First focal plane for stalking?

[bbrc]

I am pondering over getting a first focal plane scope for all round use/woodland stalking and am looking for opinions as to how people find the ffp reticles at low mag. 
I usually back the scope mag down in poor light but on ffp this would mean the reticle would appear thinner, do any of you that use ffp scopes find this a problem ?
would an illuminating reticle help with this problem ??
I have previously had a first focal plane 2.5-10 x 50 which i sold on as I found the ffp reticle a bit strange as Ive always used second focal plane scopes but it wasn’t an illuminating reticle so is it a case of getting used to it more ?
Any thoughts from those who use them?
 Thanks 

[trucraft]

I use ffp on one of my stalking rifles.

Without the IR on I would find it very hard to take close up shots on low mag.

Why do you want to change from sfp?

For most stalking use sfp is better in my opinion. 

Only when shooting at range and needing hold over or using the ret to range find would ffp be useful for hunting.

 

[Chanonry]

I think this is one of those topics that divides people depending on their personal preferences, so not sure how much help this is really but...

The rifle I use for stalking has a Kahles ffp on it. In reality its mainly used on the range (UKD) with some shots at deer. Stalking is split between woodland and hill. Most of the hill stalking is hind culling.

So up the hill, it is great. I can set the mag to give me a decent field of view and the reticle is still correct. That matters as I hold for the wind and for follow up shots I can make some fast but small adjustments if the deer run a bit further out. The fov is important so I don't have to come off the rifle for the next shot. The fact the reticle is always true lets me shoot a bit more dynamically on the subsequent shots and I don't have to be at 22x or whatever if I am going to use the reticle at all.

In the wood though that's a bit of a waste of time. Ranges are not far enough to worry about those sorts of adjustments, wind is largely irrelevant and to get the FOV right, it is dialled right down almost to a cross. This is why some people HATE ffp. Personally I don't really care as they are so close a cross is all I need. In some ways that is what the reticle is 'telling' me. On the Kahles the thickness is fine, the trade off is it is a bit chunky at 25x but most of the time I am in the teens and if I am at 25x then the centre dot is ideal. 

I have a mate who is a professional stalker who detests FFP and is happy with the idea of memorising reticle sub tension values at full and half power. In return he gets a consistent reticle at all magnifications.  For me this is an accident waiting to happen as I have forgotten where the magnification is set on my NXS on the range before and it takes a while for me to realise why I am missing. I am sure I could manage this if I was a bit more diligent in my drills as I assume he is. Kills too many deer not to be.

For me, my view is that I don't need a scope in the woods at all and in fact they are a hinderance for close shots. A good red dot will do the job out to 150 certainly and with a little bit of shooting 200, calibre dependent I suppose. But that wasn't the question....

[bbrc]

Thanks for your input guys, I think I may stick with sfp after all, maybe just get something with dialling  turrets  for any plinking