Looking at rifles and such. Mostly will be for out west hunting longer ranges on elk and deer. First or second focal plane and why just out of curiosity.
Rifle Scopes FFP or SFP
- Thread starter Pool_shark_dc
- Start date
I personally prefer a sfp for hunting but our hunting is in timber and closer range using lower power optics.
If i were out west hunting elk, mulies or speed goats then i would not hesitate to use an ffp. Just prefer not to use ffp with power backed all the way down as the reticle gets too small and my eyes struggle to see it clearly.
If i were out west hunting elk, mulies or speed goats then i would not hesitate to use an ffp. Just prefer not to use ffp with power backed all the way down as the reticle gets too small and my eyes struggle to see it clearly.
I tried reading up on it but that ffp seems confusing to use and figure out
You are over thinking it.
Take an old mildot reticle for example.
The distance between the crosshair and the first dot is 1 mil (3.6in @ 100). With an ffp scope the reticle will shrink and increase as you change the magnification and the distance between the crosshair and the first dot will always equate to 1 mil no matter how far your target is away.
With a sfp optic the distance between the crooshair and the first dot will ONLY equal 1mil at a preset magnification.
Sorry may not be the best explanation. It is almost just easier to look thru one and see and then you will be like "duh" that is so simple to understand
Take an old mildot reticle for example.
The distance between the crosshair and the first dot is 1 mil (3.6in @ 100). With an ffp scope the reticle will shrink and increase as you change the magnification and the distance between the crosshair and the first dot will always equate to 1 mil no matter how far your target is away.
With a sfp optic the distance between the crooshair and the first dot will ONLY equal 1mil at a preset magnification.
Sorry may not be the best explanation. It is almost just easier to look thru one and see and then you will be like "duh" that is so simple to understand
My recommendation: If you have to ask and think about it, get SFP. It is easiset to understand and use, and you save a few $100 usually. I shoot both, and I shoot MOA and MIL. I know, strange guy. I am now mostly MIL and FFP, but I started on SFP MOA. SFP is fine for benchrest and hunting. Where FFP stands out, in my opinion, is in its tactical abilities to measure distance. For most, it is a harder concept to grasp, and the reticle moving can get annoying. There is a certain simplicity to SFP.
SFP is for FUDDS, there I said it, had to be said.
If you want to be a Fudd, get a SFP, if you want a scope that is useful get a FFP.
If you want to be a Fudd, get a SFP, if you want a scope that is useful get a FFP.
Not quite. Both have designs have strengths and weaknesses. Thinking one is always better than the other under all circumstances is ignorant. There are advantages to the reticle staying large at low power just as there are advantages to the reticle staying true to scale on other powers than max.
Cant say SFP ever made me miss a shot.
FFP isn’t the be all end all, SFP definitely has advantages for some users.
FFP isn’t the be all end all, SFP definitely has advantages for some users.
OMG, you guys all take this shit way too seriously, you think I don't know the differences, advantages, disadvantages of both. This shit has been hashed and rehashed about 9 million times over the years.
It has been determined by default at this point that SFP users are Fudds, sorry if you fall into that category.
It has been determined by default at this point that SFP users are Fudds, sorry if you fall into that category.
If you're going to be holding over, then a FFP is superior, as SFP requires you to be at certain magnifications to effectively utilize the reticle for holdover or windage. If you're dialing, then either works - HOWEVER - I really like how clean the reticle is in a SFP scope at all magnifications.
With that said, I currently own no SFP scopes.
With that said, I currently own no SFP scopes.
I think it comes down to the individual users preference.
i will give one example for you to think about. Why would a spot light hunter ever choose a FFP scope over a SFP scope for that task. What about guys that hunt in thick timber like one member here posted? I would even go so far to say that a milling reticle is counterproductive for this situation. A thick duplex reticle in the SFP guarantees it can be seen easily. These same hunters in my scenario may have a FFP scope on every other rifle in his cabinet because he values the calibrated reticle for other uses.
Why is that so hard to grasp.
I like both styles for different uses.
People that go out hunt are now fudds. People that shoot other stuff besides steel and paper are fudds.
How old are you?
Wow, what a big brain you have, no clue where you got any of that.People that go out hunt are now fudds. People that shoot other stuff besides steel and paper are fudds.
Holy shit. All I asked was about ffp and sfp. If the majority of hunting I would do with this rifle is out west in the mountains would a FFP be better or worse? What would a downfall be on first focal out west?
What would hurt in FFP out west would be a lowlight shot where you have to turn the magnification down and your reticle becomes so thin you cannot see it. If you never plan on having to turn down your mag to under 10-12 you will be fine.
There are FFP reticles that work fine down to 5 power or so, but in most circumstances they are your basic mildot or a7 reticle.
There are FFP reticles that work fine down to 5 power or so, but in most circumstances they are your basic mildot or a7 reticle.
At low power reticles often disappear hence the illumination mentioned earlier on FFP scopes.
With some homework SFP reticles atotally useful at multiple power settings and that reticle is prominent at all power levels in dark contrast backgrounds.
Unfortunately a tactical troll is trying to derail this thread but some of the early replies are spot on.
I like FFP for what I do but my hunting rifle has a SFP am I’m totally happy with it.
I’m out west
I’m an all ranges hunter, and my time is very valuable to me. When I hunt, I aim to be as lethal as possible. I don’t award myself prowess points for doing it the hardest ways that I can. I do not take pleasure in wonderful woodland stories of the one that got away. I am there to kill an animal, however and whenever that opportunity presents itself. Yes, I enjoy the hunt, and take satisfaction in winning the game between predator and prey. But, I hunt with this mindset. My sight’s job is to make sure my POA is correct.
For that reason I’m a FFP convert. The aspect that drew me to FFP, is the utility. I dial elevation and hold wind (because wind changes, a lot), so wind holds being the same regardless of magnification is a huge plus. When there isn’t time or necessity to dial elevation, fixed elevation dimensions are key as well. With this system you have a ruler in front of your face that is the exact same size every time. Change DA because you’re hunting in CO? Print a new dope card, the ruler stays the same. Change rifles or cartridges? Light conditions won’t let you use max power? One coyote hangs up at 600, the other comes to 100? The system adapts universally.
BDC is a limited system. Operate within those limits and they work great. In the right circumstances, BDC might even be a touch faster than a mil/MOA reticle. As soon as you change those circumstances, the limitations become apparent. SFP is also a limited system. You have two magnification settings for an 800yd shot. And one of those requires extra math and you had to find it for yourself. I don’t want a variable power scope with those limitations.
For me, the question comes down to what I’m going to invest in. I want to invest in the system that has the most terminal upside.
Addressing the weakness of FFP, here is a 3x pic through one of my 3-12 LRHS. Back fence is 25yd, it’s about 7:25 here.
If that’s the weakest point...
For that reason I’m a FFP convert. The aspect that drew me to FFP, is the utility. I dial elevation and hold wind (because wind changes, a lot), so wind holds being the same regardless of magnification is a huge plus. When there isn’t time or necessity to dial elevation, fixed elevation dimensions are key as well. With this system you have a ruler in front of your face that is the exact same size every time. Change DA because you’re hunting in CO? Print a new dope card, the ruler stays the same. Change rifles or cartridges? Light conditions won’t let you use max power? One coyote hangs up at 600, the other comes to 100? The system adapts universally.
BDC is a limited system. Operate within those limits and they work great. In the right circumstances, BDC might even be a touch faster than a mil/MOA reticle. As soon as you change those circumstances, the limitations become apparent. SFP is also a limited system. You have two magnification settings for an 800yd shot. And one of those requires extra math and you had to find it for yourself. I don’t want a variable power scope with those limitations.
For me, the question comes down to what I’m going to invest in. I want to invest in the system that has the most terminal upside.
Addressing the weakness of FFP, here is a 3x pic through one of my 3-12 LRHS. Back fence is 25yd, it’s about 7:25 here.
If that’s the weakest point...
TBH the G3 reticle is known as one of the best hunting FFP reticles around because of that. Show him the picture of a MIL-R, or Gen2XR, or SCR. Its not the same ballgame. I agree with you that FFP is more useful in alot of situations, but MOST FFP fail in low light, low magnification situations.
Before you buy a FFP hunting scope make sure you look at it in a hunting magnification and make sure the reticle is still usable.
Before you buy a FFP hunting scope make sure you look at it in a hunting magnification and make sure the reticle is still usable.
ALSO most hunters are going to be using a LRF and dial for elevation at maximum magnification if they have the time to do it. If not its inside 300 yards where wind and drop dont make a hell of alot of difference. If they miss the first shot, they arent going to have the same shot again to use the ruler for their miss. It wont matter the game will be gone.
You missed the point. Nothing to learn. A mil is a mil and an moa is an moa. Doesn’t matter what power you are on. No learning. Only practice using the reticle.
Use case and implementation are everything. Being FFP or SFP doesn't make a scope good or bad.
That said, I certainly prefer FFP. But if you asked me whether I prefer (for example), a Tango6 w/ FFP horseshoe reticle vs a Razor w/ JM-1 for multi-gun, I'd go with the Razor for other reasons than focal plane. The totality of the scopes being compared when considered against the use case is how you make the decision. But if it was a Gen2 Razor vs a Gen3 Razor and I didn't care about the money, I'd pick the Gen3 every time.
If you are hunting and the only options you ever exercise are 1) no holdover point and click and 2) dialing, SFP scopes aren't going to make much of a difference one way or another. But if you're doing real long-range and dialing AND maybe doing holds for wind or slight elevation discrepancies, that FFP reticle could be extremely useful.
That said, I certainly prefer FFP. But if you asked me whether I prefer (for example), a Tango6 w/ FFP horseshoe reticle vs a Razor w/ JM-1 for multi-gun, I'd go with the Razor for other reasons than focal plane. The totality of the scopes being compared when considered against the use case is how you make the decision. But if it was a Gen2 Razor vs a Gen3 Razor and I didn't care about the money, I'd pick the Gen3 every time.
If you are hunting and the only options you ever exercise are 1) no holdover point and click and 2) dialing, SFP scopes aren't going to make much of a difference one way or another. But if you're doing real long-range and dialing AND maybe doing holds for wind or slight elevation discrepancies, that FFP reticle could be extremely useful.
This right here is why FFP is easier than SFP, you remove multiple things you have to think about. But you wont understand it until you use it. FFP isn't some fancy boutique thing that takes more thought to use. It takes less thought and provides more utility. Your drops are your drops, your wind holds are your wind holds. As long as you can see the dots you can measure with them.
Hunting out west is a broad term. We have thickets where an open sight 30/30 is more suitable. Also don't expect to be able to use the max magnification all the time. We get some pretty sweet mirage out here.
This shouldn't really be that complciated.
If you plan to use the reticle to compensate for drop or wind or to estimate distance go with a FFP scope. Make sure the reticle is illuminated or thick enough for low power use at closer distances.
If you never use the reticle for anything other than aiming with the center crosshair, either will work fine.
ILya
If you plan to use the reticle to compensate for drop or wind or to estimate distance go with a FFP scope. Make sure the reticle is illuminated or thick enough for low power use at closer distances.
If you never use the reticle for anything other than aiming with the center crosshair, either will work fine.
ILya
See guys and gals, no need to be hostile. Just embrace it.Hello. My name is Will, and I'm a Fudd.....
You're a good man Will.
Sign me up for the fudd list. I prefer sfp for hunting, but I only call coyotes and most of my shots are under 200 yards. I even use a duplex reticle innsome of my scopes. Yes I said it, DUUUUPLEX.
Ewwwe gross, at least my SFP Nikon has a mildot in it, at some power or other.
As in most inquiries...it depends. Depends on how you are going to use the scope. What type of reticle? If merely a crosshair reticle for aiming point, if, you won't be using reticle for ranging or holds, go with a SFP. If a Christmas tree/ranging reticle....and you will actually use it for ranging and holds, then go for the FFP as the reticle scaling will be accurate/usable at all power settings. And, will you put the effort into really learning how to use the reticle features??? Depends....
Third Focal Plane blends in the best options of 1st and 2nd focal plane while omitting the weaknesses of each, easy choice.
Last edited:
I ran this SFP scope on my trusty 260 for a lot of years.
Dropped some critters with it and busted my 1000, 1200 and 1400 cherry’s with it.
Hi Pool Shark and everyone.
I wrote a blog post on FFP vs SFP a few years ago. It starts from scratch and builds up to explain the difference and how each type is useful. It might help. In my view, once a shooter understands why an FFP scope works the way it does, it's easier to appreciate what it has to offer. Here's the link.
mauserm03blog.blogspot.com.au
I wrote a blog post on FFP vs SFP a few years ago. It starts from scratch and builds up to explain the difference and how each type is useful. It might help. In my view, once a shooter understands why an FFP scope works the way it does, it's easier to appreciate what it has to offer. Here's the link.
Reticles - First Focal Plane vs Second Focal Plane
"Why on earth would I want the reticle to get thicker when I zoom in?" I had that thought more than thirty years ago when I read about the...
mauserm03blog.blogspot.com.au
not that I have a lot of experience with shooting moving targets , maybe I will get to try it more after this corona thing passes. We have not had any problem hitting stationary paper or metal targets with a scope with sfp I have looked through a few ffp scopes and they were nice but I could go ffp or sfp who cares get one you like shoot it get another gun try something else compare have a good time .It'd almost like asking who likes big buts ...
Laying prone or at the bench and just dialing and shooting then yeah a SFP can work just fine. I have hit targets at 2500 yards with a NF NXS SFP. But when you actually start using the scope reticle for more than a center hold point then you will see the difference and feel the difference if having to use both under time.
What it really comes down to is this:
Are you dialing for distance, or using holdovers?
And:
What would be the longest shot that you, knowing your limitations as a shooter, would be willing to take?
If you are dialing for elevation, SFP or FFP doesn't matter.
If you are using the reticle for holdover's, then FFP is the only answer, as the holdovers are accurate at ANY magnification.
If your shots are within 300 yards and you are using an animal feature for holdover (holding on the top of the shoulder, etc...) then it doesn't matter. FFP of SFP both work fine.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both. I am primarily a FFP guy, but I do have several SFP scopes. I have friends that fill their freezer every year with hogs and deer and use nothing but SFP scopes.
I have friends that fill their freezer every year with hogs, deer and sometimes elk and bear, they use nothing but FFP scopes.
