I know this is a tiresome question, and I’ve got an idea of what I want, but I’d like some advice anyway. I’m building a hybrid do-all rig. Definitely going to hunt with it and be shooting steel, anywhere from 100 yards to 1000. The hunting will be done 400 yards and in. Eventually, maybe even matches. I’ve never had a FFP scope, but I’m leaning that way for this rifle. Would you guys suggest for this purpose? FFP or SFP? I know nothing will be ideal for both, but help point me in the right direction.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes FFP vs SFP for a do all
- Thread starter hoop12
- Start date
FFP would be my pick.
Not that an SFP is unusable in PRS style competition, but its more of a disadvantage than a FFP in a hunting scenario (if that makes sense to you)
At low power you're going to have somthing very similar to an old duplex reticle. You're not going to be able to make out much of your Mil/MOA holdover marks, but 8-10-12x will be completely usable if you holdover instead of dial.
The SFP would only be my choice for bench rest shooting. I dont ever want to be doing math for holds or distances. The more simple, the better.
Not that an SFP is unusable in PRS style competition, but its more of a disadvantage than a FFP in a hunting scenario (if that makes sense to you)
At low power you're going to have somthing very similar to an old duplex reticle. You're not going to be able to make out much of your Mil/MOA holdover marks, but 8-10-12x will be completely usable if you holdover instead of dial.
The SFP would only be my choice for bench rest shooting. I dont ever want to be doing math for holds or distances. The more simple, the better.
I would only choose SFP for stationary shooting (prone/f class bench etc.)for known distance....
Low power scope: SFP; high power scope: FFP
If you have and uses a LRF: SFP; if you do not: FFP
If you need/would like to do a lot of reticle hold: FFP unless you take SFP and use it at fixed power level most of the time; if not: either will be fine.
Some of the choice depends on the application, others are just personal preference.
If you have and uses a LRF: SFP; if you do not: FFP
If you need/would like to do a lot of reticle hold: FFP unless you take SFP and use it at fixed power level most of the time; if not: either will be fine.
Some of the choice depends on the application, others are just personal preference.
I was in a similar spot and ending up going with a SFP Nightforce SHV 4-14 I picked up on sale. I liked the reticle and knew that I would be able to use it in lower light. My mindset is that if I'm going to hold on the reticle I'm going to be on full power (be it hunting or shooting paper/steel). If it was a scope with a max power of 20 or 25 I wouldn't feel that way, but I don't really see myself needing to use the reticle to hold under 14 power.
If you do end up going FFP for hunting, definitely check it out in person and make sure you're going to be able to see the reticle in low light on low power. Some of the FFP scopes I looked at could probably fit the bill, but some were very very fine at low power.
If you do end up going FFP for hunting, definitely check it out in person and make sure you're going to be able to see the reticle in low light on low power. Some of the FFP scopes I looked at could probably fit the bill, but some were very very fine at low power.
Thank you guys for the input so far! Is there anything I’m missing? Part of my draw to FFP is the ranging aspect at any power, not just a set power. I love magnification and being able to clearly see my target, living or steel, but I also don’t need to feel like I’m right next to it to be comfortable taking the shot. If my thoughts are misguided, tell me! Im always open to advice
Think of what your zero is going to be and your max point blank range. 400 and in is not going to require a FFP scope if you're shooting a faster cartridge. I hunt with both SFP and FFP...I don't feel hindered by either one, but I take the scope that fits the requirement for that particular hunt.
I shot a lot of SFP when I first started out ... And I shot either on FULL power or on MIN power ... like I had a 8.5x to 25x L&S ... either shot on 8.5x or 25x ... these were easy to crank to at night (I mostly shot at night) ... and predictable in terms of holding ... but now I shoot mainly FFP.
The main reasons I have to adjust the power ... and now shoot mostly FFP are mirage and nv/thermal clipon image and no dial shooting. Need to crank magnification down sometimes (often in the day) for mirage to try to clear up the image ... it usually helps. Cranking down also helps clear up image for nv and thermal clipons, usually.
And there is a third reason. I've been "no dial" (on elevation/windage) shooting exclusively since last November ... and while I can crank up the magnification for short and intermediate distances ... I need to crank the magnification down as I get out towards 1000yds ... to have enough reticle to hold with. So 3 reasons for FFP for me at this point. Mirage, NV/Thermal clipopns and more reticle for no-dial shooting.
I really liked the V/O 1-6x MRAD SFP I had ... it was probably my favorite day hunting scope ... the illumination was a single bright tiny dot ... excellent to aim with ... and I usually ran it on 3x ... if I was using the dot ... I was using the critter as the reticle and ignoring the reticle subtensions. I miss it !!!
The main reasons I have to adjust the power ... and now shoot mostly FFP are mirage and nv/thermal clipon image and no dial shooting. Need to crank magnification down sometimes (often in the day) for mirage to try to clear up the image ... it usually helps. Cranking down also helps clear up image for nv and thermal clipons, usually.
And there is a third reason. I've been "no dial" (on elevation/windage) shooting exclusively since last November ... and while I can crank up the magnification for short and intermediate distances ... I need to crank the magnification down as I get out towards 1000yds ... to have enough reticle to hold with. So 3 reasons for FFP for me at this point. Mirage, NV/Thermal clipopns and more reticle for no-dial shooting.
I really liked the V/O 1-6x MRAD SFP I had ... it was probably my favorite day hunting scope ... the illumination was a single bright tiny dot ... excellent to aim with ... and I usually ran it on 3x ... if I was using the dot ... I was using the critter as the reticle and ignoring the reticle subtensions. I miss it !!!
I would definitely go FFP. Actually that’s what I just did. Not that my bolt gun is what most would call a hunting rig as it’s a 16lbs+ tactical rifle. I’ll still drag it through the woods.
I picked up a 3-18 razor. I wanted lower power with a wide field of view. At 3x the reticle is still usable for short shots on deer.
In the woods I hunt, 75yds is considered a long shot. And I have acces to a large field that a 500yd shot on a deer is possible.
And 18x is plenty for plinking steel at the longest ranges I can expect to shoot.
My past scopes I’ve hunted with were a 3-15x premier and a 3.5-15 NXS F1
My perfect scope for everything would be a 3-27 S&B. Unfortunately my wallet doesn’t agree.
I picked up a 3-18 razor. I wanted lower power with a wide field of view. At 3x the reticle is still usable for short shots on deer.
In the woods I hunt, 75yds is considered a long shot. And I have acces to a large field that a 500yd shot on a deer is possible.
And 18x is plenty for plinking steel at the longest ranges I can expect to shoot.
My past scopes I’ve hunted with were a 3-15x premier and a 3.5-15 NXS F1
My perfect scope for everything would be a 3-27 S&B. Unfortunately my wallet doesn’t agree.
Mostly like what JayB said.
If you are using a laser then SFP unless you are holding for wind. If you are using under 15x then I think mostly SFP as the reticle becomes unusable at the smaller ranges. If you are shooting benchrest or for tight groups then SFP because the reticle will be thinner at high power. If you are shooting really far and trying to hit small targets then SFP.
If you want to range and use the reticle to make corrections then FFP. Also some advantages I have heard but not experienced with POI changes in SFP scopes through the range of mag that doesn’t happen in FFP scopes. Something about science and physics...
I think many here choose FFP for the wrong reasons.
If you are using a laser then SFP unless you are holding for wind. If you are using under 15x then I think mostly SFP as the reticle becomes unusable at the smaller ranges. If you are shooting benchrest or for tight groups then SFP because the reticle will be thinner at high power. If you are shooting really far and trying to hit small targets then SFP.
If you want to range and use the reticle to make corrections then FFP. Also some advantages I have heard but not experienced with POI changes in SFP scopes through the range of mag that doesn’t happen in FFP scopes. Something about science and physics...
I think many here choose FFP for the wrong reasons.
I use SFP for everything. I don't like how small the FFP reticles get at low power or how thick the lines become at high power. I've had both and choose SFP every time. Its not hard to use full or half power if you want to hold wind or range. NightForce C555 is my scope of choice.
Everything I do, I think in scope units. Very seldom am I @ max power unless on paper.
As said above, BR & F-class sure SFP With duplex or a purpose built reticle —
BUT for field shooting: FFP with reticle, FOV and zoom ratio fit for your use.. do NOT go crazy thinking you need crazy max zoom.
Those that seem not to understand the value and intuitiveness of FFP, either have not really spotted on scope long enough, or have not been behind enough reticles to know that “too fat at high power” and “no value at low power” is not the case in every reticle and that zoom ratios are not just for either low or high power.
Why buy a clock that is only correct 2x a day or a ruler that only is truely works sometimes?
As said above, BR & F-class sure SFP With duplex or a purpose built reticle —
BUT for field shooting: FFP with reticle, FOV and zoom ratio fit for your use.. do NOT go crazy thinking you need crazy max zoom.
Those that seem not to understand the value and intuitiveness of FFP, either have not really spotted on scope long enough, or have not been behind enough reticles to know that “too fat at high power” and “no value at low power” is not the case in every reticle and that zoom ratios are not just for either low or high power.
Why buy a clock that is only correct 2x a day or a ruler that only is truely works sometimes?
Last edited:
I understand the value of FFP, but the drawbacks outweigh the value for me. I have looked through and/or owned most all high end glass on the market, plenty of experience there. I also use MOA and not mil by choice. To each their own.
FFP for me. I almost always use my reticle holdovers. Even on low power I can still find the reticle.
The thing about low power, is that the target is usually large and takes up a lot of room in my field of view, so even if I couldn’t see the reticle (which I can), I know where the center of the scope is. I’m thinking of a deer size animal in the east coast woods in this example. But Ive also used a Tremor3 mounted on a gas gun to shoot Between 25 and 100 yards at silhouette type tartegs as well.
The thing about low power, is that the target is usually large and takes up a lot of room in my field of view, so even if I couldn’t see the reticle (which I can), I know where the center of the scope is. I’m thinking of a deer size animal in the east coast woods in this example. But Ive also used a Tremor3 mounted on a gas gun to shoot Between 25 and 100 yards at silhouette type tartegs as well.
At the end of the day, your choice should depend on your primary application. Also, you can make either work under all scenarios. Just because SFP subtension's advertised value is only correct at a single zoom level does not mean the subtension is not useable at other zoom level. The fact that subtension values change as you adjust zoom level on a SFP may even be advantageous in some cases. On the other hand the center dot covering the entire target at high power on a FFP needs to be taken into consideration when selecting your reticle. If you pick a tree type reticle you need to understand that only a portion of the tree will be visible at higher power settings on a FFP. This may negate some of the perceived value for a FFP scope when doing reticle holds.
There are also various dual focal plane scopes that attempt to address the issues with both SFP and FFP.
There are also various dual focal plane scopes that attempt to address the issues with both SFP and FFP.
You need to make your choice based upon what you like. I own both but SFP get's more done an way more use in all aspects for me. First I shoot MOA Tree rets only (they are all the same) an have 32 moa of hold at max power, 64 MOA when I used the double'r stops I made, an 92+ MOA of hold (depending scope) on 3.5X
I shoot alot of Subsonics an the extra up holds trumps anything in FFP, as I can see the complete ret on all power settings. The other advantage is no matter the power setting I can see the ret in very low light w/o have to endure a lite ret scope which I hate.
I shoot alot of Subsonics an the extra up holds trumps anything in FFP, as I can see the complete ret on all power settings. The other advantage is no matter the power setting I can see the ret in very low light w/o have to endure a lite ret scope which I hate.
Ya, I get the subtension scale change.. without doing math what is 12MOA @ 4.75x, now 8.5x on your SPF. Or when one has no idea what zoom they just moved to.
Scenarios like the above happen all the time when spotting on glass, hunting "anything" with NO time to come off the glass and look at the settings on the ocular with a variable power SPF suntensioned scopes.
Also, with extra large dials and large swings in distance, Mils tend to be easier and faster to track for many, especially true if working as a spotter/shooter. If you're planning on shooting field matches or positional matches, like NRL or PRS you'll see primarily Mil. Either way, having the same system most you’ll shoot with is key. If you're shooting with primarily square range guys, really old folks, or newbies, you might think differently.
BTW with MOA there still are more scopes with 1/4" clicks even with true MOA reticles than one might think. The two bases for mil systems have mostly settled out. Of course, few people still are using 1/4" clicks with mil reticles, while not great, these aren't as sneaky as the damn 1/4" (not 1/4 moa) turrets. Understand what your getting, whatever you get.
Whatever you choose, remember this: Shooting effectively, smoothly and quickly isn't just about "your system" but often depends on fast clear comunication with those around you. Don't be the one speaking Chinese when all around are speaking another langue.
Scenarios like the above happen all the time when spotting on glass, hunting "anything" with NO time to come off the glass and look at the settings on the ocular with a variable power SPF suntensioned scopes.
Also, with extra large dials and large swings in distance, Mils tend to be easier and faster to track for many, especially true if working as a spotter/shooter. If you're planning on shooting field matches or positional matches, like NRL or PRS you'll see primarily Mil. Either way, having the same system most you’ll shoot with is key. If you're shooting with primarily square range guys, really old folks, or newbies, you might think differently.
BTW with MOA there still are more scopes with 1/4" clicks even with true MOA reticles than one might think. The two bases for mil systems have mostly settled out. Of course, few people still are using 1/4" clicks with mil reticles, while not great, these aren't as sneaky as the damn 1/4" (not 1/4 moa) turrets. Understand what your getting, whatever you get.
Whatever you choose, remember this: Shooting effectively, smoothly and quickly isn't just about "your system" but often depends on fast clear comunication with those around you. Don't be the one speaking Chinese when all around are speaking another langue.
Last edited:
IMO, if budget is limited, you're better served spending the last 20%-ish of the budget on better glass than buying slightly inferior glass with FFP for the same price.
If budget is not a factor, then FFP is probably more versatile. I just wouldn't sacrifice anything in glass quality to have it.
If budget is not a factor, then FFP is probably more versatile. I just wouldn't sacrifice anything in glass quality to have it.
You have enough $ to get the features you need no mater what your discipline might be.
My 2 cents, counter to some advise, is forget “glass quality” and “Max Zoom”. Instead look for tracking, FOV for your needs, the reticle you like, elevation for your needs and if your a field guy, FFP.
Very very few people have missed the target due to Coriolis/Evos, yet it seems people think it is cool to play that up. Same is true for today’s glass once you spent about a K.. the returns are diminishing. Not that great glass is bad, your just not going to miss a target with a PSTII, ERS, XTR, etc just because you did not have the newest S&B or Hensoldt
Bang for the $ I prefer SFP for what I'm doing which is punching paper and steel out to 1000 yards. You can find some pretty good glass in SFP for less money than you can find good glass in FFP.
VooDoo
VooDoo
Last edited:
The only scenario in which a FFP is a clear favorite when shooting quickly at long (unknown) range, and that's if you have some way of measuring misses (you can see them yourself or you have a spotter). Otherwise, SFP is the way to go, especially with a $1000 limit. A multi-purpose rifle will not be a very good match rifle, no matter the disicpline, so I'd go with a SFP. If you try some competitions and get into it, you'll want a new setup anyhow.
Quoting for emphasis. Anythign over $1,000 will give you a VERY small return on your money in terms of utility. Some people just like to buy nice gear for the sake of it.
If you want to range and use hold overs at mags other than full power ffp will be a little easier. If you dont use ranging or hold overs ffp will make zero difference. Still, I can range with sfp just fine when mirage is bad and full power is not usable. Just go to half power and multiply your mills by 2 and equate as normal. For holdovers you would just go to half power and half your holds. If you have the math ability of a 7th grader it’s not hard. Halving or doubling a number takes about a half a second in your head.
I think a lot of people just think ffp is better because most ffps are more expensive. I don’t find it hard at all to half or double mills on half power. I don’t hunt so maybe if you range and need to do calculations very quickly in the moment it would matter. But I doubt anyone is ranging deer at distance with the reticle.
I think a lot of people just think ffp is better because most ffps are more expensive. I don’t find it hard at all to half or double mills on half power. I don’t hunt so maybe if you range and need to do calculations very quickly in the moment it would matter. But I doubt anyone is ranging deer at distance with the reticle.
I agree, and have done this for many years. The problem comes though that not all scopes mag ring numbers match up with the actual magnification. You have to test your scope and determine where the halfway point is.
Then, even when you have the correct info, you have to look at the mag ring, and be able to move it precisely to that point. FFP makes all of that a moot point.
I do have a couple of SFP scopes that I do halve as needed, but I mostly use my SFP scopes for closer range known distances.
That depends on the mag though. For the work I mentioned above, I often shoot a SFP NF ATACR, or the new Trijicon 4.3-30.
I also have an SWFA 3-15 SFP. It gets moved around some, but is currently on a 6.5G gas gun. For distance shooting, it is on 15X all the time, so no issue with subtension.
Given that, you should be looking at either SWFA SS 3-15x42 if you are OK with a simple ranging reticle or Vortex PST Gen 2 3-15x44 if you want a ranging reticle with illumination.
That's a good general purpose configuration that will serve you adequately for pretty much everything you will want to do.
I think there is little downside to going with FFP given that there are a couple of good options within your price range.
ILya
I'm putting a plug in for Athlon's Ares BTR 4.5-27x50 FFP.
Reasonably compact, 25Y close focus, good glass, IMO the best tree reticle there is in mil, 10 mil knobs, zero stop, illuminated, tracks well. New is $850 MAP, can be had for less, especially used. Lifetime warranty. I have it on my 223AI, for this money bracket it's my pick of any scope I can think of and I've had or been behind most of the scopes mentioned in this thread.
I don't shoot benchrest or F-class, those are "some" applications I'd personally use a SFP scope. Cutting it short, high magnification and shooting at fixed distance moa based paper targets is where these excel.
I sold my SFP scopes years ago but recently bought another for one specific purpose, coyote and small critter hunting with a varmint rifle at closer to medium distances. Why??? I wanted the reticle to be thicker, this one is a Mildot, being full sized on lowest mag. Occasionally I'll dial on max mag which is 16x, the knobs are in mil BTW, and occasionally I'll holdover on 10x where mil value is correct, but 90% of the time it'll be on 4x for shooting yotes inside 200Y. For this application it's perfect.
Just putting this out there as a general note because ”ranging” or “known ranges” seems to be coming up as the primary use for FFP. This is one of the lowest priorities for most people using FFP scopes today.
UKD targets are almost a thing of the past with today’s range finders and most positional matches offer range cards or allow PLRFs.
Most everyone I know uses FFP to execute wind holds at any magnification 'without having to come off their glass and figure out what zoom they are on. This is key, in most field matches or long range hunting. They also use the same scenario to spot and report back accurate information. Not, uh, you missed left a few inches left or whatever. It is also used when dialing is not an option an you want an accurate index.
Lastly-Steve pointed out something people might be missing when they say that the SFP is better, because it doesn’t cover up too much of the target. There is a huge downside to this logic, if you plan to do the same with an SFP on low power and want a very precise shot. It is actually the SFP that grows to cover more of the target as one zooms out. In a 5-25 it will cover 5x more of the target at min zoom. Scaling while helpful, also become so gross in resolution, it doesn’t work very precisely for holds on some scopes at min power. That kinda messes the hunting argument up too for some of us.
If you choose the reticle correctly, with an FFP you’ll have a thin spot at max power, It stays relatively thin to the target at all powers, you’ll have better results for e-holds, wind-holds and most importantly communication. I get that many shoot in a solo ecosystem so the communication aspect seems pointless.
I am not saying that SFP, especially for duplex, paper punchers and dot users doesn’t have a proper home, just that we should understand the uses better and what we might be really getting and loosing with each design. The main reason SFP with subtentions is so popular in the US, is price and people not really understanding what a properly matched FFP brings to the table.
UKD targets are almost a thing of the past with today’s range finders and most positional matches offer range cards or allow PLRFs.
Most everyone I know uses FFP to execute wind holds at any magnification 'without having to come off their glass and figure out what zoom they are on. This is key, in most field matches or long range hunting. They also use the same scenario to spot and report back accurate information. Not, uh, you missed left a few inches left or whatever. It is also used when dialing is not an option an you want an accurate index.
Lastly-Steve pointed out something people might be missing when they say that the SFP is better, because it doesn’t cover up too much of the target. There is a huge downside to this logic, if you plan to do the same with an SFP on low power and want a very precise shot. It is actually the SFP that grows to cover more of the target as one zooms out. In a 5-25 it will cover 5x more of the target at min zoom. Scaling while helpful, also become so gross in resolution, it doesn’t work very precisely for holds on some scopes at min power. That kinda messes the hunting argument up too for some of us.
If you choose the reticle correctly, with an FFP you’ll have a thin spot at max power, It stays relatively thin to the target at all powers, you’ll have better results for e-holds, wind-holds and most importantly communication. I get that many shoot in a solo ecosystem so the communication aspect seems pointless.
I am not saying that SFP, especially for duplex, paper punchers and dot users doesn’t have a proper home, just that we should understand the uses better and what we might be really getting and loosing with each design. The main reason SFP with subtentions is so popular in the US, is price and people not really understanding what a properly matched FFP brings to the table.
Last edited:
I agree but still, it’s just as easy to dial from 24x to the detent at 12x without looking and then halving the hold. I wouldn’t say it’s any disadvantage to dial to 12 rather than 8 or 9 or some other not-half value. Sure if the ffp is the same price then why not but I wouldn’t not buy a scope because it was sfp. As for calls I do it the cheap way and talk in targets rather than mils because more people understand that easily lol.
Shoot where you need to identify targets and shoot under time pressure, add in a bit of mirage and you tell me just how easily that really plays out.
There is a reason 90+% people shooting positional matches are using FFP.
It all looks easy on the internet.
I have and I have and it played out fine. I’m not saying don’t use ffp. I’m saying if the scope you want and can afford is sfp it’s not that big of a deal. Sure if your life revolves around attaining glory from running around and shooting with a big bag attached to your arm (as if you would ever do that in a real life scenario) and getting bragging rights then you probably will splurge for the ffp. But if you just shoot for fun or hunt or aren’t quite tacticool enough the sfp will work just fine.
Again, I guess I'll be the dissenting voice. Equipment matters, and good equipment, chosen wisely, makes life (hits, in this case) easier. However, what really matters is that you know how to use what you have. Skill trumps most everything, and when you have skill, choosing equipment becomes much easier. Wasn't Terry Cross running SFP a few years ago, and beating most people? Not saying that's the way to go, or even very competitive today, just saying that skill and knowing your equipment is still king.
I have both, I use both, they both work well. I do sort of think that a 3-15 mag range, SFP scope may be the best of all worlds in many cases. Easy low power use for closer range speed shooting, enough mag to shoot long range, but not too much that you need to worry much about dialing down for mirage.
Having said that, I use FFP scopes way more than SFP, but part of that is work, and part is communication, and part is ease of measurement.
I have both, I use both, they both work well. I do sort of think that a 3-15 mag range, SFP scope may be the best of all worlds in many cases. Easy low power use for closer range speed shooting, enough mag to shoot long range, but not too much that you need to worry much about dialing down for mirage.
Having said that, I use FFP scopes way more than SFP, but part of that is work, and part is communication, and part is ease of measurement.
Yes, no disagreement. I’ve won on SPF and FFP, as well as shot really shitty with both, but that’s not relevant to even bring into the conversation. Of course, it is about the Indian, but it still is important to truely understanding what is best for the tasks. My main point has been, we should understand the tools and not nessarily base decisions off parcialy incorrect information.
I totally agree, and don't disagree with anything you've written. It just seems that SFP vs. FFP comes up all the time here, and in many cases, people are looking to get equipment they don't understand, don't know how to use, and don't even know what they will really use it for.
If you know what you're doing, then its easy to pick the right stuff. Or at least stuff that will work just fine.
If you don't yet know what you are doing, it may be better to just pick a system and learn it, and though not completely related, a 3-15 SFP, modern reticle, matching turrets, may be the best option. It kind of lets you experience both worlds, often at a lower price point. that's obviously not exactly true, but I think you know what I mean. Scopes that you and I take for granted, can be somewhat intimidating to newer people, either because of the features or the price. A simple optic, but one that will get the job done, will allow those people to start building skill and experience, and then they will make better choices the next time around.
because of the price of top optics, everyone wants to shortcut the learning curve and buy "the right stuff" right off the bat. Understandable, but not really that doable, even with good advice.
Just to interject something here, I don’t mind a learning curve at all either way. I’ve used SFP my whole life, and have no doubt a SFP scope would do what I want. I know a FFP would as well, I just was looking for guidance as to which might fit this particular rig better. For what it’s worth, it’s a 20” heavy barrel .308 that will be in a MDT LSS XL gen 2 Chassis. Will be used hunting and target shooting, as previously stated, and will see plenty of time doing both. I don’t compete in matches and won’t anytime soon, just want to get into long range shooting more.
@SLG Not that it matters, but three of my hunting rifles are 3-15 (the particular models chosen for the large FOV) my longer range hunter has a hair less FOV @ 5-25. I would agree again here too, in that the 3x-15 or 18 offerings, seem to be really versatile. It is important to look at FOV if that why the 3x is being chosen, as some MFGs have relatively poor FOV even in 3x.
My main NV pest control is SFP, because thats all I had and clip ons like a PVS-14, can't be mounted on my particular setup. At 3-15, the hashes are "supposed to be" accurate @ 3x (still they had to be mapped). I have another SFP daylite only 4-16 on an PCP that has the bump and calibtation index @ 10x. Seems it really is actually scaled at 8.75x-ish. This are examples of were you are also spot on, you need to learn the equipment. It isn't always what the mfgs state
My main NV pest control is SFP, because thats all I had and clip ons like a PVS-14, can't be mounted on my particular setup. At 3-15, the hashes are "supposed to be" accurate @ 3x (still they had to be mapped). I have another SFP daylite only 4-16 on an PCP that has the bump and calibtation index @ 10x. Seems it really is actually scaled at 8.75x-ish. This are examples of were you are also spot on, you need to learn the equipment. It isn't always what the mfgs state
Last edited:
Sorry, my rant wasn't really directed at you, more the fact that these threads always seem to turn into SFP vs. FFP arguments .
I think the advice you've gotten, as far as specific scopes, has been pretty spot on.
Can we argue about anything else for you?
(humor)For long range use in dynamic situations, the main reason I use FFP scopes is I don't want to "think" about what magnification my scope is on. The, holdovers, holdoffs and leads are what they are supposed to be wherever the "FOV" is deemed appropriate at the time.
Have you looked at a genII PST or the Burris XTRII with SCR reticle? For what its worth, the PSTs and (XTRs in 5-25) are a bit skimpy on the elevation, with the XTR 5-25 being a bit worse. They generally can work out to 1k with a 20" 308 with the proper bases (but it is tight). The XTR 3-15 has over 100MOA of elevation. 25x is much nicer for paper, but if your stalking (not long range hunting) the larger FOV of the 3-15 might be a wiser choice.
I have a XTRII FFP 3-15 SCR on a cheap pig gun and while I find it one of the best buys under your budget, I would agree that at 3x, I am basically hunting with a duplex. However, at 3x ranges, I don't need to worry to much about wind or drop. If one needs to worry about that; then the animal is further away, so a quick spin while still on glass like @steve123 illustrated brings all in closer for a better look anyway.
I have seen both in FFP at your budget with the 3-15 XTR currently about $850 and the 5-25 @ $899; With a PST it seems to be about $100 premium (not much) for the FFP over the SPF.
A lot SPF PST GenIIs seem to pop listed here used. Hard to go wrong with the used scopes, either SFP or FFP "if" you get one from a MFG like Vortex that honors the lifetime warrantee, even if resold.
Last edited:
Similar threads
