Any calculation you use the reticle for at the wrong/not right magnification that you think you’re using would give you the wrong amount of “clicks” to use.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes FFP vs SFP
- Thread starter Pew—-Ting!
- Start date
Any calculation you use the reticle for at the wrong/not right magnification that you think you’re using would give you the wrong amount of “clicks” to use.
Which app? My app (Strelok Pro) gives me the elevation turret adjustment in clicks and MOA (or MILs).
In this case... the turret adjustment value is 12.8-MOA. So, 12-3/4 MOA. I know that my elevation turret is 12-MOA per revolution. Easy peasy... One full turn plus 3/4 (which is 3 clicks). That would take me about 2 seconds to do. I don't count out 53 clicks. Who does that??
View attachment 7198982
I think you missed the point. Lots of us that dial (like NRL, PRS), dial quickly between targets and keeping things on 1 rev, helps (most of the new higher end Mil scopes is 10 or 12 mils). This single turn covers most distances past well 1k.. The post you replied to was 9.2 mils or spin to 9+ 2 on the single rotation. Your example should be about 31-3/4 MOA - now go to 12.7 MOA (3.7mil) maybe 26 (7.6mil) plus two more distances on 90 seconds while finding targets and shooting 10 rounds.. oh, ya while building a stable position and self spotting... that’s what most of the hubba is about.
But I’d still agree that they both work. One is just a hair faster and simpler for most people. This is truely why you see less and less MOA scopes in these types of matches and long range precision every year.
Last edited:
It is but MOA/MOA a preferred tool to me. It's interesting you think it's a fudd thing, an please keep that train of thought. Just remember in life there is a huge difference between Perception an Reality. Never buy into the concept that it takes x tool to prosecute Y target. For if you do, when/if Reality comes calling being proven wrong, might be a huge wake up call.
The reason I have one SFP scope is to have a thick reticle on 4x for coyote's or jacks in close cover like in juniper stands. It's mounted on a varmint rifle in a flat shooting tiny cartridge, and the longest I'll ever shoot it is 700 yards/3.9 mils. This particular scope is also mil/mil, has a standard mildot reticle, and .1 mil click, low profile, finger adjustable, and capped turrets. 4x for quick shooting, 10x is where mils are correct in the reticle for holdovers, and 16x for when I want dial for the longer shots and when I want the extra magnification. On occasion I forget to put it on 10x when I holdover which can be annoying if all the rest of a guys scopes are FFP! But I like this scope for the rifle and purpose I bought it for.
^^^ I have a FFP S&B 3-20x50 H59, that would suck on that rifle and it's intent. 3x in FFP with a grid reticle isn't what I want in the above situation even though the scope cost me 17 times more money.
Even my 1-8 is FFP. I want to adjust the FOV to suit without having to look to see what magnification I'm on.
It's interesting to me how proficient some of my old piers have become using "holdovers" in compromised positions with their FFP scopes even with some wind involved! I watched as one of our lady shooters got all 10 hits on smaller steel from 400ish to 700ish off a barricade stage that required a move every 2 shots! As well as others getting high hit percentages! Years ago that was almost unthinkable to try and when someone dialed they would usually time out or come close to it on this stage.
I'm a hasbeen as far as tactical matches are concerned but in 2011 and 2012 I won a long range steel series using mostly holdovers and holdoffs with the H59 reticle in FFP when everyone else was dialing. That was 90% or more prone, or kneeling off rocks, using the bipod, which was a stable position. I found that in this type of match setting holds were every bit as accurate as dialing. I did dial a few times and couldn't beat my holdovers scores.
Speaking of Field Target air rifle.
The last 4 years I used a inexpensive Athlon Argos BTR 6-24x50 FFP scope to win Freestyle division at our state match, and one time winning the state match. The only advantage a high magnification SFP scope has is when using the side focus to determine distance. I use a laser range finder in my division so I don't need to use the side focus to determine distance, and when it's windy I use the mil holdoffs to great advantage. Usually I win when it's windy because those guys have no idea how far to aim out, they are just guessing their wind holds with a plain dot or duplex reticle.
So FFP is my vote for most of my long range shooting.
^^^ I have a FFP S&B 3-20x50 H59, that would suck on that rifle and it's intent. 3x in FFP with a grid reticle isn't what I want in the above situation even though the scope cost me 17 times more money.
Even my 1-8 is FFP. I want to adjust the FOV to suit without having to look to see what magnification I'm on.
It's interesting to me how proficient some of my old piers have become using "holdovers" in compromised positions with their FFP scopes even with some wind involved! I watched as one of our lady shooters got all 10 hits on smaller steel from 400ish to 700ish off a barricade stage that required a move every 2 shots! As well as others getting high hit percentages! Years ago that was almost unthinkable to try and when someone dialed they would usually time out or come close to it on this stage.
I'm a hasbeen as far as tactical matches are concerned but in 2011 and 2012 I won a long range steel series using mostly holdovers and holdoffs with the H59 reticle in FFP when everyone else was dialing. That was 90% or more prone, or kneeling off rocks, using the bipod, which was a stable position. I found that in this type of match setting holds were every bit as accurate as dialing. I did dial a few times and couldn't beat my holdovers scores.
Speaking of Field Target air rifle.
The last 4 years I used a inexpensive Athlon Argos BTR 6-24x50 FFP scope to win Freestyle division at our state match, and one time winning the state match. The only advantage a high magnification SFP scope has is when using the side focus to determine distance. I use a laser range finder in my division so I don't need to use the side focus to determine distance, and when it's windy I use the mil holdoffs to great advantage. Usually I win when it's windy because those guys have no idea how far to aim out, they are just guessing their wind holds with a plain dot or duplex reticle.
So FFP is my vote for most of my long range shooting.
Here is the thing @steve123, when we are on low power be it 3x or 5x, we generally are for the very reason you described. Close in where field of view is paramount. I 100% agree with this.
So the true missed point by many, is’t that especially with flat cartridges and a 100y zero, subtentions just do not matter at these close 200 yard and in shots. It took me a bit to realize that my FFPs that look like a duplex and min zoom with daylight illum on was actually blazing fast on close range targets like running pigs. Then when I zoom back out, were might expect pigs at further ranges, valuable scaled subtensions for wind appear. Of course the key is picking the correct Scope and reticle in the first place.
Next time someone is looking at a hunting scope start comparing the FOV at min mag. For instance my FFP 3-15 has a 40’ @100 FOV, yet I see guys on SFP or a FFP in similar power and their 3x is like 27’ — in this case I can be near 6x with a similar FOV..
it’s just all stuff to consider
So the true missed point by many, is’t that especially with flat cartridges and a 100y zero, subtentions just do not matter at these close 200 yard and in shots. It took me a bit to realize that my FFPs that look like a duplex and min zoom with daylight illum on was actually blazing fast on close range targets like running pigs. Then when I zoom back out, were might expect pigs at further ranges, valuable scaled subtensions for wind appear. Of course the key is picking the correct Scope and reticle in the first place.
Next time someone is looking at a hunting scope start comparing the FOV at min mag. For instance my FFP 3-15 has a 40’ @100 FOV, yet I see guys on SFP or a FFP in similar power and their 3x is like 27’ — in this case I can be near 6x with a similar FOV..
it’s just all stuff to consider
I could certainly "see" that, pun intended, using daylight bright illume, in a FFP scope, on low mag. Unfortunately the illume on all but my LPVO 1-8 aren't bright enough to see during the day.
Man I wish I could get a TT 3-15!
At least it isn't in a new thread and we don't have to hash it out all over again.
On LPVOs with FFP, it isn’t about keeping sub tensions correct because on 1-2x you can’t even see them most of the time. It is about having the reticle change from a circle or dot on 1x to a usable mil reticle on 4 or 6x.
Last edited:
@Lawless
I’m glad you showed me that SWFA reticle. SWFA has a great reputation for durability. So far I’ve only looked at the reticle on the SWFA 3-15. I compared it side by side to the Vortex Viper and a high end Leupold. The SWFA has the wide duplex lines for low magnification, and the thinner lines with diamonds for higher magnification. However, compared to the Vortex, those thinner lines are still much thicker at the same magnification. And the Vortex lines are noticeably thicker than the lines on the high end leupold (which are comparable the lines on my Schmidt’s). A lot of people are saying that thin lines and a bright, clear image are the key to accuracy, so I thought the little bit more $$$ for the Vortex over the SWFA was worth it. But with the lower mag scope, I can see the advantages of the thicker lines. I feel like I can’t use the hash marks on my Schmidt’s if I’m below 12x, because they are just that hard to see. But for a 3-15 or 5-25, I think I’d still go for the Vortex over the SWFA because of line thickness and brightness.
I’m glad you showed me that SWFA reticle. SWFA has a great reputation for durability. So far I’ve only looked at the reticle on the SWFA 3-15. I compared it side by side to the Vortex Viper and a high end Leupold. The SWFA has the wide duplex lines for low magnification, and the thinner lines with diamonds for higher magnification. However, compared to the Vortex, those thinner lines are still much thicker at the same magnification. And the Vortex lines are noticeably thicker than the lines on the high end leupold (which are comparable the lines on my Schmidt’s). A lot of people are saying that thin lines and a bright, clear image are the key to accuracy, so I thought the little bit more $$$ for the Vortex over the SWFA was worth it. But with the lower mag scope, I can see the advantages of the thicker lines. I feel like I can’t use the hash marks on my Schmidt’s if I’m below 12x, because they are just that hard to see. But for a 3-15 or 5-25, I think I’d still go for the Vortex over the SWFA because of line thickness and brightness.
I think as we go down the rabbit hole it is important to understand that there are 3 main categories of optics. Most people consider “scopes” best for medium and long range; were as red dots, irons, holographic and LPVs are for CQB and close range. Ya while LOVo especially the new offerings really extend the distance and can hit things further it is a compromise just as it would be using a 3-15 at 25yards
On chest sized targets my 1x4 does quite good at 500-600 even and as you said a 1x it’s pretty damn fast with a very forgiving eye box.
on low power optics I’m totally fine with SFP because it only is used at the top and bottom of magnification.
Similar threads
