Anyone here use a second focal plane scope for long range shooting and prefer it over FFP? Was watching Rex sniper 101 video series and he basically says SFP is useless for long range.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes SFP for long range shooting
- Thread starter Pharmer909
- Start date
Gonna go put some popcorn in the microwave for this one.
It's not useless but def has some draw backs depending on what you want to be able to do.
Rex is not the guy I would ever be taking advice from on probably anything let alone long range shooting but hey we all gotta make money somehow
Rex is not the guy I would ever be taking advice from on probably anything let alone long range shooting but hey we all gotta make money somehow
A big 10-4 on this. Reminds me of this dumpster fire...
Any reviews of TiborasaurusRex's YouTube Vids?
If you haven't seen TiborasaurusRex videos on YouTube, check them out. To my novice eyes, they seem legit, however I was wondering if any veteran shooters here have seen his approach and agree with his methods and thinking in general. The videos are all labeled "Sniper 101" and here is the...
www.snipershide.com
SFP scopes are far from useless, there are some occasions where SFP can be an advantage. F class/bench rest, ELR and hunting are all cases where SFP scopes can be an advantage.
Like with anything in life you just need to understand how it works and what the pros/cons, advantages/limitations are.
Provided you have a good understanding of how it works then you can still be successful at long range.
Like with anything in life you just need to understand how it works and what the pros/cons, advantages/limitations are.
Provided you have a good understanding of how it works then you can still be successful at long range.
I do not have as much experience with long range shooting as some but I think if you use the reticle for hold over FFP will serve you better as reticle "grows" with magnification. Recently I had the opportunity to shot out past 700yds with my Burris Black Diamond scope. Though I could see targets fairly clear the reticle was not much help. My way of thinking is a FFP scope reticle would be easier to see at long range, especially with my old eyes. 
I'm not doing the PRS thing, so I can't speak to that. But, in my relatively short time (few years) of doing some long distance shooting (at steel or paper targets), I've only used SFP scopes. I have found I "set'em and forget'em." In other words, I set the zoom at the distance for which the reticle is calibrated, and I pretty much leave it there, regardless of the distance. So, whether I'm shooting at 100 yards or 1,000 yards, my Vortex HST 6-24x is set at 18x and stays there. Effectively, I have a single-focal-length scope. But, that way I can use the reticle subtensions to make corrections / hold for wind.
Just how I've been doing it. Your mileage may vary. But, I will disagree with the assertion, "SFP is useless for long distance." I used my SFP Vortex HST to ring steel at 1,000 yards... held about 8-MOA for wind.
Just how I've been doing it. Your mileage may vary. But, I will disagree with the assertion, "SFP is useless for long distance." I used my SFP Vortex HST to ring steel at 1,000 yards... held about 8-MOA for wind.
Last edited:
This is pretty much what you have to do if you want to use SFP for long range. So essentially you're buying a fixed-power scope. Before I went this route for a purely long-range rig, I'd probably just buy an SWFA fixed-power.
The only other way I'd go this route is to get something like a 3-15, where you're always going to be at max mag when shooting at distance. My SWFA 3-15 SFP would be fine to use for a crossover LR/hunting rig. But I personally wouldn't get something that goes up to 20x or higher with SFP for any type of LR work. I don't know enough about BR or F-class t know why they use SFP, but I can't find any positives for it myself in typical LR applications.
The Rex thing has been covered so no need to beat that horse.
SFP is not useless in long range. It depends on the game being played. PRS it would be a hindrance as you need to use the reticle and your power is changing for multiple reasons. Sports like F Class and BR use SFP scopes at long range as they don't need the reticle for holds. Only an aiming point. Just comes down to use.
SFP scores work just fine, even with ranging reticles. For many purposes, they may even be preferable. Go out at dawn or dusk with a fancy 3.5-21x FFP variable, turn the mag all the way down, look into a treeline, and see just how well that fancy "tree" reticle works without illumination.
If one is trying to use the reticle for precise ranging or holdovers, then FFP has a major advantage. But if one is dialing elevation and windage, and just using the reticle as a ruler for follow-up shots, the SFP works fine.
Like so many other things in life, it's not right vs. wrong but rather a matter of making the right trade-offs. FFP is usually the answer, but not always.
If one is trying to use the reticle for precise ranging or holdovers, then FFP has a major advantage. But if one is dialing elevation and windage, and just using the reticle as a ruler for follow-up shots, the SFP works fine.
Like so many other things in life, it's not right vs. wrong but rather a matter of making the right trade-offs. FFP is usually the answer, but not always.
That's why you get a scope with illumination. Problem solved.
My first long tang scope was SFP.
it certainly worked but now that I have a FFP scope I wouldn’t go back.
it certainly worked but now that I have a FFP scope I wouldn’t go back.
That same reticle in a SFP optic at minimum magnification means you have to figure out what the real values of the markings on the reticle are, too.
I'd rather run a FFP at 6-8x than a SFP.
FFP and a 6 Creedmoor here, but only because I had gotten rid of my 308 by the first time I got to a range that broke 1k. I did get to 940 a good bit with a FFP on a 20" 308, though.
Some of us that won matches also won with a 50% hit ratio a long time ago - LOL, today you're near the bottom at that performance level.
Sure muskets where high tech too once..
I hear this all the time.. I hunt with an FFP.. Please help me understand why I need the tree section if I am at 3x.
At 3x I am concerned with the largest FOV possible because I am maybe under 200 yards, most- likely even around 100.. I do not think the tree data is inplay.. Hell, then a duplex is as valuable as the SFP or the FFP, that now looks like a duplex at the close ranges. Disqualifying the FFP because you can't easily make out the subtentions of the tree at close range is just looking for a way to justify the duplex or SPF that really isn't scaled correctly anyway at min zooms.
By 300/400 + I want accurate wind in the reticle no mater what zoom level. be it 6x or 11 or 15x -- Even more so with the 600 ish stuff.
Last edited:
just causing more trouble..
shooting short range bench rest or f class 600/1000 flat range stuff doesnt care what type of scope FFP/SFP..actually the superfine SFP ret is a advantage
this new run and gun stuff is a different story
I would agree with the caveat of ELR.. People do not realize that once you back out SFP for Shimmer and heat mirage the reticle actually cover more of the ELR target than a properly selected FFP reticle.. It one of those myths that keep coming up.. "I need SFP to aim small for ELR, so I need an SFP" Well if that is the case you should most often use a thin centered FFP.. Backing off some % to gain more holdover is not the solution a TACO is..
brianf sure for benchrest FFP is not the best. You have Concentric target rings that function as subtentions. That said SFP with subtension is often just as silly and a new marketing thing.. Ultra thin duplex win here..
BTW I have a 8-80x 56mm March SFP with 1/8' Turrets for sale for the F-class crowd https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...reticle-1-8moa-turrets-sfp-34mm-tube.6965459/
I punch paper at longer and longer ranges, do not compete or do the PRS gig. I mostly just shoot for best group size at long range on 1 MOA targets. I prefer SFP high magnification scopes like the Vortex Golden Eagle and Athlon Argos BTR but for what I'm doing reticle is a bigger deal for me than sheer magnification.
I prefer SFP but i'm doing something more like F-Class or Bench Rest usually at fixed/known distances. I have gotten real good at ranging using my subtension since I shoot at known target sizes and there is no need for fast adjustments.
Were I competing and time was of the essence on unknown target sizes at unknown distances I'd shoot FFP scopes.
VooDoo
I prefer SFP but i'm doing something more like F-Class or Bench Rest usually at fixed/known distances. I have gotten real good at ranging using my subtension since I shoot at known target sizes and there is no need for fast adjustments.
Were I competing and time was of the essence on unknown target sizes at unknown distances I'd shoot FFP scopes.
VooDoo
Last edited:
FYI every single person I know competing with an FFP know, it is not about the ranging or UKD thing.. It's mainly having fast accurate wind and drops at any magnification.. That's the value along with comunication..
getting wrapped up in the ranging thing is what confused most people.. Think wind, wind, wind... of course some parts of the country aren't like the West, I guess.
getting wrapped up in the ranging thing is what confused most people.. Think wind, wind, wind... of course some parts of the country aren't like the West, I guess.
Last edited:
While I agree that you don't need to see your tree on minimum magnification, the main cross being thin really limits fast, accurate shooting on smaller targets.
I've transitioned from SFP to FFP for NRL/PRS type events, due having accurate wind/elevation holds at all ranges but have run into a curious problem of needing to crack up the magnification on small precise targets, when I'd prefer less magnification for the FOV.
Through impromptu testing it seems that to get the same speed/accuracy on small close range targets I need to shoot my FFP on arounf 10-15x where I can do the same thing with my SFP on 6x.
I think this "issue" is down to the type of shooting that I do and events I compete in, as no one else seems to have this issue.
Perhaps I should run a 5-25ish FFP scope for my main optic and a 45degree offset 2-10ish SFP scope for close/intermediate range.
22lr NRL style shoots, but I live in New Zealand so likely have stages that you wouldn't find in actual NRL shoots.
I have 2 NSX 15x. Moa and mill. I like the moa at half power most of the time. Simple, easy for my eye. Tried two FFP and the reticle hurt my brain.
I might be better with ffp if I trained more with it but my old scopes never have shown a problem.
I might be better with ffp if I trained more with it but my old scopes never have shown a problem.
The issue here is that many reticles, "tree" and otherwise, almost totally disappear at lower magnification. The worst are the Horus H58 and H59, which don't have well-defined stadia beyond the normal viewing area and thus pretty much disappear below 7x (at least based upon my experience with owning NF and S-B scopes with these reticles).
Something like the Bushnell G3 is better, but I'd prefer that it transition to thick solid lines (instead of the stripes) at some point that is outside the FOV at max mag, but is visible below 8-10x or so.
I fully recognize and acknowledge that this is not a fundamental problem with FFP but rather an implementation issue. It still merits discussion, being that so many FFP reticles appear to be designed by people who never bothered turning the zoom ring down into the bottom half of the mag range.
I own both types of scope, and like both types. No dog in this fight.
FFP reticles especially the .03 mil thin ones that are more popular today, all but disappear at 6x and below. They do not compare to a duplex traditional duplex scope as they are much too thin. Out in a brightly lit range with white targets it can still be used but in low light or in vegetation, they are Not very useful. Illumination is mandatory on a FFP scope as far as I am concerned. I have been burned at 165 yards at last light with a .05 mil (thick by todays standard) FFL scope. Dial down to see pigs, cant see the reticle. Dial up to see the reticle, the scope to dark to see hogs. Had I had illumination I would have been fine though. Had i had my $200 Leupold 3x9 i would have made the kill.
Low power shooting and/or low light shooting, and quick short range shooting is where SFP scopes shine. They are advantageous in these circumstances. FFP scopes are advantageous in other areas.
At the 3-400 yards in your example, windage marks in the reticle are unnecessary. Hell elevation marks in the scope are unnecessary at that close of range as simple holdovers make quick work.
Lots of guys talk like SFP scopes are obsolete. Not even close. Advantages and disadvantages with either. Some guys use FFP scopes for everything and thats cool as they feel the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Same for the SFP guys that see it similarly with their choice. They accept the tradoff as well.
I use both styles and are effective with both. Took my remmy 270 with a $200 set and forget it duplex reticle leupold zeroed at 225 and came home with 6 deer. The very next year I took my tikka ctr with a fancier FFP scope that cost much more and was Equally effective minus that one instance I described above. Meat on the table.
Last edited:
wow does this make my head hurt
wasnt the OP about long range shooting? not shooting a hog at 3x?
wasnt the OP about long range shooting? not shooting a hog at 3x?
Wtf are all you people shooting where you need the tree to be useable at 3-6x???
One guy posted a great synposis on here a while ago, FFP is easier if you are using your reticle markings for holdoffs at different magnifications. SFP is easier if you are dialing corrections because your reticle always looks the same. I am generally a known distance / F class / low-speed high-drag type of shooter and SFP works better for me, especially since any holding off I do is almost always supported by nice 1MOA rings on a flat target.
Last edited:
Definitely house clearing - then a quick instantaneous transition out to 1400 yards, LOL. Power up, ahhh there's the reticle.
Its not the tree disappearing thats the issue, it's the whole reticle becoming too thin that is the problem.
Now there is a lot to be said about using the right tool for the right job, but there are occasions where SFP is an advantage. Typically long range or PRS is not one of those situations.
Its not the tree. You guys can’t seem to comprehend. Its the thin reticle itself that is being talked about good grief.
You can not be honest and say that a Razor gen 2 with ebr7c is worth a damn below 10x and below especially in low light or inside the treeline compared to a traditional duplex reticle or something comparable. For most hunting situations the razor is a shitty scope. For others situations it is a fantastic scope. I have two myself. you may substitute “razor” for any popular tactical prs scope.
all can and are being used. Tradeoffs either way. I’m out this thread. ?
Last edited:
Reticle doesn’t “disappear.”
Its perfectly usuable “for the job” of shooting whatever you need at 3-6x.
Now, is there personal preference involved? Sure.
But time and time again, no one can ever answer me on a situation where a small duplex reticle (basically what it is at that point) isn’t suitable at 3-6x (it’s typically useable for holds ar 8-12x depending on the optic).
People swore by duplex reticles for years (and some still do) for hunting. Make it slightly smaller and all of a sudden it’s not “useable.”
I am supposed to be out this thread. Read the next line where it says substitute any other prs style tactic scope. (AMG, TT, nightforce etc. etc.
I do think the thicker reticle scopes like the lrtsi or lrhsi are a really good ffp crossover scope. Pst gen ii 3-15 as well because of the thicker reticles in those. Its all personal and what a man likes of course.
Last edited:
I was a big part of the misdirection of this thread. ?
They both work OP. FFP is typically better for long range shooting which most here will agree even though we cant agree on which is better for shooting things at point blank range. Back on track. ?
They both work OP. FFP is typically better for long range shooting which most here will agree even though we cant agree on which is better for shooting things at point blank range. Back on track. ?
Christ this is all over the place, I suppose it aint but ten years ago that 99.9 % of scopes or therabouts were sfp. More than a few of us here not only had to use a sfp but one with mismatched turrets provided by Uncle Sam. Ran a sfp 12-42x56 nxs in ftr, a 4-16 ffp Hennie in prs and probably got more than one 3-9x40 sfp on hunting rifles, different scopes for different applications. As long as I can dial and the scope is reliable is what matters
As with the OP, I am looking for some info also. I have had the mind set that the "main" benefit of a of a FFP is if you are engaging targets at different distances / using the same load all the time. That way when magnification is changed all math is consistent. Is this sound logic, or should I reconsider using FFP instead of SFP?
If that description matches your shooting then yes.
A long range scope is not ideal for short range work and vice versa. The trade offs of small accurate details are they they remain small details and vice versa. Use equipment that matches what you are using it for and you will never have an issue.
The load has nothing to do with the reticle (for anything beyond a dumb BDC in which case the load has everything to do with it lining up like someone would hope).
A good mil based reticle is not tied to a load in any way, no matter the focal plane. A reticle is like a tape measure, doesnt matter what you measure with it, the resultant measurement is the measurement.
Last edited:
I wouldnt say skill has anything to do with it either, just the discipline you are trying to utilize it in.
In your case for known dimension targets then it sounds like focal plane makes no difference beyond personal preference.
You let the targets circle scoring rings tell you where you are off and dial in your correction that way.
Or you hold off without changing magnification level.
In either case you arent using the reticle for anything.
I don’t find 3x an issue with a FFP. A lot of it is reticle dependent.
A gen 2 mil dot is perfectly usable as a duplex at 3x.
I had no issue with the EBR2C in the 3-18 Razor I had.
The MSR2 is a little bit thin on 3x but with illumination it’s perfectly usable for hunting.
the attached pic was taken 15min after sundown on 3x. berm is about 120yds away. With illumination I wouldn’t have a problem putting a bullet in a deer’s boiler room at that distance.
A gen 2 mil dot is perfectly usable as a duplex at 3x.
I had no issue with the EBR2C in the 3-18 Razor I had.
The MSR2 is a little bit thin on 3x but with illumination it’s perfectly usable for hunting.
the attached pic was taken 15min after sundown on 3x. berm is about 120yds away. With illumination I wouldn’t have a problem putting a bullet in a deer’s boiler room at that distance.
Attachments
The same reticle in a 3x-12x vs a 3x -15x vs 3x-18x all ffp would have very different perceptions of the reticle size and usefulness at min and Max magnification. The same thickness getting 4x, 5x, or 6x the size from min to max. Right?
Similar threads
