Rifle Scopes Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

[Hawk45]

Most of the FFP vs SFP discussions have guys saying that FFP is what they prefer. Having all SFP optics, I wanted to know if anyone has gone FFP and decided it wasn't for them. If you prefer SFP over FFP, what factors made you decide to go back to SFP optics? Or have you found that a combination of FFP and SFP optics work best for you depending on the applications?

Cheers,
Hawk

 

[insectguy]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

I have both, and although I do prefer the ffp, I have decided future purchases don't have to have ffp (i.e., for me, it's not worth the extra money).

 

[glock24]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

I learned that FFP in smaller magnification scopes isn't much fun.

I wish my 2.5-10x42mm IOR was SFP. I also wish USO would make their 1.8-10x44mm in SFP. In this mag range, 10x would be used 99% of the time the ranging reticle needs to be used.

If only Nightforce's 2.5-10x32mm had a bit bigger objective (at least 40mm) I would have just kept that scope.

For me, a top end mag range of 10-12x needs SFP, 15x could go both ways, but starts to favor FFP, and anything 20x or above should have FFP all the way.

In general, both systems have their place. It isn't as easy as FFP vs. SFP.

 

[jeffersonv]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

No, but I've gone SFP and decided it wasn't for me.

 

[LSOSGT1109]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

I can definitely live without it! I range with an LRF 99 percent of the time and pretty much always dial elevation and wind so it really doesn't help me much. My main optic, Vortex Razor 5-20, if FFP but honestly if it came in a SFP I would have probably got it instead.

 

[Prairie Dog Dundee]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

I now own three FFP mil/mil scopes and won't go back. To me the most value of the FFP is when it is coupled with mil adjustments so that what you see is what you dial.

 

[High Binder]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

It's a personal decision. I learned in SFP and thus only use SFP scopes... Cheaper too.


Find out what works for you and go with it. Everyone's opinion is just that...

 

[Adam B]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

for me, a lot has to do with what reticle is in the scope, some reticles are useless in FFP at lower magnification levels. I preferrer FFP because I always forget to compensate if I am not on the highest power in SFP for ranging. I think in the end it comes down to personal preference, try both and then decide for yourself, both have the +/-

 

[beretta_man11]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

I have a couple of each. Like stated above, I almost always have my rangefinder on hand. It is a nice feature but I would rather save a little money and I haven't had a situation where I HAD to have FFP.

It has it's ups and down i guess... Plus side is the incriments are always the same, downside on mine was it completely covered my 2"x2" square i was shooting at 500yds

 

[5RWill]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: insectguy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have both, and although I do prefer the ffp, I have decided future purchases don't have to have ffp (i.e., for me, it's not worth the extra money).</div></div>

+1 I love my USO SN-3 and it has spoiled me, being my first FFP scope i would love to have one just like it on all my rifles. My next scope purchase will be for my SPR and i had initially wanted a FFP, but i've realized i don't exactly "have" to have FFP and am going to go with a leupy MK4 M2 2.5-8x36mm. Most people dislike the low end magnification of FFP scopes but i like using my SN-3 on 3.2 sometimes the FOV seems to be bigger and i don't have much trouble seeing the crosshairs, but that being said i'm young and for the most part still have my eyesight, i'm sure my opinion will change in years to come.

 

[TimK]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

I borrowed a Schmidt Bender for a few months and found I don't care for FFP. I was distracted by the reticle changing size, and I particularly didn't like it getting thicker at higher magnifications. I don't use a reticle to range ever, so I prefer SPF.

 

[Goin'Hot]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

I can't say I WON'T buy anymore SFP scopes. I much prefer the FFP but, the cost is a factor. If the price was the same, I would only buy FFP.

 

[Nocalphoenix]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

I think the matching reticle with adjustments is the biggest feature for me but all my match and big game hunting rigs run FFP, I like to be able to take a shot by either dialing it or holding with the reticle without having to worry about magnification.

I do run SFP on all of my varmint rifles, its far more static, I use the laser to range and a thick reticle covers to much of my tiny targets. My favorite reticle is a thin crosshair with a single target dot.

 

[aggiesig]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

If you need a fine reticle at high magnification you should definitely go SFP, as the FFP scopes increase the size of the reticle with magnification.

Different tools for different jobs. You can pound a nail in with a wrench, but it's not "the best" tool for that job.

 

[steve123]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hawk45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Most of the FFP vs SFP discussions have guys saying that FFP is what they prefer. Having all SFP optics, I wanted to know if anyone has gone FFP and decided it wasn't for them. If you prefer SFP over FFP, what factors made you decide to go back to SFP optics? Or have you found that a combination of FFP and SFP optics work best for you depending on the applications?

Cheers,
Hawk

</div></div>

I had owned many SFP scopes over the years.

I bought my first FFP scope a little over 3 years ago.To me the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.Since then I've traded,bought,sold and connived my way into better and better FFP mil/mil scopes.I love them!The less I have to think about stuff the better,other wise in the heat of competition I end up forgetting I'm shooting a SFP and screw up with the mag setting,holdovers,holdoffs.I only have a Leupold 45X,NF 2.5-10 LV reticle(specific purposes)and NF 5.5-22 mil/mil left as far as SFP scopes.Anybody want to trade a NF 5.5-22 MIL/MLR for a FFP IOR 3-18x50 or Razor!?

 

[dcjs]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

FFP is <span style="font-weight: bold">not</span> mainly about ranging. Being able to range at any magnification setting is a minor advantage of FFP.

Its not about square ranges in sunshine and having all the time in the world to check settings, use gadgets and do math.

FFP is about windage and elevation holds, leads, spotting misses for yourself or your partner and correcting for misses. And it's about doing all of this quickly and reliably at any magnification that conditions force you to use, in situations where the least thing you need is having to check yet another setting of your equipment in order not to mess up at the decisive moment.

Bottom line is, it's a tool for a specific job that offers a margin for human error in situations where human error is very much possible. If you can either afford to make mistakes or have the time and conditions necessary to ensure you don't make mistakes, you don't need it. If your application demands, for whatever reason, that you put reliability first, you will likely want to use it.

 

[Dave308]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

I'm ready to pull the trigger on a Vortex Viper PST 6-24x50, but I can't decide on whether to get it in SFP or FFP. Yes, I've read the FAQ about the differences between the two, but it didn't clarify my choice much, except that FFP is great for ranging and holds. I'm only using my rifle for bench and prone shooting at the range, and don't see myself getting into tactical competition shooting. Is there any benefit whatsoever to using FFP for my kind of shooting?

edit: Just read the above post. Very informative. Thank you, David S!

 

[BCP]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm ready to pull the trigger on a Vortex Viper 6-24x50, but I can't decide on whether to get it in SFP or FFP.</div></div>

If you don't want to spend a ton get the regular viper with a mildot, it's 450 or so.

Personally I will be getting the 6-24 FFP mil mil if/when they are ever readily available.

 

[ZackOwns]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

I've had both and love my FFP. but I PREFER a fixed 10x

 

[Dave308]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm ready to pull the trigger on a Vortex Viper 6-24x50, but I can't decide on whether to get it in SFP or FFP.</div></div>

If you don't want to spend a ton get the regular viper with a mildot, it's 450 or so.

Personally I will be getting the 6-24 FFP mil mil if/when they are ever readily available. </div></div>
Sorry, I meant to type Vortex Viper PST 6-24 mil/mil.

 

[dcjs]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

One other thing apart from the practical application of the reticle is POI change in SFP scopes.

Variable magnification SFP scopes <span style="font-weight: bold">will</span> change POI depending on magnification until someone figures out how to eliminate any and all tolerances from mechanical parts. Again, if you only shoot for maximum accuracy at the highest power, this effect will likely be negligible, because the POI change is repeatable if the scope isn't a complete POS. The better the quality of the scope, the smaller the deviation will likely be, but so far I only vaguely remember having seen one manufacturer publish numbers for this and guarantee a maximum deviation at all (Hensoldt with 0.1mrad maximum deviation throughout the magnification range for SFP scopes). It's very hard for the end user to check for this, and I think it's unlikely that you can expect greater accuracy from a product that doesn't specify a tolerance at all. So maybe you are trading the impression of being able to shoot more accurately due to a thinner reticle for an error that is far bigger than what not being able to aim just as small because of a "fat" FFP reticle would cause.
Again, this may or may not have practical consequences depending on the individual scope and use, but it's just one more possible variable that can be eliminated with FFP.

 

[nfoley]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

I prefer the fixed reticle of the SFP myself. Had 2 similar scopes with only difference being one was SFP and the other FFP. I ended up selling the FFP and keeping the SFP. I am not trying to say they are better by any means, I just liked the finer reticle at higher magnification. Just depends on your use of the scope.

 

[gstaylorg]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

Just picked up an NF 3.5-15x50 F1 MLR2 reticle this past Monday. Had it out twice...it's AWESOME. Now I wish my other 3.5-15 and 5.5-22 were F1 with the MLR2. Nuff said.

 

[ccoker]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

usage should define need

for higher magnification and longer distances I definitely prefer FFP/Mil/Mil

I tried 2 1-4s with FFP and didn't like it because the hashmarks disappeared at the lower settings and for the distances I would typically use a 1-4 I don't really feel a need to have holdover points as I run 200-225 yard zero

 

[blurry6]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

Both FFP & SFP play a role in my shooting, and I couldn't live without having both,... OK, I guess I could LIVE without having both, but you get my meaning.

I have mostly FFP scopes, but also a few SFP scopes that fit the bill when I need them. The FFP scopes are my bread-n'-butter scopes that I use for ranging (read: RARELY, only when I'm not using my Swaro range-finder) but are mostly used for hold-overs - works great! I like to be able to adjust magnification and parallax in tandem to get the best sight-picture for my particular target and don't like to worry about having to be at a pre-defined magnification in order to utilize an MLR/MOA reticule for hold-overs.

I put the SFP's on my rifles when I'm doing load development at the range. All of my SFP's have very fine (thin) reticules and high magnification (36x and up) which allows me to hold extremely tight POA so that my groups are as small as possible i.e. I try to minimize the amount of impact-shift due to variations in my POA when developing loads. I'll invariably swap them out for one of my FFP's once I have a good load worked up and am happy with the way the rifle's shooting.

For me it's not one or the other, they both have a place.

Ryan

 

[jeffersonv]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FFP is <span style="font-weight: bold">not</span> mainly about ranging. Being able to range at any magnification setting is a minor advantage of FFP.

Its not about square ranges in sunshine and having all the time in the world to check settings, use gadgets and do math.

FFP is about windage and elevation holds, leads, spotting misses for yourself or your partner and correcting for misses. And it's about doing all of this quickly and reliably at any magnification that conditions force you to use, in situations where the least thing you need is having to check yet another setting of your equipment in order not to mess up at the decisive moment.

Bottom line is, it's a tool for a specific job that offers a margin for human error in situations where human error is very much possible. If you can either afford to make mistakes or have the time and conditions necessary to ensure you don't make mistakes, you don't need it. If your application demands, for whatever reason, that you put reliability first, you will likely want to use it. </div></div>

I keep posting this same thing but I think people don't want to be confused with this 'extra' information to add to what they already 'know' about FFP.

I keep reading "FFP is for ranging" time and again.

I also read about how people don't like FFP because it doesn't support their bench rest shooting as well as they would like.
Well, I understand that but this is Sniper's Hide, not some bench rest site.
Maybe this site needs a bench rest section to help sort out the confusion?

I have rifles topped with SFP scopes but they are not designed for combat.
My rifle with the FFP scope is designed for combat which is why it wears a FFP scope, as David S. outlined above.

blurry 6 makes a good point also about the designated magnification setting for the correct sized reticle on a SFP scope might not be what you want at a particular time.

 

[sobrbiker883]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

The FFP reticle does NOT "get bigger" with magnification, SFP's picture gets bigger as FOV increases and reticle stays the same.

Ranging with the reticle is what you do when all else fails.

Holding over the wrong amount of elevation or holding the wrong amount of wind because you forgot you adjusted your magnification never happens with FFP.

If SFP is your cup o' tea, enjoy. It just ain't mine.
I haven't met any one that shoots practical precision rifles that regrets the switch. I know a couple that are still getting use to FFP, but they haven't switched back.

 

[Advokaten]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

In any real shooting, comp or other,

the FFP-scopes are just so much easiera to use and shoot.

I use both kinds of scopes, the SFP:s are just for hunting, and then I use a balistic reticle..

/Chris

 

[JAAM12]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

I have both types. My MIL/MIL ER Mk4 was my first FFP scope. I wanted at less one FFP scope so that I could learn how to use one. I also have the SFP stuff (ss10x, Mk4s), however, I think the matching reticles and ajustments are the most important features for both types. You need at less one FFP scope just in case you want to do the comp thing or go to war.

John

 

[JFComfort]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

I've been using a SFP rifle scope for long range shooting and matches. I've been making it work but look forward to eventually moving over to FFP.

 

[Bronco]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

I'm in the both have their place camp. Run FFP for tactical comps and some hunting. SFP for F-class and some hunting. No reason to spend the extra bucks on a scope that stays at max power on a fixed range all day. As said by many, matching turrets and reticle are as important.

After getting my first SN-3 I thought this is the only way to go, but soon found I liked SFP Nightforce for F-class, fixed range stuff. Haven't had any issues swithcing back and forth between the two systems as both are moa reticle and knobs.

 

[RollinCoal11]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gstaylorg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just picked up an NF 3.5-15x50 F1 MLR2 reticle this past Monday. Had it out twice...it's AWESOME. Now I wish my other 3.5-15 and 5.5-22 were F1 with the MLR2. Nuff said. </div></div>

That's the one I'm getting. That MLR2 reticle looks like one of the best ones out there

 

[Snipers]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

FFP has its advantages - which has already been discussed in some depth. However, I believe the NF 5.5-22X SFP has been used by American troops in combat. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Few would argue the precision, quality, and durability that any NF SFP embodies.

I own both FFP and SFP scopes. I feel the advantages that one has over the other are a bit overstated. For example, holdover and ranging is nearly impossible to do at the lower magnification on a FFP scope. In addition, holdover is unnecessary at 200 yards or less. At distances greater than 200 yards, 22X NF isn't much of a problem except for possible mirage. The NF will range/holdover at 22X, which eliminates the possibility of error - just twist it all the way to the right.

In the FFP defense - the reticles have improved in design to the point where high magnification allows for precise shot placement.

The truth is a lot of us are not snipers or shooting this kind of competition. Therefore we don’t experience the advantages of FFP. Shooting in an F-class scenario creates some ambivalence to FFP.

FFP makes the most sense for sniper work, but the overall quality of the optic will dictate its combat effectiveness.

 

[Graham]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

The questions to ask about FFP are:

1. Do I need it?
2. Can I afford it?

That should make your mind up for you.

 

[Redbeard80]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

The first time my friend and I where shooting at 1000 yards I was useing Razor for spotting his shots I told him to hold 1mil left but it wasn't working he would missed again then I rememberd his loupold is sfp and his mills where not true on his power setting he had it on, it drove me nuts. With that said if it is on the right power setting its fine ,but I will take the FFP every time for long range don't have to worry about it.

 

[bm11]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

I tried SFP one time. That was enough. FFP for me.

 

[JRose]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

I don't care for a SFP scope in anything but a 1-4x

 

[Graham]

Re: Anyone go FFP and decide it wasn't for them?

I still shoot the comps with a SFP scope. Not that it's better, just that I don't have a need for FFP for more than one or two stages per match.