Also, is first focal plane have a better advantage?
First focal plane (F1) I find is very useful IF you have correction tables or graphs in MOA (or MIL) as the stadia (etc) references remain accurate regardless of what power (a variable) scope is set at.
Otherwise an
F2 scope's reticule references varies w/ magnification setting. So, to overcome that you either have to "dial" the E/W knobs for the appropriate off-set (assuming you have off-set charts or tables calibrated in (INCHES) AND your scope tracks reliably...and many DO NOT), OR just "SWAG" the hold-off.
NOTE: One can use the reticule on F2 scopes for accurate hold-off, but only AFTER MOA has been correlated to the reticule at the various ranges. That way a reticule, e.g., a duplex, can very accurately be used to establish exact hold-off (important if no followup shot is likely available).
One of the disadvantages of the F1 reticule is the thickness of the crosshairs "blooms" with the power setting. This can be problematic at the higher magnification settings, which can handicap the shooter if the crosshairs obscure the target - especially small varmints and long range.
My SHV Nightforce (F1) scope's (MOAR) reticule is sufficient for small varmints to the relatively modest 14x max power setting. And that scope (or another F1 scope) might be just the right combination of modest magnification and limited range of a 17 caliber.
That's my theory, and I'm sticking toit!
PS:
That said, for my long range varmint/target AR upper, I have a fine duplex reticule in the Nikon Monarch F2 5x25x50 BECAUSE really discriminating target work at long range won't tolerate "blooming" crosshairs.
Summary (IMO): Modest ranges = F1 as long as target is NOT obscured significantly (some scopes are better than others). F2 for very fine/small targets at long range and high power settings.
.
.