The Integrix 2-12X36 34MM FFP scope that I am testing.
This report covers:
- Getting used to it
- What this means
- Accuracy?
- Benefits and drawbacks
- The question
- BB’s notes to himself
- Summary
Today is Part 2 of my report on the Integrix 2-12×36 FFP scope, but it isn’t the second time I have reported on it. You saw a lot about this scope in the test of the Norica Omnia ZRS rifle. In fact it was this scope that turned that test around. It turned around, not because this scope made that rifle more accurate, but because it forced me to place my eye in the same place on the stock for every shot, which is one key to accuracy with any rifle.
Getting used to it
I have had this scope in my possession for almost a month and a half and I have learned many things about it. Now I am about to perform the second test of the scope and I’m asking your help.
First Focal Plane
This Integrix is a first focal plane (FFP) scope. And BOY are the writers on the internet trying to confuse people when they define what FFP means! Let’s read what Bushnell, an optics maker, has to say.
“A first focal plane (FFP) scope has a reticle that is placed towards the front of your riflescope’s erector tube assembly and your magnification lenses. Your reticle will appear to be the same size regardless of magnification power because it is placed in front of the magnification lens.”
That statement is correct and is also SO WRONG! The reticle will not appear to be the same size to the shooter when the magnification is changed. What the writer MEANT was the relationship between the reticle and target will remain the same as the scope’s variable power is increased and decreased. In other words, if the reticle has marks that are 1 mil apart, then at the scope’s lowest power, they will subtend (cover) the same amount of length at a fixed distance as they will at high power. For example, one mil is very close to one inch at 100 yards. In that respect the reticle remains the same size even when the size of the image changes.
But at 2 power that reticle has to be very small, because the scope at that magnification sees so much. So that one-mil space (one inch at 100 yards) on the reticle will be very small, while at 12 power it will increase in size THROUGH THE EYEPIECE because the entire image increases in size (and you therefore see less of it). One mil remains one mil, no matter how small or big it appears.
Are you confused? Join the club. We have t-shirts.
What this means
The point is, if you are making sighting corrections by using the reticle in your FFP scope you can trust that the one-mil spacing of marks on the reticle lines are ALWAYS one mil apart, no matter how small or large they appear to you.
Accuracy?
How does this help accuracy? Well, it helps the shooter be more precise when making corrections by using the scope’s reticle. For instance, if your FFP scope is zeroed at 150 yards with a 6.5mm Creedmore rifle and you KNOW from testing that one mil of holdover takes your zero to 325 yards, then you can be very precise out to perhaps 350 yards. The magnification makes no difference, as one mil of angle through this scope is always one mil.
If you are using a second focal plane (SFP) scope you can also hold over, but the reticle marks will only remain a constant size (distance apart) if you are shooting at the same magnification that you used to determine the holdover. For example, if you sighted in with your scope set at 20 power but are now shooting at 16 power then the marks on your scope’s reticle are not the same distance apart as when you sighted in. The manual sheet that comes with a SFP scope tells you the magnification at which the reticle marks appear at the correct distance apart. Many scopes use 10-power for the fixed power at which the reticle marks are the distance apart the manufacturer specifies (like one mil). However, some scopes specify that the highest magnification is the one at which the reticle marks are correct.
Benefits and drawbacks
First Focal Plane scopes are beneficial for long range shooting such as varmint hunting and military sniping, because those reticle marks subtend the same angle at all magnifications. But their construction costs more than SFP scopes so they are priced higher. And the change in reticle size can be unnerving — especially if the scope reticle doesn’t illuminate.
Second Focal Plane scopes have reticles that remain at a constant size. So for close-range shooting (under 150 yards?), such as law enforcement snipers and field target shooters, they are preferred. And they are less expensive.
The question
People have said that an FFP scope will hit at the same place regardless of the magnification, while a SFP scope will change points on impact, depending on the magnification. I think they are confusing the reticle spacing remaining the same regardless of magnification with hitting in the same place, but reader pacoinohio suggested the following tests.
“A suggestion for scope testing- (1)- two targets, two groups. One group at 2x and the other at 12x. One shot at 2x and then crank it up to 12x for shot two on the second bull. Repeat until you have two ten shot groups.
(2)- shoot ‘around the clock’ with strong side light (ie, late afternoon). Example- directly into and away from the setting Sun, and also left and right sides
(3)- parallax test at two distances. One target at the 9 yard minimum and one at, say 25 yards. Repeat procedure as test one. One shot close and then next shot at distance, until you have two ten shot groups.
(4)- classic box test, one shot at a time until you have five ten shot groups. Time consuming, but it would seem this scope just begs for cranking the dials.
BB’s notes to himself
I can probably get a couple tests out of that. First there is the shooting-two-groups-at-two-magnifications test. That one I like, but I will change the lower magnification to 6X so I can see the reticle, because I will do this test at 25 yards. I plan to use BB’s Goldie, which currently has a Meopta 3-15X50 SFP scope mounted and sighted in. I will shoot two groups with it at two power levels (6X and 12X) and then mount the Integrix scope and shoot two more groups with it. In order to keep this test under control I will do it on two different days. We already have a good baseline on Goldie and both scopes can magnify to the same 6X and 12X, plus both are premium scopes, so this test should prove enlightening.
The beauty of this Integrix scope is it has an illuminated reticle. When the power is dialed down, the central crosshair that’s lighted shrinks down to a dot, but it’s still bright and tells you where to aim. The Meopta reticle is also illuminated but since the reticle doesn’t shrink with magnification reduction there is no big problem. I will run both scopes with illumination just to keep the test as standardized as possible.
I said I could probably get a couple tests from paco’s suggestion. Let me ponder what the other one or ones might be.
Summary
First Focal Plane scopes are novel at present. They are a new thing and everybody wants to jump on board. Are they “better” than SFP scopes? Yes, for some things and no for others. The Integrix has already proven its worth by changing the outcome of an accuracy test. Let’s see what else it might do.
At low magnification the FFP scope reticle is useless. Just to darn small. Yes, at higher magnifications works well.
Why doesn’t Integrex make a dedicated FT Hunter class scope(16X max)? $1,000 would not phase serious Hunter Class Competitors if it really was better.
-Yogi
“BB’s notes to himself”
BB,
I concur with the entire first paragraph in that section; that should prove to be a great test.
And it should generate much discussion…fun times ahead…yay! 🙂
Blessings to you,
dave
Sorry BB, but I think this is a subject that would really benefit from lots of pictures of the reticles in relation to the targets. Don’t know how you would go about it other than copying a bunch of existing pictures as examples. This requires understanding more than trying to remember and you know what they say “A picture is worth a thousand words”
WARNING! The below is my own personal opinion. It is the only one that counts. 😉
Well, I am a little different from most shooters, I guess. I usually leave the power setting of my scope alone. My 3-9X Bugbuster stays set at 9X, my UTG 6-18X scope stays set at 18X and so on. To me, the difference in a SFP and a FFP is the price. I would prefer some of the reticles I have seen on some of the FFP scopes, but many seem just too busy for my taste.
My dad’s groundhog rifle had a Weaver 12X scope with very fine crosshairs. No mil dots or anything like that. Knowing the size of the critter I was shooting at and having learned to estimate ranges pretty good, I could hit a fist sized target at five hundred yards. At that range, a standing adult groundhog could almost hide behind those crosshairs.
I guess I can see that if you just cannot leave that scope magnification alone, FFP could be nice. As for me, the reticle itself is far more important. The finer, the better. I can see the use of thick reticles when hunting at close ranges in the woods, but when you want to stretch it out, you do not want to blot out your target.
I guess extremely high-powered scopes are great for field target, but for general use, I prefer a low powered scope on my sproingers, if they are scoped at all. Most people are not going to be shooting sproingers at much more than twenty-five yards. A real nice sproinger will shoot one inch groups at fifty yards. There are a couple that can do better, but not many. Most will not do that. It is the nature of the beast.
Now, PCPs can be a different critter. I did have my UTG 6-18X56 scope on top of my HM1000X. That air rifle was capable of one inch groups at one hundred yards. I now have it mounted on top of a .457 Texan LSS. That has the power to reach that far. I still have to see what it is capable of at that range. I am hoping for at least two MOA. I might keep it then. 😉
P.S. Before someone asks, my dad’s groundhog rifle was a .25-06 caliber Remington 700 Varmint Special that had been glass bedded with free floating barrel, equipped with a Weaver 12X scope and a Harris bipod. With our hand loads it was capable of 1/3 MOA.
RidgeRunner, I hope that .25-06 is still around…what a classic piece of hardware! 🙂
Dave,
It is still around, but I do not own it. I needed to sell my father’s entire firearm collection to help support my mother.
RidgeRunner, supporting your mother was the class move…way more important! 🙂
Thanks, I thought so also.
RR
Strange coincidence; these days I am a guest in a place where I have a 45 yards shooting lane. I brought my D54 with a recently acquired utg swat 8-32×56 on a Dampa mount. As a matter of fact I should place my head exactly on the same place EVERY TIME in order to have a clear image of the target and that was using only up to 16x magnification. Best group was that one inch you mentioned. More magnification was not that clear. My experience (and budget) says that Hawke make better scopes at this price range. The simple Vantage 3-9×50 ir is a better scope, for me anyway. Obviously I need way more training and experience in order to be adequate for being a judge, still…
Hawke markets some superb pieces of glass at most reasonable prices. I have two and intend on getting one more, which by the way is one third of the cost of this scope.
BB-
One point about the testing procedure. Shot one is on target one at 6x. Shot two is on target two at 12x. Shot three is back on target one at 6x. Shot four- target two at 12x. Repeat for the remaining 16 shots. The cranking back and forth is potentially important.
I know some scopes can have issues, but was it because we were cranking between the mechanical stops- ie, low magnification to high? Your test will only be against one mechanical hard stop- 12x on the Integrix. The other three will be ‘out in the air’ so to speak.
Looking forward to the tests.
Paco,
I’m looking forward to the tests as well.
BB
The new Integrix line of scopes from Leapers sound wonderful. Leapers is taking on some stiff competition. I’m not a fan of FFP scopes on airguns but will be looking forward to this series.
https://ixoptics.com/
Hmmm, does this scope require batteries? 😉
Kevin,
Yessir!
BB
B.B.,
Maybe in MOA it does but not in MRAD!
In First Focal Plane
“…one mil is very close to one inch at 100 yards.” and also a few other references to inches relative to one mill (MRAD) NEED TO BE CORRECTED.
One mil (MRAD) at 100 yards is: 3.6 inches.
One mil (MRAD) at 100 meters is 3.937 inches.
But why talk inches and metric in the same breath at all?
Surprise! 3.937 inches is EXACTLY 100mm.
Actually why speak of any linear measure when the beauty of MOA (Minute Of Arc) and Millradian (MRAD) is that they are angular systems of measurement with one exception: when sighting in!
shootski
I have a lot of difficulty thinking in terms of metric measurements. Now I have to remember that 100 mm (or 10 cm) is about 4 inches.
Perhaps BB meant to refer to another angular measurement rather than milliradians (MRAD, a thousandth of a radian?). Perhaps a minute of arc, or one sixteenth of a degree? One minute of arc or angle is also commonly used to describe an approximately 1 inch circle at 100 yards. Also there is the “minute of popcan” for the rest of us unenlightened plinkers.
Roamin Greco,
Even my spell checker has problems with milliradian! I just updated my onboard dictionary to reflect the correct spelling.
I think B.B. is on MOA.
This might help you: https://www.schmidtundbender.de/en/service/did-you-know/127-turrets/1521-moa-mrad-mil-cm.html#:~:text=MRAD%20stands%20for%20Milliradian%20(abbreviation,NATO)%20is%20actually%200.098%20MRAD.
shootski
Me too about the typos. I meant to type one sixtieth of a degree and it came up with sixteenth!
I learned one cool thing though, if I understand correctly (an iffy proposition to be sure), if you use milliradians (MRADs or Mils), then one mil covers 1/1000 of the distance to the target with ANY units you use. So if my target is 1000 meters away, one mill covers a circle with a diameter of one meter. Right? The cool thing is, if my target is 1000 yards away, one mil covers one yard. If you are 100 yards away, one mill covers 1/10 of a yard, which is 3.6 inches; 100 meters, 1/10 of a meter, which equals 10 centimeters or 3.9 inches. If your scope adjusts a 1/10 of a Mil per click, then the reticle moves 1/10,000 (1/10 of 1/1000) of the distance to the target. So if you are at 1000 meters, one click moves the reticle 1/10 of a meter; at 100 meters it will move one centimeter (0.39 inches); and at 100 yards it will move 0.36 inches. While a minute of angle is about an inch at 100 yards so a scope with 1/4 minute clicks will move about a 0.25 inches per click. So a scope with 1/4 minute clicks has slightly finer adjustments than a mil dot scope. If I have that all backwards, then someone put me out of my misery.
Now I’ll read your link, Shootski.
Roamin Greco,
“I have a lot of difficulty thinking in terms of metric measurements. Now I have to remember that 100 mm (or 10 cm) is about 4 inches.”
It seems your brain is working way better than our spell checkers!
I’m working on one shooter at a time and it feels good to have one help – “one kill” as my average so far.
I don’t keep track of my overall count like snipers do since i view myself as just a helper.
I know you can and are going to go far with this knowledge!
shootski
Thanks Shootski and Roamin for the discussion. I can say that I knew about the angular units,but now I can say I understand them.
Nice topic B.B..
Henry
You are welcome. It’s nice to know that occasionally, my musings can be somewhat helpful.
Henry_TX,
A double in one day!
Roamin Greco gets it and helps Henry get it on the same day. I may need to start using my hunters axe to notch my shooting table…Lol!
I was shooting my .22 SSG ASP20 this evening since i have far more pellets through the .177 so i need to complete the first tin of 500 JSBs. I shot at 30 meters using a NRA #A17 target (50 FT. SMALL BORE RIFLE TARGET) I was hoping to get to all 10 Bulls but only managed 6 shots on the sighter and 10 shots each on the top three Bulls before shooting was called for darkness (my LED Trap spotlight died tonight) and mosquitoes. The bulls showed three good 1/3 MRAD groups so i will sleep well tonight and get up in the morning for some more fun. I do wish SIG had equiped the ASP WHISKEY3 Scope with MRAD instead of MOA turrets; makes me do to many math conversions in my head and mistakes can be all too easily made.
Enjoy your newly enlarged scope knowledge,
shootski
Shootski,
Ya got me. Ahhhhhhh! 😉
BB
Tom,
No I didn’t!
You aren’t bleeding out!
I just helped you a little.
shootski
BB,
I have realized that I never change the magnification on my scopes. I always use them at max power. So, I think the next scope I buy may be a fixed power scope. I don’t think first or second focal plane would matter on a fixed magnification scope.
My scope needs to be capable of helping me see pellet holes in a black target at 100 yards when the target is in the woods and fairly shaded. I think I also need a lighted reticle so I can see the cross hairs and marking on the black target. Any recommendations from any of you? Cheaper is better as long as it meets my requirements. Oh, it will be on a PCP.
Thanks,
David Enoch
DavidEnoch,
Get a Sunshade that will block out angled or side lighting the Objective lens from the Sun, Street Lamps, Moon, and Stars; given in order of importance. If the Sunshade required is too long then a high quality ARD will do the job almost as well.
(For those that doubt the improvement you can use a rubber band or two and a sheet of black construction paper or sheet of neoprene.
In my experience it always improves the “clarity” of any scope regardless of price range.
shootski
David Enoch,
I have a FFP 4-16x Hawke Airmax on my .22 cal. HW100, and I almost always use 16x at 100 yards, and I can easily see my hits; however, I usually shoot at steel or bright colored targets, which also allow me to see the crosshairs without illumination. A black target, such as you mentioned, will require higher magnification to see your hits, especially in low light conditions (assuming .22 cal.). I have a 4-32x scope on hand, so I tested how high I had to turn it up before I could clearly make out a .22 cal. pellet hole in a black bullseye at 100 yds under an overcast sky. (Remember, the hole is not as clean cut as one from a high-powered rifle.) At 18x I can begin to reliably locate the hole, and at 20x I can easily make it out. Mind you, this is a 50mm objective and 30mm tube.
For what it’s worth, that’s my experience. Personally, I would never get a fixed-power scope of high magnification, as it would severely limit your close-range target acquisition, especially considering that your parallax would be very “distance sensitive”. Of course, if you’re only using it for target shooting, that hardly matters.
Daniel
After looking at Intergrex’s web site, it looks like they are real made of high kicking power burners and not really airgun scopes.
-Y
BB,
As a little side note to you, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia has introduced a bill in the Senate to outlaw all legally owned silencers. His excuse is a couple of the “mass murderers” used illegal silencers.
That gives me an idea! Why not outlaw illegal drugs to solve the drug overdose problem?
Henry
That won’t work. Legal drugs will need to be outlawed to solve the overdose problem.
That’s “Kainesian” logic, all right!
Roamin Greco,
You Sir are in great form this evening!
shootski
Why, thank you, sir. That’s quite a compliment, considering the source. Good evening to you. I look forward to our discourse on the morrow.
I had a wonderfully composed rant, then my phone rang and I lost it. I guess I was “silenced.”
“Sounds” logical. HA! If the silencers used in the murders were illegal, how will outlawing legal silencers help improve the situation, except that our hearing will suffer.
B.B. and Readership,
Our dear Senator Kane from our beloved Commonwealth was caught for hours in a minor snowstorm on Interstate 95 (the major north-south highway for the East coast of the US of A) for nearly a day…i believe he suffered from Frostbite of the Brain that completely obliterated what was left of his higher brain function. Or maybe it was the prior condition that he suffered from claimed liberality hiding, in actuality, a vicious totalitarian mindset.
Let us hope he has spilled his seed on infertile ground.
shootski