• Frank's Lesson's Contest

    We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!

    Create a channel Learn more
  • Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

Rifle Scopes FFP or Not??

Re: FFP or Not??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Glocksteady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If I am shooting precision shots, at 1 target, how does FFP benefit me. If I am trying to shoot MOA at 1000-2000 yards, can it help me? How can it help me? Would there be any drawback to using an SFP for this purpose or do I really need an FFP?</div></div>

For your intended purpose it really wouldn't be beneficial. As stated repeatedly FFP really shines when engaging targets with different magnification settings. It allows you to just know your holds and use them regardless of power settings.

Also if you are shooting with someone where one of you has SFP and the other FFP you have to make sure the shooter with SFP is at the right power otherwise calling corrections becomes an exercise in frustration. Which sounds relatively straightfoward but it can bite you in the butt if you aren't paying attention.
 
Re: FFP or Not??

I HATE math! I thought it was the FFP reticle that got smaller as you zoomed in or out. Jesus! I researched the crap out of all of this before I bought my scope. I read countless FFP vs SFP threads ( none of which caused me near the headaches as this).

I want to be able to range well. I need bifocal glasses. If the subtensions get closer together, I will have trouble reading them with the sliver of reading area on my no line lenses. I mean sliver at the very bottom of the lens. I look through the top corner to see through my scope. I am worried that if I shoot without glasses, I will take away from my max usable range on my scope.

Also, if I go FFP, will the reticle crosshairs cover a 16" target? When I do squeeze the trigger, probably on a Schmidt & Bender, I want the scope that will work the best for 1000-2000 yards. I watched the Magpul Art of the Precision Rifle and am inspired. My God these guys are amazing.

I will get a semi 7.62 platform someday and will put an FFP on it. I just think an SFP, for 1000-2000 yard shots with a .338 would be a better set up for long range precision.

Thanks for your patience and not ripping apart my posts line by line like my buddy from New York. I want the best set up, you know, buy once, cry once. .338 is serious coin! Why do you think FFP would be the ideal scope for this use? Would there be any conceivable drawback? I will get an AR for fast movers and multiple stampeding deer inside of 1000. I have an AR-15 but would not want to utilize it past 300 yards as I believe 7.62 would be better.

And for the Coyote.....
1. SFP or FFP for 2000 yard precision shot with .338 Lapua.
2. How to engage stampeding deer, targets, or aggressors, while wearing my bifocals and trying to see narrowly spaced has marks in reticles of low magnification of FFP.

Thanks again for your patience Ty.
 
Re: FFP or Not??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fdkay</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are ALWAYS going to dial in your adjustments, then you can use the SFP just fine.

Holdovers and wind leads on a sfp scope are different at different powers.

An advantage of the SFP scope is the reticle size remains the same, so if you have it turned down to 4x, it looks the same and is easier to see.

I still have both, but only because I can't afford to change all of my scopes to FFP.

Personally, I believe that it is well worth the money to upgrade.

Just a word of caution, some folks have reported VERY short battery life with the vortex pst scopes (even when turned off).

You may want to consider the weaver 3-15 ffp illuminated scope. </div></div>

i agree. my first FFP scope is a 6-24 pst and i love it. really useful for movers. i like a lot of power and mine is really clear even at 24x definitely worth the money. the weaver is also good but i think the vortex is way better.
 
Re: FFP or Not??

i do a lot of hunting and i just dont think that illumination is a must ive only used it once on a night hog hunt. where i live hunting at night is not legal so kinda pointless. if u are hunting at night all the time or sniping ppl at night i can see where it is beneficial
 
Re: FFP or Not??

Yeah I got the Vortex 6-24 SFP but I don't shoot movers and stuff. It is a really nice scope. It should serve me well as I learn long range shooting. I hope to be worthy of a .338 with a S&B in a couple of years. It sure would help with these Oklahoma winds.
 
Re: FFP or Not??

FFP reticles appear to change size, but they are always the same in correlation with the size of the target. If it covers 1.3 mils at 20x, it will cover 1.3 mils at 5x. Yes the subtentions get closer, but the target smaller too.
For max range shots, SFP is usually ideal, until mirage starts kicking up. It is still doable, but it requires math, or dialing, instead of holding.
For the closer range shots, scopes with lower mags usually have bolder reticles.Scopes such as the 3-9 SS, have nice heavy reticle that are easy to read on the fly.
As far as shooting with bifocals go, I am not there...yet. I would experiment with the diopter setting and try shooting with out them. But that might lead to parallax error that may not be able to be overcome. Contacts or shooting glasses might be able also help.
 
Re: FFP or Not??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: billyburl2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As far as shooting with bifocals go, I am not there...yet.</div></div>

LOL rub it in.

I do understand how the subtensions values remain the same. I just can't see them as well on lower mag and since I am doing long range work rather than tactical, I thought SFP was better do to thinner crosshairs at very long range. Todd Hodnett did discuss the thick or heavy reticle and from my experience, I can certainly see that. I have not shot at a dark target at long range but I don't think the illuminated reticle in the PST will be bright enough. The thin reticle is hard to see on darker targets though. I wouldn't want to have to hunt for it in a fast multiple shot scenario. "Engaging multiple targets at different distances under time constraints - like in competition."
 
Re: FFP or Not??

To be fair. I think I just got chapped cause a guy asks about a hunting scope for a 2 shot (hopefully), scenario, and people tell him to spend extra money he may not have for a feature he likely won't need. Might as well tell him he needs illumination too.
 
Re: FFP or Not??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Glocksteady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good God!

1. I don't know why you are pretending to have such a low opinion of yourself yet again in this thread. My post was only a joke.

Your feigned innocence does not hide your antagonistic attitude. Have the balls to stand behind what you say. It obviously was meant to discredit, patronize me.

2. Your post doesn't really make sense to me, as you talk about sfp scopes not being off much on their sub tensions on different powers, yet if it is set at 20x and you dial down to 5x, it will be off by a factor of 4!

I never said the subtensions were off. You can not range a small target as effectively on low magnifications. 1.3 subtensions at 20x is a hell of a lot easier to make out than on 5x. As I stated earlier, Graham is right. FFP is useful when engaging multiple targets at different distances under time constraints - like in competition. Not ranging.

3. You also say how it must be so hard to measure something 12x6" at one high power vs another, when it's about the same.

I never said this. Please refer to point 2 above.

4. Then you talk about how you would use other weapons to kill people getting progressively closer to you, and don't advise a bolt gun for such work, when this has nothing to do with the topic.

The uses for FFP has everything to do with this topic. They really shine on semi auto weapons as opposed to bolt guns. Again, to quote Graham, "FFP is useful when engaging multiple targets at different distances under time constraints - like in competition". I don't think you can argue that a semi auto weapon with 10 or more rounds would not be better than a Remington 700 with 5 rounds for shooting multiple moving deer, targets, or people.

5. The meme is from a movie where a respondent gives a detailed response to a question, but fails to convey any real usable answers. Don't be so hard on yourself.

Meme is from the Greek word mimeme, they didn't have movies. They only one being hard on me is you, trying to twist my words with little to no thought as to what I am saying. I personally wonder about anyone who uses the word. You must be a bundle of joy to hang out with.

6. For example, what does anything in this entire paragraph actually mean?

"I just don't see how one can accurately range a 9" x 6" target at less than max magnification with an FFP. The differences in subtensions are EXTREMELY small at 24x with an SFP at any real distance. I can not imagine how accurately you could read them at 12x with the FFP."
Refer to point 2.

I hope you enjoyed this little pissing match. It's apparent you were joking and your just an obnoxious person. Your disdain for me is obvious but don't twist my words around to make them appear as though they have no credence.</div></div>



LOL. Yes, I clearly just hate you, I CLEARLY have such DISDAIN even though you are just a random person who joined a forum I belong to a few days ago. It's clearly not that your post didn't make sense, it's that I am antagonistic and have no balls. I guess in your opinion it really takes balls to not back down in an argument online. It's kind of funny to see that you are dramatically trying to insult me as if to show how tough you are, after revealing how thin your skin is by flipping out at a simple joke!

The truth is though, that your post didn't make much sense, and that I made a joke out of it. I didn't realize you would take it so personally, I'll make sure not to make a joke near you again. Now I'll just break down exactly why I implied your post doesn't make any sense.

I'll just cover this quote again, so you see where I'm coming from:
"I just don't see how one can accurately range a 9" x 6" target at less than max magnification with an FFP. The differences in subtensions are EXTREMELY small at 24x with an SFP at any real distance. I can not imagine how accurately you could read them at 12x with the FFP."

If your max magnification is 20x, and because of the FOV is too small for your target, you might dial down to say, 12x. "I just don't see how one can accurately range a 9" x 6" target at less than max magnification"
Why not? With FFP it is literally the EXACT same process. Snipers have been ranging targets out to 1000 meters or so for a long time with 10x scopes. Why do you need to be at maximum zoom to range? With 15x the picture would be 50% bigger... At 1000m, it would be like looking at a 9" target ~75m away, and holding a ruler up to it. Of course this really isn't the point of a FFP scope. You would leave the magnification all the way up to range a small target far out, unless mirage was too much, then you might decrease the mag.

If you had said something like 'I can't see well enough to range smaller targets at anything less than 20x at very long distances, so I can't see the use in dialing down the magnification." then I could understand what you were saying. Is this what you meant? Because you said you don't know how someone can range a small target with anything less than whatever the max zoom on their scope was. This statement doesn't make any sense really, because if their scope went up to 30x, how can you not understand that ranging at 20x is possible?

"The differences in subtensions are EXTREMELY small at 24x with an SFP at any real distance."

Again, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?? I really don't know. When you say something is different, it is different from SOMETHING ELSE. Two is greater than one, red is different than blue. Not 'Two is greater' or 'the difference between red is extremely small'. This is why I don't understand what you're saying.

Maybe you're saying that the spaces between the mildots are very small on 24x, but they aren't, they are huge! Or are you saying that if the scope is set up for 20x ranging, and you use 24x to range, the differences in the size of the subtensions are extremely small between the two magnifications? If that is what you're saying, I again do not agree, because that is a 20% difference which is huge.

"I can not imagine how accurately you could read them at 12x with the FFP."
Pretty much more of the same, here I'm guessing you mean at extreme ranges? Because ranging a 9" target at 100m-600m is really easy at 12x, as long as you know the size of your target and have a steady rest.

In all honesty, I did not know what you were talking about in your post. When I tried to figure out what you were saying, the detail in what was written was vague enough that I couldn't decide which one you intended to communicate. When I assumed you meant either one, I disagreed completely with what you were saying, so I made a joke about it. Obviously you didn't see the movie, it's not something to get upset over.


And sorry to again disagree, but according to dictionary.com...
meme&#8194; &#8194;[meem]
noun
a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes.
 
Re: FFP or Not??

I just thought to revisit this thread. I see that you are still tossing around which way to go.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Glocksteady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I HATE math!</div></div>
This is a good reason to buy FFP.

As another guy above stated if you have bad mirage (doesn't matter which state you live in you will have mirage at these distances) dialing from say 25x down to 22x is much better than going down to half power (in this case 12.5x). Also, it takes around 21 mil (75 MOA) of elevation to get a 338 Lapua to 2000 yards. If you run out of elevation travel, you can add holdover at any magnification with a FFP scope.

You keep referring to both 338 and spending S&B type money. I regularly shoot my DTA 338 out to 2130 yards. I have used a SFP 5.5-22 Night Force, a 5-20 SS FFP, and currently a 3-24 March F FFP so I am offering advice specific to your intended application.

If I were in your situation, and wanted to shoot a 338 out to 2000 yards I would figure out what my budget was. If it is under $2000 then the choice is fairly easy with a 5.5-22 NF. If your budget is $3500 (that is S&B range) then you would be foolish to buy any scope in SFP.

Why? Because you are going to learn a lot real quick when you start to go that far and your tastes in what YOU think is the right equipment will change dramatically. It is easy to sell a Nightforce for $150 dollar loss. If you have a $3500 scope in SPF you will be stuck with it unless you want to take a huge loss. No one wants a SFP S&B (why do you think that is?)

If you decide to spend the $3500, look through a bunch of the top tier FFP brands and see which reticle you like at full magnification (you will rarely come off max for your application). Next make sure the scope you select has at least 28 mil or 100 MOA of elevation travel. My 338 takes between 22-23.5 mil to get to 2130 yards depending on the density altitude. I run out of elevation at 20.9 mil with my March (has 28 mil of travel) and a 30 MOA base, so I always have to hold over and the FFP makes this worry free.

You are asking for advise but not really listening. By saying this, I mean no disrespect to you at all, simply offering advice on what I have learned and use.
 
Re: FFP or Not??

Question? S&B P4F FFP. Can you accurately shoot (bench rest style) targets at 100 yards with a 5x25 on 25x or their 12x50 on 50x or would the cross hair be too thick at this close and cover the target causing you not to be able to shoot tight groups?
 
Re: FFP or Not??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jpspeeddemon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i jut got my first ffp scope, i prefer it over a sfp scope any day. Follow up shots are much easier. </div></div>

Of course you do. So do I. Who wouldn't?

Point is sometimes the extra cost isn't worth it. Many shooters just don't need a FFP scope.
 
Re: FFP or Not??

The P4F line thickness is .03 mils or .1" at 100 yards. It works fine at 25x as it does at any other power as the FFP reticle subtends the same amount on any power.
 
Re: FFP or Not??

For those wanting to try a FFP MIL/MIL scope without spending mega bucks. Both Millet and BSA (yes BSA) have a model in the $300 range.

BSA's can be found at Midway for $249, has 22 reviews and a rating of 4.5 out of 5 stars.

I haven't tried either of these scopes but the reviews are pretty good so far.

BSA Tactical Mil-Mil Rifle Scope 30mm Tube 4-14x 44mm Side Focus 1/10 Mil Adjustments First Focal MRAD Reticle Matte

Good luck and happy shooting,
 
Re: FFP or Not??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fireguyty</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just thought to revisit this thread. I see that you are still tossing around which way to go. </div></div>

No offense at all Ty. You are very helpful and not calling me a blathering idiot. I've been watching the Magpul DVDs, " Art of the Precision Rifle". I like the idea of holding over to extend the capabilities of the scope. I like the idea of the Horus reticle so you can hold elevation & windage and not have to hold out in space. I can see where dialing will run out of elevation and holding over becomes necessary for long range shooting.

I hate having a .308. It is like having a bicycle with training wheels. It is saving me ALOT of money as I learn and practice. I can't wait to graduate to a .338 in the future. These guys in the DVDs are getting headshots consistently on their second shots out to a mile with the .308.. I'm learning a lot about reading wind and holding on the inside edge to allow for a misread. I know the .338 will minimize the wind but at 2130, I'm sure you are still dealing with it. I think my next purchase will be a PDA & the ATRAG software. Todd Hodnett is pretty amazing.

Do you like the March scopes better than the S&Bs? Why?

Never mind. Reading your march scope thread now. Really jealous about the Eberlestock. Been saving for one of those too.
 
Re: FFP or Not??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Glocksteady</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think my next purchase will be a PDA & the ATRAG software. </div></div>

Sounds like you are progressing in this addiction nicely. That is good to hear!

While I have no experience with the above mentioned product, I can say that the Iphone or Droid application called "Shooter" is only $9.99 and is a hell of a tool. Litz has most of the bullets he has tested, and unlike any other ballistic calculator that I have used, it allows adjustments that make the dope match up with what you are getting in real life.

Take care.