im doing a build and the gun needs to double for long range target and normal hunting. i always thought ffp would be the way to go, but i just thought about this: if im gonna shoot a deer thats not very far off and i want the scope on low power, say 3 or 4, i dont want to feel like im looking down a damn tunnel at the animal... in this instance, id rather have a sfp scope where the reticle (appears to) stay the same and i can zoom out for close shots and just use the X. i dont know where i can try out both ffp and sfp scopes to tell, anybody have input on this? thanks
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes ffp or sfp for hunting?
- Thread starter jackh
- Start date
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
dude please.........
long range target guns will require you to have eaten your cheerios for many years and wear a truss whilst schlepping about during your foraging for whatever it is you are hunting.
the hunting glass is pretty much point and click.....most times at low power .....and for the long shots.....maybe some more power.
focal plain got little to do with it
dude please.........
long range target guns will require you to have eaten your cheerios for many years and wear a truss whilst schlepping about during your foraging for whatever it is you are hunting.
the hunting glass is pretty much point and click.....most times at low power .....and for the long shots.....maybe some more power.
focal plain got little to do with it
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
IMO the major drawback to a FFP reticle is that some are almost invisible/unusable at the low power setting. The the FFP reticle to be fine enough at the maximum magnification, they become so small and fine at low power that I can't pick it up quickly (which probably what you will need to do).
IMO the major drawback to a FFP reticle is that some are almost invisible/unusable at the low power setting. The the FFP reticle to be fine enough at the maximum magnification, they become so small and fine at low power that I can't pick it up quickly (which probably what you will need to do).
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
jack,
I've posted this picture before, but here it is again: An IOR 3-18x42mm FFP MIL/MIL @ 3x in the woods, reticle is the MP8 Sniper Hide Special, designed by Hide member John Boyette:
In short it is usable in all but zero dark 30 conditions. If you need a reticle for near dark, get one with illumination.
The heavy posts are what make it effective. This was taken on a heavy overcast day, range about 60 yds. Yes, the center is very fine, but your eye will place your target right where is should be. At least one minute of bambi is all that is required....
jack,
I've posted this picture before, but here it is again: An IOR 3-18x42mm FFP MIL/MIL @ 3x in the woods, reticle is the MP8 Sniper Hide Special, designed by Hide member John Boyette:
In short it is usable in all but zero dark 30 conditions. If you need a reticle for near dark, get one with illumination.
The heavy posts are what make it effective. This was taken on a heavy overcast day, range about 60 yds. Yes, the center is very fine, but your eye will place your target right where is should be. At least one minute of bambi is all that is required....
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
Jack, FFP from what i can tell, is only usefull in tactical situations where you are using a mil based reticle with mil rad turrets.
Even better so if your spotter is using the same reticle in FFP.
For example, a shot is taken and you "x" amount away from target. If you can clearly see that you are say 1 mil high on the target, then you dial .10 x 10 clicks down.
FFP will allow you to utilise your mil reticle and turret combination at any power.
Please if i am wrong someone please clarify this, but this is what i can see as the main advantage of having an FFP reticle.
Im guessing with a SFP reticle if you miss your spotter will tell you by how much and you react quickly by holding over?
Jack, FFP from what i can tell, is only usefull in tactical situations where you are using a mil based reticle with mil rad turrets.
Even better so if your spotter is using the same reticle in FFP.
For example, a shot is taken and you "x" amount away from target. If you can clearly see that you are say 1 mil high on the target, then you dial .10 x 10 clicks down.
FFP will allow you to utilise your mil reticle and turret combination at any power.
Please if i am wrong someone please clarify this, but this is what i can see as the main advantage of having an FFP reticle.
Im guessing with a SFP reticle if you miss your spotter will tell you by how much and you react quickly by holding over?
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Please if i am wrong someone please clarify this, but this is what i can see as the main advantage of having an FFP reticle.
Im guessing with a SFP reticle if you miss your spotter will tell you by how much and you react quickly by holding over?</div></div>
With a FFP you can hold over for movers, wind, and misses at any magnification. With SFP you have to dial unless you're at your golden magnification. In your first scenario if your spotter calls the correction and you dial it then it won't matter if your FFP or SFP.
But, for the OP and hunting, it doesn't sodding matter. As someone prone to chronically overthinking things, I'm here to tell you that life is a lot easier if you just take what you have outside and shoot it some. However carting this thing all over the mountain was not particularly fun, but in my case necessary as I'd loaned out all my lighter guns to friends. And this is a relatively LIGHT rifle compared to a MTU contour on a AI...
If you REALLY want to have 1 rifle do it all and you're concerned about your scope for hunting, just drop $300 on a Vortex 2.5-7 and when deer season comes around swap that out for your SN-9 or whatever. I tell you though, as that sucker came sprinting out of the tree line the last thing on my mind was "hmm, the size of my reticle is not particularly aesthetically pleasing @ 3x"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Please if i am wrong someone please clarify this, but this is what i can see as the main advantage of having an FFP reticle.
Im guessing with a SFP reticle if you miss your spotter will tell you by how much and you react quickly by holding over?</div></div>
With a FFP you can hold over for movers, wind, and misses at any magnification. With SFP you have to dial unless you're at your golden magnification. In your first scenario if your spotter calls the correction and you dial it then it won't matter if your FFP or SFP.
But, for the OP and hunting, it doesn't sodding matter. As someone prone to chronically overthinking things, I'm here to tell you that life is a lot easier if you just take what you have outside and shoot it some. However carting this thing all over the mountain was not particularly fun, but in my case necessary as I'd loaned out all my lighter guns to friends. And this is a relatively LIGHT rifle compared to a MTU contour on a AI...
If you REALLY want to have 1 rifle do it all and you're concerned about your scope for hunting, just drop $300 on a Vortex 2.5-7 and when deer season comes around swap that out for your SN-9 or whatever. I tell you though, as that sucker came sprinting out of the tree line the last thing on my mind was "hmm, the size of my reticle is not particularly aesthetically pleasing @ 3x"
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buffybuster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMO the major drawback to a FFP reticle is that some are almost invisible/unusable at the low power setting. The the FFP reticle to be fine enough at the maximum magnification, they become so small and fine at low power that I can't pick it up quickly (which probably what you will need to do).
</div></div>
ya this is basically what i was thinking about- the reticle being to small and compact to even utilize at low power settings. if you have little hash marks at 10x, theyre gonna be microscopic at 2.5x making them near impossible to count and use. if thats the case, why even bother paying more for a ffp scope? see what i mean?
thanks for the pic of the IOR, i had been looking at that scope and i like that reticle a lot, seems like a pretty versatile one. i was also looking at similar NF with their MLR reticle...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buffybuster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMO the major drawback to a FFP reticle is that some are almost invisible/unusable at the low power setting. The the FFP reticle to be fine enough at the maximum magnification, they become so small and fine at low power that I can't pick it up quickly (which probably what you will need to do).
</div></div>
ya this is basically what i was thinking about- the reticle being to small and compact to even utilize at low power settings. if you have little hash marks at 10x, theyre gonna be microscopic at 2.5x making them near impossible to count and use. if thats the case, why even bother paying more for a ffp scope? see what i mean?
thanks for the pic of the IOR, i had been looking at that scope and i like that reticle a lot, seems like a pretty versatile one. i was also looking at similar NF with their MLR reticle...
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
Jack I think you are missing the point. You aren't going to be using the hash marks on the reticle at 2x. If you are engaging a moving target (deer or whatever) at less than 100 yards, just based on the FOV alone, you would want lower magnification. As my signature says I have a USO SN3 TPAL 1.8-10. I shot a 8 point this year at dark 30 with the scope on 1.8. I had the illumination on, i put the crosshairs on the shoulder and boom flop, deer was down.
The point with a ffp is on lower magnification you won't be using it for holdover, on longer engagements its there at whatever power you need. The sfp scopes only have accurate ranging/holdover capabilities on one power setting.
Jack I think you are missing the point. You aren't going to be using the hash marks on the reticle at 2x. If you are engaging a moving target (deer or whatever) at less than 100 yards, just based on the FOV alone, you would want lower magnification. As my signature says I have a USO SN3 TPAL 1.8-10. I shot a 8 point this year at dark 30 with the scope on 1.8. I had the illumination on, i put the crosshairs on the shoulder and boom flop, deer was down.
The point with a ffp is on lower magnification you won't be using it for holdover, on longer engagements its there at whatever power you need. The sfp scopes only have accurate ranging/holdover capabilities on one power setting.
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blklabs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jack I think you are missing the point. You aren't going to be using the hash marks on the reticle at 2x. If you are engaging a moving target (deer or whatever) at less than 100 yards, just based on the FOV alone, you would want lower magnification. As my signature says I have a USO SN3 TPAL 1.8-10. I shot a 8 point this year at dark 30 with the scope on 1.8. I had the illumination on, i put the crosshairs on the shoulder and boom flop, deer was down.
The point with a ffp is on lower magnification you won't be using it for holdover, on longer engagements its there at whatever power you need. The sfp scopes only have accurate ranging/holdover capabilities on one power setting. </div></div>
Ding, Ding, Ding! ^^^ What he said.
-Pat
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blklabs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jack I think you are missing the point. You aren't going to be using the hash marks on the reticle at 2x. If you are engaging a moving target (deer or whatever) at less than 100 yards, just based on the FOV alone, you would want lower magnification. As my signature says I have a USO SN3 TPAL 1.8-10. I shot a 8 point this year at dark 30 with the scope on 1.8. I had the illumination on, i put the crosshairs on the shoulder and boom flop, deer was down.
The point with a ffp is on lower magnification you won't be using it for holdover, on longer engagements its there at whatever power you need. The sfp scopes only have accurate ranging/holdover capabilities on one power setting. </div></div>
Ding, Ding, Ding! ^^^ What he said.
-Pat
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jackh</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buffybuster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMO the major drawback to a FFP reticle is that some are almost invisible/unusable at the low power setting. The the FFP reticle to be fine enough at the maximum magnification, they become so small and fine at low power that I can't pick it up quickly (which probably what you will need to do).
</div></div>
ya this is basically what i was thinking about- the reticle being to small and compact to even utilize at low power settings. if you have little hash marks at 10x, theyre gonna be microscopic at 2.5x making them near impossible to count and use. if thats the case, why even bother paying more for a ffp scope? see what i mean?
thanks for the pic of the IOR, i had been looking at that scope and i like that reticle a lot, seems like a pretty versatile one. i was also looking at similar NF with their MLR reticle... </div></div>
Jack,
It really is more usable than you may think. If you PM me your email address I'll send you the full size picture of my IOR @ 3x. This shrunk down version above is not a clear as it should be. In the full sized version you can see both the mil and half-mil marks, and that picture is still not as good as through your own eyes. The pictures through a digi camera always leaves out a lot of the best image.
But as the poster said, you won't be ranging at 3x in the deep in the woods @ 60 yds
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jackh</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buffybuster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMO the major drawback to a FFP reticle is that some are almost invisible/unusable at the low power setting. The the FFP reticle to be fine enough at the maximum magnification, they become so small and fine at low power that I can't pick it up quickly (which probably what you will need to do).
</div></div>
ya this is basically what i was thinking about- the reticle being to small and compact to even utilize at low power settings. if you have little hash marks at 10x, theyre gonna be microscopic at 2.5x making them near impossible to count and use. if thats the case, why even bother paying more for a ffp scope? see what i mean?
thanks for the pic of the IOR, i had been looking at that scope and i like that reticle a lot, seems like a pretty versatile one. i was also looking at similar NF with their MLR reticle... </div></div>
Jack,
It really is more usable than you may think. If you PM me your email address I'll send you the full size picture of my IOR @ 3x. This shrunk down version above is not a clear as it should be. In the full sized version you can see both the mil and half-mil marks, and that picture is still not as good as through your own eyes. The pictures through a digi camera always leaves out a lot of the best image.
But as the poster said, you won't be ranging at 3x in the deep in the woods @ 60 yds
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
You know, for many, many years, hunters and target shooters alike used nothing but SFP scopes, because that was pretty much all that was available. It never bothered them.
All of my scopes are SFP, because that is what I have.
I have nothing against FFP scopes, I hope to buy one of the Weaver tactical FFP scopes later next year.
It is all much ado about nothing.
Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
If it is a hunting and range gun, then it does not matter.
Buy what ever tickles your fancy.
If it is a tactical rifle, then the pros of the FFP outweigh the cons.
This is only my humble opinion, I am no expert. I end up researching and buying affordable glass because I have numerous rifles to get glass for, most of the scopes in my price bracket are all SFP.
You know, for many, many years, hunters and target shooters alike used nothing but SFP scopes, because that was pretty much all that was available. It never bothered them.
All of my scopes are SFP, because that is what I have.
I have nothing against FFP scopes, I hope to buy one of the Weaver tactical FFP scopes later next year.
It is all much ado about nothing.
Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
If it is a hunting and range gun, then it does not matter.
Buy what ever tickles your fancy.
If it is a tactical rifle, then the pros of the FFP outweigh the cons.
This is only my humble opinion, I am no expert. I end up researching and buying affordable glass because I have numerous rifles to get glass for, most of the scopes in my price bracket are all SFP.
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blklabs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jack I think you are missing the point. You aren't going to be using the hash marks on the reticle at 2x. If you are engaging a moving target (deer or whatever) at less than 100 yards, just based on the FOV alone, you would want lower magnification. As my signature says I have a USO SN3 TPAL 1.8-10. I shot a 8 point this year at dark 30 with the scope on 1.8. I had the illumination on, i put the crosshairs on the shoulder and boom flop, deer was down.
The point with a ffp is on lower magnification you won't be using it for holdover, on longer engagements its there at whatever power you need. The sfp scopes only have accurate ranging/holdover capabilities on one power setting. </div></div>
no i understand that. when at low power settings, the hash marks are too small to use and you wouldnt be using them at lower power settings. thats why im saying, whats the point?
the main thing im thinking about is feeling like im looking through a tunnel at low power settings when taking short shots with a ffp scope, not that the hashes are too small to use at low power
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blklabs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jack I think you are missing the point. You aren't going to be using the hash marks on the reticle at 2x. If you are engaging a moving target (deer or whatever) at less than 100 yards, just based on the FOV alone, you would want lower magnification. As my signature says I have a USO SN3 TPAL 1.8-10. I shot a 8 point this year at dark 30 with the scope on 1.8. I had the illumination on, i put the crosshairs on the shoulder and boom flop, deer was down.
The point with a ffp is on lower magnification you won't be using it for holdover, on longer engagements its there at whatever power you need. The sfp scopes only have accurate ranging/holdover capabilities on one power setting. </div></div>
no i understand that. when at low power settings, the hash marks are too small to use and you wouldnt be using them at lower power settings. thats why im saying, whats the point?
the main thing im thinking about is feeling like im looking through a tunnel at low power settings when taking short shots with a ffp scope, not that the hashes are too small to use at low power
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
There are advantages to both depending on what you want.
If you just shoot a duplex reticule I see no advantage to FFP. In fact the FFP duplex scopes I've seen the reticule has been WAY too thick at high powers to use for long shots. If all you want is a quick hunting scope with a duplex reticule zero'd at one distance SFP is the way to go. Not to mention much cheaper.
If you shoot a ballistic reticule or mildot then it can have an advantage either way. If it's SFP the ballistic reticule has the advantage of you being able to adjust it by caliber to what you want by using a different power. In addition you can get more range marks by using multiple powers. With FFP the advantage is simply that the hash marks are the same at any power. The individual has to decide which is a better advantage. I prefer the FFP in a mildot or ballistic reticule simply because it's faster and is the same on all powers. Too many times hunting does a person mess with their scope power. I've never liked the ballistic reticules myself simply because they never seem to give me a useful set of ranges for the calibers I shoot. I'd rather have a simple mildot or better yet a low profile adjustable elevation knob.
I see no disadvantage in FFP at low powers, at lower power you aren't going to be using the hash marks and the tunnel effect is completely compensated for by the increased field of view. If you can't stand the extra dark area at lower powers on FFP it's not for you, simple.
The way I see it there's zero downside to having a mildot or ballistic reticule in a hunting scope. Even having one with a quick adjust elevation turret. The big advantage to me is quick hold offs for wind in the case of the mildot. If you want FFP or SFP is really up to the individual.
There are advantages to both depending on what you want.
If you just shoot a duplex reticule I see no advantage to FFP. In fact the FFP duplex scopes I've seen the reticule has been WAY too thick at high powers to use for long shots. If all you want is a quick hunting scope with a duplex reticule zero'd at one distance SFP is the way to go. Not to mention much cheaper.
If you shoot a ballistic reticule or mildot then it can have an advantage either way. If it's SFP the ballistic reticule has the advantage of you being able to adjust it by caliber to what you want by using a different power. In addition you can get more range marks by using multiple powers. With FFP the advantage is simply that the hash marks are the same at any power. The individual has to decide which is a better advantage. I prefer the FFP in a mildot or ballistic reticule simply because it's faster and is the same on all powers. Too many times hunting does a person mess with their scope power. I've never liked the ballistic reticules myself simply because they never seem to give me a useful set of ranges for the calibers I shoot. I'd rather have a simple mildot or better yet a low profile adjustable elevation knob.
I see no disadvantage in FFP at low powers, at lower power you aren't going to be using the hash marks and the tunnel effect is completely compensated for by the increased field of view. If you can't stand the extra dark area at lower powers on FFP it's not for you, simple.
The way I see it there's zero downside to having a mildot or ballistic reticule in a hunting scope. Even having one with a quick adjust elevation turret. The big advantage to me is quick hold offs for wind in the case of the mildot. If you want FFP or SFP is really up to the individual.
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jackh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
no i understand that. when at low power settings, the hash marks are too small to use and you wouldnt be using them at lower power settings. thats why im saying, whats the point?
</div></div>
3-18 magnification doesn't mean it's only usable at 3 and 18. There's lots of space in the middle.
You need to go look through a scope. Your fear of "looking down a tunnel" at low power is so off base that it's difficult to establish common ground from which to hold a discussion.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jackh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
no i understand that. when at low power settings, the hash marks are too small to use and you wouldnt be using them at lower power settings. thats why im saying, whats the point?
</div></div>
3-18 magnification doesn't mean it's only usable at 3 and 18. There's lots of space in the middle.
You need to go look through a scope. Your fear of "looking down a tunnel" at low power is so off base that it's difficult to establish common ground from which to hold a discussion.
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jackh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
no i understand that. when at low power settings, the hash marks are too small to use and you wouldnt be using them at lower power settings. thats why im saying, whats the point?
</div></div>
3-18 magnification doesn't mean it's only usable at 3 and 18. There's lots of space in the middle.
You need to go look through a scope. Your fear of "looking down a tunnel" at low power is so off base that it's difficult to establish common ground from which to hold a discussion.
</div></div>
how is it off base? please correct me if i am wrong, but isnt there a "tunnel" effect to some degree when ffp scopes are at low powers? if this is not true, than forget this thread was ever started, because thats what has me worried...
i started this thread because i saw a through the scope pic on here of an ffp scope and it had a pretty bad tunnel effect. for all i know, it could have just been the way the shooter took that picture and now that it matters, i cant find the picture again.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jackh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
no i understand that. when at low power settings, the hash marks are too small to use and you wouldnt be using them at lower power settings. thats why im saying, whats the point?
</div></div>
3-18 magnification doesn't mean it's only usable at 3 and 18. There's lots of space in the middle.
You need to go look through a scope. Your fear of "looking down a tunnel" at low power is so off base that it's difficult to establish common ground from which to hold a discussion.
</div></div>
how is it off base? please correct me if i am wrong, but isnt there a "tunnel" effect to some degree when ffp scopes are at low powers? if this is not true, than forget this thread was ever started, because thats what has me worried...
i started this thread because i saw a through the scope pic on here of an ffp scope and it had a pretty bad tunnel effect. for all i know, it could have just been the way the shooter took that picture and now that it matters, i cant find the picture again.
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
Don't know what pic you're talking about but if it made you think of a tunnel then I'm guessing either the picture was taken with poor eye relief for the camera or it was a really crappy scope that vignetted horribly at lower power magnifications. Neither have anything to do with FFP.
Don't know what pic you're talking about but if it made you think of a tunnel then I'm guessing either the picture was taken with poor eye relief for the camera or it was a really crappy scope that vignetted horribly at lower power magnifications. Neither have anything to do with FFP.
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
Looking through my ffp vs my sfp, I see no tunnel effect. I think what you were seeing was just bad effects of trying to capture the reticle on camera.
Looking through my ffp vs my sfp, I see no tunnel effect. I think what you were seeing was just bad effects of trying to capture the reticle on camera.
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
Jack,
Send me a PM if you want to look through a FFP scope. I've got an IOR 3x18 FFP and an PH 5x25 FFP. My buddy here has a PH 3x15 you can look at also. I wouldn't say there is any tunnel effect...it is simply at low magnification the reticle appears smaller and at higher magnification it appears larger (even though at any magnification it is the same size relative to the target).
In my opinion, the only way to go is FFP mil-mil. Almost all of us grew up hunting with SFP MOA scopes. Some people can't get away from that, but if you ever do, I don't think you'll want to go back.
It simply comes down to if you don't mind doing math problems everytime you make an adjustment or correction.
For example,
With a FFP mil-mil if you are shooting at something at 432 yards (or whatever) and you miss and see your hit was (according to the hashes in your scope AT ANY MAGNIFICATION).4 mils high and .5 mils left, then you simply reach up and turn your turrets (.1 mil adjustments) 4 clicks down, and 5 clicks right...send it.
If you have a SFP mil/moa then you have to have your scope set at the exact magnification level that it is designed to mil at. Then if you see your hit is .4 mils high and .5 mils left. You must multiply .4 mils by 3.438 and then divide that number by .25 (1/4 MOA adj.) to get the number of clicks to adjust down. Next you have to multiply .5 by 3.438 and then divide that number by .25 to get the number of clicks to adust right....and send it...if it's not too late!
Having the right equipment can make hunting and target shooting much easier and more enjoyable.
Let me know if I can help....
Jack,
Send me a PM if you want to look through a FFP scope. I've got an IOR 3x18 FFP and an PH 5x25 FFP. My buddy here has a PH 3x15 you can look at also. I wouldn't say there is any tunnel effect...it is simply at low magnification the reticle appears smaller and at higher magnification it appears larger (even though at any magnification it is the same size relative to the target).
In my opinion, the only way to go is FFP mil-mil. Almost all of us grew up hunting with SFP MOA scopes. Some people can't get away from that, but if you ever do, I don't think you'll want to go back.
It simply comes down to if you don't mind doing math problems everytime you make an adjustment or correction.
For example,
With a FFP mil-mil if you are shooting at something at 432 yards (or whatever) and you miss and see your hit was (according to the hashes in your scope AT ANY MAGNIFICATION).4 mils high and .5 mils left, then you simply reach up and turn your turrets (.1 mil adjustments) 4 clicks down, and 5 clicks right...send it.
If you have a SFP mil/moa then you have to have your scope set at the exact magnification level that it is designed to mil at. Then if you see your hit is .4 mils high and .5 mils left. You must multiply .4 mils by 3.438 and then divide that number by .25 (1/4 MOA adj.) to get the number of clicks to adjust down. Next you have to multiply .5 by 3.438 and then divide that number by .25 to get the number of clicks to adust right....and send it...if it's not too late!
Having the right equipment can make hunting and target shooting much easier and more enjoyable.
Let me know if I can help....
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
And actually the IOR 3-18 is one of the scopes that happens to vignette ever so slightly at the 3-4 magnification level, but even then it is nothing approaching a "tunnel effect"
And actually the IOR 3-18 is one of the scopes that happens to vignette ever so slightly at the 3-4 magnification level, but even then it is nothing approaching a "tunnel effect"
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
thanks for the help, i guess ill just have to find some tactical ffp scopes somewhere and look through them myself
thanks for the help, i guess ill just have to find some tactical ffp scopes somewhere and look through them myself
Re: ffp or sfp for hunting?
"I tell you though, as that sucker came sprinting out of the tree line the last thing on my mind was "hmm, the size of my reticle is not particularly aesthetically pleasing @ 3x"
"I tell you though, as that sucker came sprinting out of the tree line the last thing on my mind was "hmm, the size of my reticle is not particularly aesthetically pleasing @ 3x"
Similar threads
