Thread: SFP or FFP

Why do you say that Philipo? I would have thought that there is more benefits to ffp than negatives. Don't have to use full power to get subtensions to work seems like a big bonus to me. The reticle is smaller at low mag is that the only issue?

Originally Posted by 300wsm for life

Why do you say that Philipo? I would have thought that there is more benefits to ffp than negatives. Don't have to use full power to get subtensions to work seems like a big bonus to me. The reticle is smaller at low mag is that the only issue?

When you dial up the magnification the reticle becomes huge. At low magnification the reticle is often very hard to see, particularly when in low light. The manufacturer has to try and find a reasonable compromise on size somewhere.

I have a diallable FFP scope and its easier to use than my SFP ones. That's for hunting too.

FFP gives the choice of dialling or holdover interchangeably. You won't dial every long shot. I find it hard to holdover in inches or cm but mils are great which means a FFP Scope.

The fine reticle at low power is a nuisance . So dont go past 4X Zoom range on a hunting scope.

Most of my scopes are SFP, but have got s couple of FFP. All for hunting. One way to get around the too thin or too thick reticle which are a draw back on FFP is to get one with illum reticle. This solves the too thin at 3x or 4x problem - especially for bush hunting. I'm not a fan of the illum Xmas tree style reticles but a fire dot or illum x at centre is superb.

If you have the right reticle FFP is the way to go for a rifle you'll use for hunting and banging steel at varying distances.
While pest shooting there has been many times I've missed with the first, spotted my shot placement and taken a very quick second shot that has connected using the FFP reticle.
This of course is possible with a SFP scope but usually with anything under max power your follow up shot will be off especially if it is at some distance.

Some reticle subtensions are simply too big in FFP, from my reading and some experience, eg early Weaver FFP scopes.

With some manufacturers a claimed FFP reticle was a way for lower to medium class/type/manufactured tolerance levels/ to jump on the "Tactical" band wagon, a lot of these scopes don't track correctly or the reticles are shite for precise placement and are found out very quickly and don't last too long or simply aren't bought
I'm not really bashing weaver, I think their original Grand Slam hunting scopes were the equal of or better than many brands[ Leupy] in an upper price bracket at the time.

The advantages of FFP have already been clearly documented in above posts in a better way than I could , however I stress if you wish a dual purpose you have to make sure the reticle on the FFP your looking at is suitable.

If you are simply shooting constantly at known distances a SFP scope will save money and will not be a disadvantage.

If your a Bush hobbit get a cheap SFP. I recommend Weaver.

Cheers for all the info it has helped a lot. Not a bush hobbit. However I do hunt bush, river clearings and tops all with the one rifle. So my shooting is from 15-400 mtrs and with the new scope want to comfortably shoot to 500. Am thinking the vx5 hd with windplex reticle suits my needs. Going to inspect one on the weekend plus some others.

Originally Posted by 300wsm for life

Cheers for all the info it has helped a lot. Not a bush hobbit. However I do hunt bush, river clearings and tops all with the one rifle. So my shooting is from 15-400 mtrs and with the new scope want to comfortably shoot to 500. Am thinking the vx5 hd with windplex reticle suits my needs. Going to inspect one on the weekend plus some others.

We all hunt bush that's how we all got children

Originally Posted by 300wsm for life

Why do you say that Philipo? I would have thought that there is more benefits to ffp than negatives. Don't have to use full power to get subtensions to work seems like a big bonus to me. The reticle is smaller at low mag is that the only issue?

For targets & gongs, yes they have a place but for average Joe doing average Joe Deer hunting FFP is a pain in the arse, firstly yes the reticle will be small & hard to see at low power & most FFP reticles are tactical fine things anyway. Second, If your'e using a lightweight cannon with decent grunt ( even with a brake ) you'll not going to spot your own shots under 400yards. Funny people go on about adjusting shot's ( especially bunny shooting ) shit if I see the shot go 4" to the right I don't need to get all over complicated, just hold off to the left. Farken bang flop

SPF- Get something with a decent reticle like leupy windplex or Swarvo's 4W ( both excellent by the way ) and you can use their hash line on max power anyway.

Personally all the scopes I use are MOA & SFP, I don't care what people use as long as they humanly kill, but what ever you chose just make sure all your scopes are the same "KISS"

I'm doing homework on a good scope for my 300 win mag custom and so far this one is at the top of the list:XTR II.

Having used only SFP I've never had a issue but for the tops stuff which said scope will be for I definitely can see more merits for FFP than a SFP. Yeah I'll admit there's a bit of; new way to spin it.

Do FFP scopes have an optical advantage over SFP? Thought I read that somewhere. My 'big' scopes are FFP but SFP are a lot nicer to use with a consistent reticle size.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

My understanding of the optical advantage for me of FFP is that there is no reticle movement when changing the power of the scope vs SFP where there is usually some sort of variation of reticle position when changing power. This is also what I have observed when checking scope tracking with a collimator. Pecar made a FFP hunting reticle (#16) which had tapered cross hairs: there was no particular sense of reticle size change when changing the power of the scope (1.5-6x) which is an off-putting aspect of FFP scopes.

About 5 years ago I was at a friend's place when he showed me his Vortex FFP scope. I was intrigued and for the next few years have been looking at FFP scopes and always considered to buy one if the opportunity presents itself. About a year ago the moderator of this forum had a new but opened Vortex FFP up for sell at a very good price of 900. I seriously considered it but in the end decided to give it a miss. Here is my thought process which I thought I would share. Take whatever you may consider useful from it.

1. My understanding is that the point of FFP is that you can use the reticle to range at any magnification. With SFP, you can still use reticle to range, except it will only work consistently at one particular magnification. for example a 4-16 x 50 SFP with markings on its reticles may be designed to range only at 16 magnification and does not work at 10 magnification. So all that FFP saves you is the need to turn the magnification to 16 to range (and maybe turn it back to 10 to shoot, if you so inclined).

2. FFP is probably not useful for target shooting, unless in some specific discipline where real life sniping is mimicked. in most target shooting disciplines you want more magnification and better clarity over ranging functions. you would either already know the distance or free to use a range finder to measure the distance correctly.

3. FFP is probably not useful for hunting either. The idea of FFP is to use a object of known size to work out distance. That object is usually a enemy male soldier, with average height of 175 cm. Male soldier with height 5% outside this average is uncommon (shorter than 166 cm and taller than 183 cm), and 10% outside is very rare ( shorter than 157 cm and taller than 193 cm). So your ranging will be 90% within 5% margin of error and 99.5% within 10% margin of error. However, For hunting, you can easily come across animals of sizes varying 50% or more. Most people cannot tell, through a scope, whether they are looking at a young animal or mature animal, therefore will not be able to estimate the size of the animal they are looking at. I am a novice when it comes to hunting anything bigger than a goat but I have shot thousands of possums. I still cannot tell if I am looking at a young possum or a mature one unless I have killed it and looking at it up close.

4. There is probably no need to range that quickly in hunting anyway. When you hunt, you are not dealing with an enemy who is also actively looking to shoot you back. Therefore if the shot is far enough that you need to range it, you will probably be unseen anyway. You will almost always have enough time to at least turn the magnification of your SFP scope to the range-accurate magnification and range the target (assuming you know the target's size). Better yet, pull out the range finder and do it properly. In other words, the risk of losing the shot by not using FFP in hunting is very low.

If FFP scopes are the same price as SFP and are just as available, I would probably buy FFP, because the cool factor. But as things stand now, FFP are more expensive for the same model and your choices are quite limited. So for me, unless a bargain comes across, I would not buy one.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

1. My understanding is that the point of FFP is that you can use the reticle to range at any magnification. With SFP, you can still use reticle to range, except it will only work consistently at one particular magnification. for example a 4-16 x 50 SFP with markings on its reticles may be designed to range only at 16 magnification and does not work at 10 magnification. So all that FFP saves you is the need to turn the magnification to 16 to range (and maybe turn it back to 10 to shoot, if you so inclined).

Not really. Most SFP scopes have subtentions that equate to easy sizes at multiple magnifications. For my S3 6-24 with LRMOA reticle, at min magnification the hash mark gap is 8 MOA, at max magnification it is 2 MOA. Some quick mental arithmetic will give you the subtension sizes at other magnifications.

Both are excellent not sure what all the fuss is about you can't really go wrong either way. I find ffp excellent if you've done your homework e.g 450 yard target is 6moa - ok third hash mark down (rather thank dialling it in) also generally ffp scope are higher zoom high end scopes where so on which I seldom use it's lowest setting ( say 5 power ) so the smaller crosshair isn't an issue.
Sfp are excellent too, and if you know your scope well enough you can still use the hash marks at lower settings e.g the 2 Moa mark at 22 power will be 4 Moa at 11 power and so forth

Many scopes don't appear to be able to optimise the reticle size change from low to high power in FFP. One that I have been looking at for a long time is the March FML reticle. On the 3-24 it appears to very usable at 3 power with the shrinking of the centre cross down to a focal point and with illumination would be even more so. The outside posts are tapered to that centre point so lead the eyes well. At 24x the detail of the central X is very obvious and allows precision measurement and aiming at small long range targets...

Now I have not yet had the opportunity to see one in the flesh, and am going off the reticle pics, but it appears at face value that this design should work well. I think I would prefer the FML which is a symetrical design rther that the FML-1 which has longer below X hair markings and numbers - at least for a multi-purpose scope...

So it appears that the only FFP disadvantage could be minimised with good reticle design - but perhaps someone who has one could comment...?