent, so it was impossible to get it exactly at 10x.) They both have their pros and cons, but IMO they each fill a certain niche better than the other.

Ultimately though, try before you buy if you can, nothing beats firsthand experience when it comes to equipment

Wondering what you fellas think of the New Versamax by Remington?

I haven't ever purchased a shotgun because I didn't want a pump gun, and after initially settling on a Saiga, decided against it due to reliability issues with cheap target loads. Then I bounced around for a while, Benelli, Mossberg, Remingtons other semi autos, and even eyeballed some Berettas. Didn't want to spend $2K on a M4 Super 90 to have to blow another 200$ on a decent mag tube, didn't like the tang safety on a pistol grip configuration for the Mossberg, reliability issues with underpowered loads on the older Remingtons, and on and on and on...

then I saw this... http://www.recoilweb.com/remington-versa-max-3-gun-competition-shotgun-35761.html

anybody have any experience with these yet? I'd love to know what an ungreased palm's experience with the shotgun is.

There is a standard Tactical at the Ft. Carson PX right now. it's sat there for a year, and if I hear enough good things, I might snap it up.

Well here is my opinion so do what you want with it. Benelli #1. Mossy #2. Versamax...#3.

While I don't own any of these at the moment when I was working as a waterfowl guide a used all and saw all in action. All covered in mud sand water and Ice.

The benelli is the gun to beat. Hands down. If I was trusting my life to an auto shotgun it would be the benelli. M4 M3 M2 i would use em all.

The mossy ran fine with no issues but the over all quality of the gun and parts wasn't as high and the tang safety sucks.

Remington auto guns went down more than any other brand versa max 1187 1100. Plus with the freedom groups recent history with remington guns and recalls I would touch any but an 870 police...

For hunting guns the berreta is right up with benelli. But due to limited choices on the defense side I didn't list it.

I don't have any experience with the Versamax, but I do have plenty of experience with my Stoeger M3500 and I love it. It's a budget gun made in Turkey and it has ran everything I've put through it without a single issue. I've abused it and let other people borrow it, and it performs flawlessly. My only gripe is that it has a VERY heavy trigger, but that can be fixed. My only regret is that I didn't spend the extra hundred bucks to get the camo version. I like the gun so much that I'm considering getting the M3020, which is the 20 gauge version.

I know that didn't answer your question, and I'm sorry. I just love the M3500 so much that I felt like that needed to be said.

Not a defense gun but the benelli, stoger, franchi, family guns have great reputations!!!