Rifle Scopes FFP Why would one have one if?

Muskett

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Aug 21, 2009
193
1
59
South England Great Britain
Now we can all laser rangefind and only the competition circuit insist that they cannot be used. And the fact at multiple range shoots there isn't the time to click adjust elevation. That laser rangefinding has very little military disadvantage, so no reason not to use (always have map/GPS/range card). And holdover or walk in can be used in combat. Then would anyone choose a FFP scope over a SFP scope? Does anyone actually prefer the sight picture?

I never got on with FFP. I dislike the disappearing act they do with the reticule at low mag. I don't even like when the reticule gets huge. I like my scopes to be on x6 for the FOV, until I get down to take a shot and have the time to utilise more magnification.
I really am old school because I prefer a Plex over any ladder system. If I have time, which you usually do when taking a deliberate shot beyond point blank or beyond a couple of holdover points, then I'll click from my drop card.

Anyone a fan of the FFP and find SFP alien (as I do with FFP)?
 
I'm not even sure what your question is.

Laser rangefinder or not, if you hold for wind, as many people do, it's nice to have your mil or MOA marks be useable at all magnification levels, and not have to constantly remember whether you're at the one magnification that a SFP reticle is calibrated at.

If you dial both wind and elevation, well I guess you have some very steady wind there.
 
it might help if you mentioned which video game you are playing. the scopes don't always work the same across games. sounds like you need a bigger monitor
 
No its a legit question.

For deliberate shots then I'm on max mag. I said I prefer a plex, but can add that I not adverse to some hashes on a reticule. However, compensating for splash off target I'll either click to adjust or aim off (its a time thing). I also know my Fig:11; Fig12 And Fig12c target sizes for aiming off; or its on the strike.

TRAAV has answered the question. Its what works for him. There is no right or wrong I'm just asking what people prefer.
 
Last edited:
For me I want the option to be on any magnification and my sub tensions to remain correct.

Example 1 Say I am in the middle of a hold over stage or a tight time stage and I choose to hold over and have trouble finding a target and have to dial back a bit to have a larger field of view. I want it to remain correct so I don't have to dial back to max magnification.

Example 2 The mirage is so bad I can see the target on max magnification I have to dial back a bit but don't want to go to half magnification to make the math easier. I dial back just enough to eliminate the mirage and continue with the stage.

Example 3 A stage has a tight time limit and has several targets layed out in a wide area and you have to go back and forth. I don't want to be on max magnification and have little field of view.

It doesn't bother me that the reticle is almost not usable below 6x or so because I only use it that low to locate a target for the most part.
 
First, I've never been so pressed for time in a stage that I couldn't afford two tenths of a second to dial an adjustment.

An FFP reticle has more to do with allowing consistent read of conditions and application of adjustments than ranging. You always shoot at max magnification huh? Good luck with that on a moving target where you need field of view and valid angular measurements.

Good luck on max magnification with close range shots from alternate positions with movement between them. I hope you remember the extra math since you are shooting at less than max magnification.

It's like shooting with a mil dot reticle and moa knobs, can you do it? Sure! Is it a good idea that makes any sense? NO. If you want to hunt or play pin the tail on the benchrest go nuts but there are reasons people at tactical rifle matches use FFP scopes and it isn't because none of the guys are "old school"
 
Last edited:
First, I've never been so pressed for time in a stage that I couldn't afford two tenths of a second to dial an adjustment.

An FFP reticle has more to do with allowing consistent read of conditions and application of adjustments than ranging. You always shoot at max magnification huh? Good luck with that on a moving target where you need field of view and valid angular measurements.

Good luck on max magnification with close range shots from alternate positions with movement between them. I hope you remember the extra math since you are shooting at less than max magnification.

It's like shooting with a mil dot reticle and moa knobs, can you do it? Sure! Is it a good idea that makes any sense? NO. If you want to hunt or play pin the tail on the benchrest go nuts but there are reasons people at tactical rifle matches use FFP scopes and it isn't because none of the guys are "old school"
I agree with everything except never being so pressed for time that you cant dial. It takes me longer than two tenths to dial too :)
 
I agree with everything except never being so pressed for time that you cant dial. It takes me longer than two tenths to dial too :)

it's probably bound to happen eventually but its still a silly excuse to get an SFP scope, if anything it's a reason to grab FFP, if you don't have time to dial you need the field of view to work the reticle, right? =)
 
IMO, hold-offs are the primary reason to get a FFP scope. If you don't use your reticle in this way, then SFP is just fine (in fact, it has some advantages).

What I really don't like is when manufacturers offer an FFP scope with some sort of wicked zoom ratio, and then stuff in a reticle that is unusable at the extremes of the zoom range.
 
TRAAV if I was shooting the comps that you do, they are biased towards a FFP'ed scopes, then I would use one too. But I don't have to like them and as I'm not comp shooting any longer so I have reverted back to what I prefer. I am Ex military and don't like not having a reticule when at low mag... Is it just me?

If I have time to make a very long range shot then I'll use full mag (x25). Point blank range (.308 = 200m) then I think anyone can get a reasonable sight picture and hit something pretty small with x6; very very small x10. At least with a SFP you can see the reticule. FOV at low magnification to find targets sure, as, even with a large and generous scope, high mag really closes you down. FFP or SFP we all have to wind back sometimes.

Moving targets then you can Mil dot them, click them or judge them with lead. Whatever system success depends partially on how much practice you put in. Whatever you do you need to get the "feel" for them.

Any FFp scope that doesn't correspond to its reticule is a waste of space... a con.

Your laser doesn't work! Range find the old eye ball way (quarter/half); look at your map and GPS. Does anyone draw up a range card anymore; range to feature you can see?
 
Last edited:
First, I've never been so pressed for time in a stage that I couldn't afford two tenths of a second to dial an adjustment.

An FFP reticle has more to do with allowing consistent read of conditions and application of adjustments than ranging. You always shoot at max magnification huh? Good luck with that on a moving target where you need field of view and valid angular measurements.

Good luck on max magnification with close range shots from alternate positions with movement between them. I hope you remember the extra math since you are shooting at less than max magnification.

It's like shooting with a mil dot reticle and moa knobs, can you do it? Sure! Is it a good idea that makes any sense? NO. If you want to hunt or play pin the tail on the benchrest go nuts but there are reasons people at tactical rifle matches use FFP scopes and it isn't because none of the guys are "old school"


It takes 2-3 seconds for the "process" of dialing for each shot, now say if you have 10 shots to make that time adds up. Granted usually there is enough time to dial but not always. If targets are hard to find which is taking precious time then holding over makes even more sense.

When I holdover I use the extra time I would have used to dial to see what the wind is doing and build a better position.
 
Definitely ffp for wind alone but while coyote hunting and using just the reticle and ukd stages ffp is the only way. "Big" reticles on max power aren't that big a deal unless you're shooting benchrest. And you can get open center reticles that make it very easy to still be precise on max power in ffp.
 
This is how old school I was: we had fixed mag scopes x8 or x10! Heck, the majority of my service rifle comp shooting was with a x3.8 SUSAT 100m-500m. So reticule size never changed; which is probably why I like a SFP sight picture so much.

Out of interest what combination of ranges are you usually shooting at? What hit/target/score size? And what magnification do you end up using for the faster practices? Would you ever require to wind down the magnification to a level where a FFP reticule would be a problem/too indistinct? What mag do you use for a dusk/night shoot?

Giving time to watch conditions and setting up the position is always time well spent.

Sorry, I should read it all up.
 
My original question really was not what to use in a Competition where the pressure is built by the rigid course of fire and time limits.

When hunting I like to have a reticule I can see on lower magnification. When on the range, or a long range shot, where time is not the overriding factor... all the time in the world..., then I still prefer a SFP reticule. Given that choice would you go for a FFP or SFP? Are you hooked on one or the other?
 
I have a couple reasons I use one. First, mirage is a constant variable we deal with where we shoot, so when i'm shooting say 1,000yds and the mirage kicks up I only want to dial down enough to beat the mirage and no more which would completely fubar a SFP scope. Secondly, I do a lot of longer range 250-1000yd coyote hunting which requires me to dial down and possibly take a shot on a moving target. Another reason I prefer a FFP scope. Each has their advantages, if your in a dynamic environment then having a FFP is a must. If your on a calm, square range go with SFP.
 
A good reticle design keeps it visible at lower power. The G2 reticle on the Bushnells is an excellent example that works well across the magnification range.
 
Muskett, have you looked at a variety of reticles in FFP? I run a Falcon Horus reticle(TRM) in FFP and love it. This particular reticle is easy to read on min power and not really big on max. Now, my old boss bought a Leupold mark 6 with the mil dot in FFP. His reticle got so big on max power, I'd never want it, ever! Don't give up on FFP just yet, check out a few scopes in a gun shop with different reticles. You may find you like some of them.

As for performance...FFP can't be beat. Like the other guys said, with your ranging scale remaining the same, it will match your range card on any power setting. Just dont get a MOA turret with a mil dot reticle(its a math nightmare to cross two scales, keep it simple) match mil/mil and MOA/MOA reticle and turrets.

If you can see your hit at any yardage, read the mils or moa in your reticle how far you are off target(on any power with FFP) match that adjustment to your turret, dial up and your dead on. Now with SFP, that only will work if you are on your ranging power setting(usually max power) Say you have a 5-20x, ranging SFP is at max 20x. your powered down to 8x for your shot. you can't just read how many mils and compensate unless you power up to max. If you try to compensate on 8x or any other power other than the calibrated ranging power, you'll be way off. Unless you do the math in your head. This is where a FFP comes in, way faster to adjust for a second shot FAST! Whether it be in a tac match, or that trophy Elk out hunting.

Find a reticle you can live with in FFP. Like everyone told me when I was old school too with SFP optics, just try it, you'll never go back to SFP. They were right. I will never go back to a SFP scope since I have ran a FFP mil/mil. For hunting or matches or even plinking, FFP is so easy to compensate for your next shot. Check out the TRM or Horus reticles(like H37) in FFP. I think you'll like them.


Brian
 
This is how old school I was: we had fixed mag scopes x8 or x10! Heck, the majority of my service rifle comp shooting was with a x3.8 SUSAT 100m-500m. So reticule size never changed; which is probably why I like a SFP sight picture so much.

Out of interest what combination of ranges are you usually shooting at? What hit/target/score size? And what magnification do you end up using for the faster practices? Would you ever require to wind down the magnification to a level where a FFP reticule would be a problem/too indistinct? What mag do you use for a dusk/night shoot?

Giving time to watch conditions and setting up the position is always time well spent.

Sorry, I should read it all up.


Like most of us SFP was all I knew, 3-9x32 or 4x for most of my life. I bought a few target/varmint scopes later on. I'm talking about a span of 40 years here. The last 6 years I've been transitioning over to FFP because I like the benefits and convenience of having it.

Example...The AZPRC match here close to where I live has steel targets from 390 to 1100Y. The targets on every stage are spaced out to the left and right quite of bit like maybe 10 oclock to 2 oclock and we shoot down hill from 5- 12 degrees of angle. The steel is sized from 1 moa to 3moa with the average around 1.7 or so moa, just SWAGed guess. The problem as always when shooting is wind speed and wind direction. Each target requires a different distance, slope angle, wind direction and wind speed calculation. It's common for switching winds to be present or it can be calm on one stage and 20 mph on the last stag with changes in direction too. I'm constantly changing the magnification to suit the situation. Some of these targets aren't the easiest to locate so a wider FOV is needed. Though I doubt I have had my scope below 10x when engaging targets. Needless to say having the sub-tensions correct at all magnifications is extremely important, especially considering the time limit. I broke the course record twice while holding over and holding off for wind and didn't touch the turret with 78% hit ratio in windy conditions on a 40 shot course.

The only time my FFP scope is at 3x or 5x is when I'm shooting through the chronograph. There are FFP scopes that work good at low power. The Bushnell LRHS 3-12 has a 4 mil wide ring that is thicker on the center of the reticle that is easy to see on 3x. Only time I'd use it that low is for a very close shot, so close I wouldn't miss because the animal would take up most of the FOV.

If I were hunting at close to medium distances like back east I would probably stay with SFP but other than that I'll stick with FFP which is great for dynamic shooting in all kinds of situations.
 
When hunting I like to have a reticule I can see on lower magnification. When on the range, or a long range shot, where time is not the overriding factor... all the time in the world..., then I still prefer a SFP reticule. Given that choice would you go for a FFP or SFP? Are you hooked on one or the other?

1) For hunting - in the US most hunting is inside of 300 yards, usually well inside, and with typical rifle cartridges the potential holdover and wind adjustment is often smaller than a typical hunter's shooting skill, so for typical shots SFP is fine because no hold adjustment will be attempted anyway. This does not apply to many of the hunters on this board, or anyone who is a skilled hunter of many western plains and Rocky Mountains game animals - but it does apply to most of the deer hunters, and many of the bear, pig and coyote hunters. For pronghorn antelope, elk etc. the distances are often great enough that holdovers are needed. Some of the hunters of those animals are using FFP, and many are using SFP with relatively low magnification scopes where the highest magnification is practically useful in many conditions.

2) For competition - there are so many different kinds. For benchrest or F-class, SFP is very useable because (a) you may actually dial both elevation and windage, and (b) even if you aren't, you may use the scope at the highest magnification and/or where its reticle is calibrated, and (c) even if not using at that magnification, a standardized target size that you get very familiar with, and a scoring disk where you last shot landed (for F-class), allows you to make windage holds even if the reticle is not in useful units at your magnification in use. High quality SFP reticle scopes are very common for benchrest and F-class, particularly Nightforce and Sightron models.

Compare that to practical type competitions and everything is different, so FFP would often provide a huge benefit as discussed in this thread.

SFP has its place, but FFP has major benefits for any shooting requiring holdovers or ranging when using higher magnification scopes where the highest magnification is not always useful. 24-25x is simply not useful in a lot of shooting conditions, here at least.
 
Muskett- If you are using a SFP optic, and not on your ranging magnification, and miss a shot off of target, how are you making precise adjustments? If you had a duplex reticle you would be guessing what your adjustment would be to get on target. If you were using FFP optic with some sort of mil based reticle, you would just measure how far off of target you were, using the mil based reticle, and hold that for your next shot. No math, no guessing. The reticle is a scale that is always correct, no matter what power you are on. If I see my splash or trace is 1 mil to the right and 1 mil low, I can instantly just hold that for my correction. You can't do that with a SFP, unless you are on the magnification the reticle ranges "true" with that optic.

If I was never worried about making a second shot quickly, then sure, a SFP would work.
 
If I see my splash or trace is 1 mil to the right and 1 mil low, I can instantly just hold that for my correction. You can't do that with a SFP, unless you are on the magnification the reticle ranges "true" with that optic.

I'm not so sure about that. You can't dial in a correction based on your observed impact with a SFP unless you are on ranging power, but a hold off shouldn't matter.

<script type="text/javascript" src="safari-extension://com.ebay.safari.myebaymanager-QYHMMGCMJR/e43f3fd0/background/helpers/prefilterHelper.js"></script>
 
Now we can all laser rangefind and only the competition circuit insist that they cannot be used. And the fact at multiple range shoots there isn't the time to click adjust elevation. That laser rangefinding has very little military disadvantage, so no reason not to use (always have map/GPS/range card). And holdover or walk in can be used in combat. Then would anyone choose a FFP scope over a SFP scope? Does anyone actually prefer the sight picture?

I never got on with FFP. I dislike the disappearing act they do with the reticule at low mag. I don't even like when the reticule gets huge. I like my scopes to be on x6 for the FOV, until I get down to take a shot and have the time to utilise more magnification.
I really am old school because I prefer a Plex over any ladder system. If I have time, which you usually do when taking a deliberate shot beyond point blank or beyond a couple of holdover points, then I'll click from my drop card.

Anyone a fan of the FFP and find SFP alien (as I do with FFP)?

The first post nailed it on windage. But, allow me to explain that issue in a bit more depth.

A match I shot recently was a "known distance" match… you didn't need a range finder, AND you didn't need to range from your reticle. Still, the only way to shoot this match effectively (in my opinion) was to use a first focal plane scope. You were given a limited time frame in which to acquire and shoot multiple targets (in different locations) on each stage. Acquiring the different targets on each stage in a timely manner was best accomplished by decreasing the magnification in the scope (and thereby increasing the field of view). For me, I hold for windage in my reticle when shooting this kind of course (rather than dialing it on my turret), because wind is constantly changing, and wind holds are different at each target distance. As such as, if I was using a second focal plane scope I would quite possibly find myself in a position where I was engaging at a magnification other than the 20x maximum in my scope. So, having a FFP scope means that I can engage each target at any magnification level and still have the marks in my reticle mean the same thing. In other words, if I use the reticle for a 0.5 MIL wind hold at 9x magnification it will be the same hold on the reticle that a 0.5 MIL hold would be at maximum magnification. That's not the case with a SFP scope.

With that said, if you're just shooting groups on paper, sometimes a SFP scope can be preferable.
 
SomeOtherGuy, part 2 just about sums up from where I come from.
"2) For competition - there are so many different kinds. For benchrest or F-class, SFP is very useable because (a) you may actually dial both elevation and windage, and (b) even if you aren't, you may use the scope at the highest magnification and/or where its reticle is calibrated, and (c) even if not using at that magnification, a standardized target size that you get very familiar with, and a scoring disk where you last shot landed (for F-class), allows you to make windage holds even if the reticle is not in useful units at your magnification in use. High quality SFP reticle scopes are very common for benchrest and F-class, particularly Nightforce and Sightron models."

To take a deliberate shot at a known range then I prefer the sight picture of SFP reticules. Given a spotter making the calls then you can be very swift.

I fully understand why a FFP scope is preferable for the type of competition many of you are shooting. For example I can quite understand why a Horus system in practiced hands could hold an advantage.
I remember when they first came out and they have developed since. However, the Horus is a bright light system needing good light, plus to me they are a mess. A mess because holding off onto a busy reticule scale which is no longer in the centre of the sight picture is to me real tricky without a very stable platform. I prefer a less cluttered picture in the centre to concentrate on and and any additional concentration energy for breathing, stability and the squeeze. The reason to dial both and then do everything to make one good shot. Your sight picture can tell you a lot and one of the biggest is "how stable you really are holding the position". I just wouldn't like a Horus in adverse weather conditions as its not definite enough to me.

For individual multi range speed shooting where time does not allow for dialling then a FFP has to be the only real option for consistent hold over. Ladder sure, but I still would't want a full Hurus. If its that fast and furious then a fixed mag or just left at optimum setting for the stage; the rest is hold over points which a plex can't really do.

On the issue of strikes then with practice you can see 2ft left 1ft low and calculate your clicks. Sure you can use a correctly calibrated reticule as an aid; though SFP has to be on its correct mag. For pure speed second shot then the fastest is to aim off opposite to the strike (best done immediately); and some hashing can help even if not synchronised. (I was a competent GPMG gunner, instructor, so did it regularly.)

Being familiar with your targetry is always an advantage especially for wind calls. Gets tricky if the wind is taking you off the target. (Thank god for spotters). No spotters then its seeing strikes or even bullet spiral trails (takes practice and not easy as they can lie). Wind is make your call and live with it; adjust accordingly if able.

I used to have a S&B FFP scope and didn't like it at all. I find there are two types of shot in the real world. The first is point blank. The second is "miles away" and demands a true deliberate shot with all that entails to make a good shot of it. For me the hard part and time consuming part is getting my heart rate down to precision levels. Heavy rifles and stable platform go a long way to get that deliberate shot away perfectly; truth is a deliberate shot takes time.

If you had a spotter to make the click call, time to dial, would you have FFP or SFP? Which sight picture do you prefer if not confined to match conditions?

Lastly, many thanks to those who have contributed to this discussion as its always an education to see how others are getting there, and the different conditions they have to deal with.
 
Last edited:
Not understanding the use is a personal problem, I would recommend further educating yourself as your thoughts are less than lucid in this case. Employment has progressed, times are shorter and we're twice as effective as before.

a FFP scope is a tool, not understanding how or when to properly use that tool is evident, same with your thought pattern on the Horus, as well as the use of a spotter. Falling back talking about spotters is at least 10 years behind the curve. It's not like it was in the 80s, it's progressed, well beyond your understandings according to my read.

Same with the competition side of things, you have zero concept of the current state of tactical matches, which is why you fail to understand the need, or the popularity. You can learn and adapt to use anything and be successful doing it, the question is, how much time and effort are you willing to put into it. With a FFP scope that curve is reduced. The speed in which people are putting on the board is not gonna translate if you never experienced it. Moving 10 yards, dropping down and hitting 5 or more targets from 300 to 800 yards in less than a minute and half is not something that comes across well in writing. Even the stages out West, when you have to locate, range and engage 10 UKD targets, that are not painted, and not marked across wide area, being stuck on one power is not gonna serve you. You're scanning, identifying, and engaging targets using the scope, most hover around 12x but will scan at a lower power bump the magnification up to 12-14x to shoot and then you're back down to find the next target making sure you don't find a target you already shot.

Different shooters adapt to different things, how shooter A engages a stage or target is gonna vary from shooter B, and where neither shooter is controlling the situation the more flexibility you have with your system the better your chances are of hitting the target. We don't use Top Feeders either anymore... we know the mag system is far superior. If you're thinking you can look through your NF @ 22x and find everything in time I have a challenge for you. Not having to worry about where the magnification falls is huge. You're running through drop and drift, having to add to that is gonna slow you down. It's also why people use Wind Cheater rounds to absorb as much error in both drop and drift as possible.

SFP scopes are good for Known Distance Competition, FFP are good for Dynamic Shooting, that is both tactical competitions and combat. In combat would you rather have two guys shooting or one guy doing nothing but looking through a spotter ? Most opt to maximize the shots downrange, that is why we now push recoil management so we can spot our own shots. Nobody is gonna spot faster than the guy pulling the trigger, especially if they learn how to do it correctly. The spotter is becoming obsolete in modern warfare, it's a training method more than a fighting one.

Putting your foundation in the understandings of what was taking place 10, 20, or 40+ years ago is the problem here. We are moving forward and the precision world has changed 10 fold in the last 10 years versus the 2 fold changes that took place in all the years prior. We are progressing in not only technology but the practical applications of the art.

Have a friend put 6 targets out from 1 MOA in size to a of max 2 MOA, put those targets out there from 300 to 1000 yards, then practice hitting them in less than 1:30, start from the standing, run 10 yards to the line, drop and begin. Do that and see which scope you want on your rifle. Try it first with the ranges known, then without the ranges, then add in multiple positions, and multiple locations that changes the aspect to the target, it will give you an idea of why people demand a FFP Scope.

Nobody is using a spotter, especially in competition so your request for godly assistance via your spotter is not gonna happen. Even in the military, what if that spotter needs to be shooting or is engaging in security, etc, if you always shot depending on his assistance you'll never be able to do it when you need to by yourself. Learn to manage the recoil and you don't need a spotter, you can do it all yourself.

If all you do shoot by yourself you can do anything you want and it will work, because you control it, take away that control and see what happens. That is the match director job as well as your potential enemy, to walk into a situation thinking you know order of things will certainly come back to bite you.
 
SFP scopes are good for Known Distance Competition, FFP are good for Dynamic Shooting, that is both tactical competitions and combat.

Anyone who starts another thread here about FFP vs SFP should be required to write this on a chalkboard 100x, Bart Simpson-style.
 
Lowlight; you are completely correct in giving me a bollocking; enlightening me to the changes that have taken place in the last few years on the competition circuit. Here I fully admit I am completely out of my depth.

Unfortunately, my thread was never meant to take the route it did. My mistake was my poor question. In truth I had a feeling it was going to go wrong from the start; and as it happened did rather turn out into another "whats better" thread. That wasn't my intension, though I probably didn't exactly not encourage it.

All I really wanted to know is do people prefer the sight picture given by FFP or SFP. Nothing more. My preferred sight picture is from SFP when utilising both very low and high magnification and zooming between them. I just prefer my reticule staying one size. Just wanted to see who, given a choice, agreed.

No doubting each has its own very specific application, each with their own merits and limitations. I know the theory and had some practice with both. Luckily for me I am a recreational shooter now, probably a good thing; so, as you rightly point out, it really isn't important and I can do as I like. In truth we had this conversation several years ago on the Hurus reticule on some thread; think the general outcome was some less fussy designs were possibly the better compromise. I know you are a fan of the FFP and use it extensively and to good effect. I just couldn't steer the thread away from the competition comparison.

Always an interesting read and its aways striking to see how things move forward so fast.

Funny how the European optic manufacturers were generally in the FFP and only relatively recently have they been extensively offering SFP to compete with the Jap and American products that have always preferred SFP. Now we see more Jap and American FFP offerings. How the circle moves.

So does anyone when zooming about prefer the picture given by SFP over that given by FFP? Forget the rest. Forget competition advantage, or raw speed of engagement.
 
Last edited:
I'm not so sure about that. You can't dial in a correction based on your observed impact with a SFP unless you are on ranging power, but a hold off shouldn't matter.

<script type="text/javascript" src="safari-extension://com.ebay.safari.myebaymanager-QYHMMGCMJR/e43f3fd0/background/helpers/prefilterHelper.js"></script>

+1.

Exactly right. I seldom dial for wind, I use my holds. If I see my POI was 3 hash marks to the left, I know to hold 3 hash marks to the right. It doesn't matter what power you are on.
 
A good reticle design keeps it visible at lower power. The G2 reticle on the Bushnells is an excellent example that works well across the magnification range.
I've had this problem with the FFP optics with the reticle getting hard to see at the lowest setting. I had a few german made hunting scopes years ago that were FFP scopes and boy did those reticles get HUGE!! at the top end. Their much better these days though.
 
Muskett;3313102 So does anyone when zooming about prefer the picture given by SFP over that given by FFP? Forget the rest. Forget competition advantage said:
Absolutely. A heavy reticle image at low power/close distance and fine at high/long makes sense.
 
I'm not so sure about that. You can't dial in a correction based on your observed impact with a SFP unless you are on ranging power, but a hold off shouldn't matter.

<script type="text/javascript" src="safari-extension://com.ebay.safari.myebaymanager-QYHMMGCMJR/e43f3fd0/background/helpers/prefilterHelper.js"></script>

Yeah I didn't explain that very well.
 
+1.

Exactly right. I seldom dial for wind, I use my holds. If I see my POI was 3 hash marks to the left, I know to hold 3 hash marks to the right. It doesn't matter what power you are on.

I disagree completely, here's why...

Again I'm going to use a competition or hell, even a combat environment, any dynamic situation. You are on a power setting other than the ranging power. You fire at target number one, you miss, you're three mil hash marks left. So as you said, hold three mil hash marks right, hit, great! Target number two is 500 yards farther out, your wind hold for a 10mph full value wind at the distant target is .8 mils, what's your wind call?

You have no idea because your reticle is off ranging power and thus the representation of distance is not valid. With an FFP scope you can say to yourself, "Self, I just used 50% of my 10mph full value wind hold at 200 yards, if my 700 yard 10mph wind hold is .8 mils, then I'm likely to score a hit with a .4 mil wind hold."

You can also use that information to help a buddy if you are shooting a team match or in some god forsaken combat zone. Maybe the guy next to you is shooting 300wm and you are shooting 308. Different calibers, muzzle velocities, ballistic coefficients, wind holds, you name it. If you tell your buddy, "Use 50% of your 10mph hold at 500 yards," that's information he can put to good use and increase his odds of a hit when you just did the work for him. With an SFP scope...that won't work. It would be something like, "Uhhh, use a 3 hashy mark left hold but you have to be on 11 or so power, not exactly but between the 10 and 12 and more towards the 12, I think."

It matters.
 
Now we can all laser rangefind and only the competition circuit insist that they cannot be used. And the fact at multiple range shoots there isn't the time to click adjust elevation. That laser rangefinding has very little military disadvantage, so no reason not to use (always have map/GPS/range card). And holdover or walk in can be used in combat. Then would anyone choose a FFP scope over a SFP scope? Does anyone actually prefer the sight picture?

I never got on with FFP. I dislike the disappearing act they do with the reticule at low mag. I don't even like when the reticule gets huge. I like my scopes to be on x6 for the FOV, until I get down to take a shot and have the time to utilise more magnification.
I really am old school because I prefer a Plex over any ladder system. If I have time, which you usually do when taking a deliberate shot beyond point blank or beyond a couple of holdover points, then I'll click from my drop card.

Anyone a fan of the FFP and find SFP alien (as I do with FFP)?
Because its way way faster to shoot on the fly by holding over vs dialing.
Pat
 
As d762nato said, the old FFP reticules can get huge. So I probably could do with getting behind some more FFP scopes to see how things have improved. I shot a Horus not so long ago, and it didn't change my mind, but that is me.

I dial for wind, but then I'm not shooting your dynamic shoots.
I have in the past dialed a base wind and then fine tuned with hold off. Most shoots are down a range in one direction and there is a minimum constant wind and light across the sky that you can dial for all distances. So if there a blusters between 5-15 then you put on for 6 as it just keeps you closer. For Switching wind then its not going to help. Just stops you being way off. The other is shoot a quarter in from the edge of the target... well give a bias and don't immediately go for the centre every time. Having said that heavy mirage messes with it all. Wind and Mirage is always "your" call, and I'm sure there is a "SniperHide" preferred way.

For the Service Rifle Optic shoots that I used to do then it was hold off but the targetry was Fig:12 or 12c's which makes things easier and we were only shooting to 600m. Different Discipline/Sport.

2300y would make a SFP standard reticule seem huge, though some ultra fine cross hairs would be OK. Its not something I am doing, but it sounds fun.

I'm shooting a tarted up Rem 700 Milspec .308 with a Zeiss Victory SFP 5-25x56 .5cm clicks, with the 60 plex dot reticule. Given the time I can hit most things far and close; basically its a culling rifle.
http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz128/Muskett_2009/IMG_4487.jpg
However, I can fully understand how this set up would be found wanting in your dynamic competition shoots. Maybe if I put together a wind cheating, longer range, rig then I ought to look at FFP again. If I was shooting a "sharpshooter rifle" semi auto match rifle then I certainly would (but we aren't allowed them over here).
 
Last edited:
Same with the competition side of things, you have zero concept of the current state of tactical matches, which is why you fail to understand the need, or the popularity.

There's a reason for that. The OP is in the UK, and if the UK is anything like Canada, there are very few, if any, unknown distance matches. Everything is shot on a square ranges with distances evenly divisible by 100, on target that are all a known size, with the only time pressure being some snap exposures of a fixed duration. Most have never done things like engage targets at multiple distances. The ranges simply don't allow this to be done. They're all like Camp Perry with a fixed target, butts and shooting mounts at each distance. All the shoots are basically like F-Class with a few snap targets, and maybe some movers. Their Service Rifle just adds some position shooting to it, and rundowns.

I've had this conversation a million times in Canada, and when you try to explain to someone who has never shot a UKD match under time pressure what the advantages of FFP are, they just don't get it. They really need to experience what UKD tactical matches look like before it clicks.
 
There's a reason for that. The OP is in the UK, and if the UK is anything like Canada, there are very few, if any, unknown distance matches. Everything is shot on a square ranges with distances evenly divisible by 100, on target that are all a known size, with the only time pressure being some snap exposures of a fixed duration. Most have never done things like engage targets at multiple distances. The ranges simply don't allow this to be done. They're all like Camp Perry with a fixed target, butts and shooting mounts at each distance. All the shoots are basically like F-Class with a few snap targets, and maybe some movers. Their Service Rifle just adds some position shooting to it, and rundowns.

I've had this conversation a million times in Canada, and when you try to explain to someone who has never shot a UKD match under time pressure what the advantages of FFP are, they just don't get it. They really need to experience what UKD tactical matches look like before it clicks.

If that is his type of shooting, I'm sure he is well served by SFP. There is no reason for him to switch or for anyone to convince him otherwise.
 
LL's post is really the last word on SFP vs FFP for now, at least until they make changes to scopes.

But think about this. Wouldn't it be cool if a FFP scope had a reticle where the hash marks remained true but the line thickness of the crosshair itself didn't change so it remained easy to see low mag and didn't get took thick at high mag.

The only disadvantage I have run across is on the high end of the mag-the reticle thickness can really cause a problem on less than moa targets. I like the TMR reticle because of the open center for this reason, but again I think it would be cool to have a clean set of crosshairs in the second focal plane, with the mil hash marks along that line in the first focal plane. To do that the the manufacturer would have to have two reticles in the scope, crosshairs on one lens in the sexing focal plane and the floating hash marks for the mils in the first focal plane. They would overlay when you look through the scope. That way the crosshairs would always be visible at low mag settings and wouldn't obscure at high mag settings just like a SFP scope, and the hash marks would always be true mil (or moa if you use that) just like a FFP scope. It might look a little funky for the thickness of the mil hash marks to be greater than the crosshairs on high mag settings, or skinnier than the crosshairs at low settings, but it would work great and the target would be more visible. To me that is how it should be done. The only disadvantage would be the thickness of the crosshair lines could not be used for ranging since they wouldn't change...not much of a problem since few ever use line thickness for reticle ranging, and you could still use the mil hash mark thickness for that purpose if you really wanted to use thickness of a line for measuring.
 
kombayotch is pretty spot on especially that of the range systems used. I would say in defence that the Service Rifle Championships for the Service Rifle Queens Medals Competition is a pretty comprehensive marksmanship shoot. 300-500 competitors, something like 400plus rounds course of fire over three days; with about 12 different matches cultivating in the Queen Mary rapids, snaps and run down. Includes ETR's (400m, 300, 200, 100), movers, double tap movers, march and shoot (two miles 20 minutes then 500-100m run down with rapids and snaps phases), FIBUA, plus a few other things to add difficulty like sitting, rapids, barricades, snaps and wearing respirators. Standard mid range targets are 300m, exposure times 3 or 4 seconds. 40% of shots are standing. Most stages have a run down of at least 100m built in. Targets are big being a Fig12 or 12c, but its Service Rifle with issue optics and calibre. A top shot will drop about 10% from HPS.
A bit old hat but it is a comprehensive course of fire and weeks of training are put in. Its more comprehensive than your Willson v Willson match or your AFSAM unless they have changes substantially in the last 15 years; both of which I've shot. Any of the top shots wouldn't find UKD (??) matches any great challenge to switch over to... Heck its shooting, you just need to get your sh-t in order..

If this thread has taught me anything it is be careful how you put a question as it seems everything is concentrated towards these UKD style matches. I do compliment you though on pushing the boundaries as this style of shoot is probably the way things should go. I've always maintained that civilian shooting when allowed to use their imagination does drive advancement of what can be done. The military have always been stuck in the mud until its so blazingly obvious things have got to change. Equipment wise and marksmanship its civvies who push the boundaries. Heck varmint shooting has pushed accuracy and distances way beyond what the Victorians could only have dreamt about. Military rifles have changed considerably recently too and that thanks to civilians getting out and having fun with new toys.

For what I do my set up will do what I need. Culling wise I can have five Hinds down in almost as many seconds. Its a .308 which keeps my eye in but in truth with Highland conditions a 300WM, or at least something faster that can cheat the wind, would be an advantage. Range is a little over point blank, 350m, beyond that I am shooting steel.

I can see the advantage a FFP would give in these type shoots. I'll have to do a bit more reading/surfing to get my head around what you guys are exactly trying to do. I'm a bit perplexed with trying for very long range shots and the time and position pressure from the course of fire. Too fast to click adjust. Size of target you are trying for too. At the end of the day to take a very long precision shot takes some application. Ammo/calibre, rifle, optics and shooter in tune. Looks like I've got some late night research to do.

In my day, being a Cold War Warrior, if the shot wasn't on we would put in a fire mission and take the grid square out.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like the Service Rifle matches are close or identical to the ones in Canada. Same targets. These are VERY different than US Service Rifle, but in a good way. The entire line runs down the range in unison....

[video=youtube;g3HYdaRD-Hw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3HYdaRD-Hw[/video]




Curious if you do precision rifle as well? In Canada there is a match called "Precision Rifle" that uses the same targets as Service Rifle but is shot with a "sniper rifle".



[/QUOTE]


I've shot a lot of these matches, know people who have shot Bisley and are Queen's Medalists in the Canuck version. The tactical matches shot is the US are an entirely different animal, and IMO a better representation of real life. These are still just glorified target rifle matches. These and your modern day fullbore matches all share the same ancestry. Those matches are great for training green troops because they only focus on the basics. All of the targetry is spoonfed to the shooter. The matches become simple for advanced competitors though because they are so repetitive. For example, advanced shooters routinely get 8 or 9 out of 10 Vs on the movers because they're always at the same distance and always moving at the same speed. They learn to lead a fixed linear distance in front of the target at each distance to make the hit. It's a technique that will only work at those distances, for one speed of target. But, if they were to use the reticle on the FFP scope, the lead in mils would be the same over a large distance for a given target speed, and would be valid over the entire magnification range of the scope. For your mover that takes 6 seconds to go between target bays, the lead is ~ 0.9mils (depends on caliber) regardless of whether you are at 100 yards or at 600 yards.

There are a number of "tricks" like that that you can do with the FFP scopes that allow you to engage targets at unknown distances. If you run the FFP scope on a known distance range the same way you run it in an unknown distance match (relying on the reticle), you lose very little if anything to the SFP scope. Take an SFP scope into a UKD match that requires you to do things quickly under time pressure, and things start to fall apart. Things either take longer to do or errors occur from messing up your math or having the magnification on the wrong setting.
 
Last edited:
Yes they do share a common ancestry. Glorified target matches is being a little disingenuous. Be it green troops or experienced troops these type of matches reinforce good basic marksmanship skills that can then be taken to live fire open ranges. The top guys doing this stuff are pretty tuned in and the skill level is plenty high. For serving personnel then these skills are taken to live fire exercises which basically means: take a large piece of real-estate and put targetry, ETR, jungles lanes, CQB, you name it, all over it and live fire the whole place within your training remit. For Snipers its Highland Stalking, or even culling; and it doesn't get more testing than that when its howling.
The traditional service matches be it TASAM, AFSAM or any variation on square ranges are good practice and can be testing. As with all military there is a need to get a lot of troops through the system and make them competent shots. Skill above the basics is "further education", and we know how much time and resources that takes.

We can all agree that anything that helps to get the basics right goes a long way to making a good shot.

UKD seems another great test and a natural progression to push the boundaries further. I think its been made clear that a FFP scope has the advantage for this type of shoot.

KYpatriot has suggested wouldn't it be cool if a FFP scope could have a decent sight picture for when at low mag. I agree.

UKM may do this already but if you want to be "real" then targets need to be engaged at all ranges. That 25m to 1200m plus. Take a basic AI and its a lump. Yes, I've dragged one enough; once upon a time. Lots I like about AI's but they aren't very sporty as they are made to give a stable firing platform from a rested position. Now I'm a civvi I can enjoy a lighter rifle.. the reason for my 5R Milspec combination. Its still on the heavy side to take a standing unsupported shot, snap shot, but it can be done. I'm sure UKM has some most interesting scenarios and plenty interesting and testing stuff so I'm fully aware I might be talking through my hat. Its just there is an on going debate on how heavy a rifle should be. Light enough to shoot standing, heavy enough to be a stable platform to take extreme range shots when you are huffing and puffing. Its the two gun debate: carbine or long arm. (In fact its a three rifle debate, Assault, Sharpshooter, Sniper). If its a long arm and extreme range the goal, then a precision shot takes time to set up and execute. This is where I really don't know enough about UKM so don't go blowing your top off... its a ill-informed conversation....but is UKM extreme deliberate range, or just fast mid to long range? Sharpshooter or Extreme Sniper?????

I'm yet to be convince on FFP because I want a point blank reticule on a rifle. If that makes me a dinosaur then I probably am. For a long range shot I have the time to dial. If the FFP gave me both then it would be a no brainer. I want it all! I'll look at the better FFP reticules and see if I can find one that I could live with. I'll also have some catching up to do, so it should be fun.
 
Last edited: