Rifle Scopes SFP vs FFP for hunting

[Graham]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sami</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You don't need FFP unless you are shooting multiple targets at different distances under time contraints.</div></div>...or unless you are hunting in moonlight like Europeans do.

</div></div>And don't forget the silver bullets for the Werewolves.

 

[Sami]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sami</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You don't need FFP unless you are shooting multiple targets at different distances under time contraints.</div></div>...or unless you are hunting in moonlight like Europeans do.

</div></div>And don't forget the silver bullets for the Werewolves.

</div></div>
Seriously though, night hunting is legal and common in Europe. That is why the preference over there is for excellent low light performance and FFP. Here in the US not so much.

 

[Graham]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

So then why wouldn't you want a larger reticle, one that you could see clearly at a lower power?

 

[Sami]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So then why wouldn't you want a larger reticle, one that you could see clearly at a lower power? </div></div>

Huh? FFP is the larger reticle. Low magnification, SFP and FFP are roughly the same size. High magnification, SFP stays the same while FFP grows larger.

 

[Graham]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sami</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So then why wouldn't you want a larger reticle, one that you could see clearly at a lower power? </div></div>Huh? FFP is the larger reticle. Low magnification, SFP and FFP are roughly the same size. High magnification, SFP stays the same while FFP grows larger. </div></div>Nope. Have another look at the pictures you posted.

 

[The Gump]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

I would get the FFP. At low power it will function like a standard duplex. At high power you can use it as a secondary ranging tool.

That being said, if I plan on taking shots over 200 yards I do my homework first. I feel that positively knowing the shooting lanes that will be used and their distances is an ethical way of hunting. If I were hunting me I would rather myself positively know what distance I am and make a clean kill rather that guesstimating what distance I may be at on the fly and poking my guts, leaving me to run off and die slowly and my body going to waist.

1)Google Earth is a great thing.
2)Shooting lanes are a good thing.

 

[Sami]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nope. Have you used a FFP scope? Have another look at the pictures you posted. </div></div>

Yes, I have several. I just looked through a Burris Euro Diamond 1.5-6x40 with 3P#4 and Kahles 1.5-6x42 with 4A. At 1.5x Burris is slightly thicker. Past 2x the 4A starts to get thicker and thicker compared to the Burris. There is no question which reticle you see to shoot better at low light. Of course the Kahles is much superior scope to the Burris so even with a slightly thinner reticle at 1.5x it would still allow to take a shot at conditions where the Burris would be useless. From purely reticle perspective it is clear (no pun intended) why the FFP Kahles is superior to the SFP Burris in low light.

Some people complain they can't see the cross hair. In those hunting situation the only thing that matters are the thick bars anyways. German #1 is still a very popular reticle and it doesn't even have a cross hair.

 

[Graham]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sami</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In those hunting situation the only thing that matters are the thick bars anyways.</div></div>Nope, one uses a crosshair. If you are lucky the thick bars thin-out to become a crosshair that is able to be seen, but not always (depending on the magnification range of the scope and the thickness of the reticle).<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sami</div><div class="ubbcode-body">German #1 is still a very popular reticle and it doesn't even have a cross hair. </div></div>That's a post. Are you saying that FFP is superior for low light shooting because it provides a thick post for use with some sort of point-blank range zero?

With FFP, the reticle gets smaller as the power is turned down. It can't be otherwise. That's why SFP is better for low light at low power.

 

[Sami]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With FFP, the reticle gets smaller as the power is turned down. It can't be otherwise. That's why SFP is better for low light at low power.</div></div>
I don't know whether you're joking or serious. What you say is correct about the reticle getting smaller but it also works the opposite way, the reticle gets larger when the magnification is turned up. When the reticle at low magn. is roughly the same size, what do you think it is going to be at max?

Go here: Zeiss reticle selector (Cape Buffalo)

Select #4 or #8 first and then switch to Rapid-Z 600. Tell me what you see.

 

[Graham]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

In your example the magnification does not change.

In a FFP scope, when the retcle is at low magnification it is not at roughly the same size.

 

[mtscott]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

I have been using a FFP scope for the last 3 three years. I have shot paper and steel from 100-1000+ meters. The animals - prairie dogs, coyotes, badgers, antelope, whitetail, mule deer, cotton rabbits, jack rabbits and pack rats from 15-540 meters. The magnification was from the low end to high end. The shots from just after legal shooting light on the deer to varmints by the head lights of my truck using the lit recticle. The FFP never was the cause of a missed or poorly placed shot.

 

[Graham]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mtscott</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The FFP never was the cause of a missed or poorly placed shot. </div></div>Good point: My equipment doesn't cause my misses either.

What scope/magnification range/recticle do you use?

 

[Sami]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In your example the magnification does not change.
</div></div>

Sorry, forgot to quote, that was in reference to your comment here:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nope, one uses a crosshair.</div></div>

Put that situation in low light to make it more extreme and tell me which reticle is better and why? Do you still think seeing a cross hair is required to make the shot with thick bars?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In a FFP scope, when the retcle is at low magnification it is not at roughly the same size. </div></div>

That depends on the scope. A #4 will get you thicker bars than a regular SFP duplex. Heavy SFP #4 like the Burris I mentioned is going to have heavier bars at the lowest magnification but not nearly enough to make up for the thin bars at high magnification. Tactical scopes are of course a different story but we're talking about hunting scopes.

When you look at these pictures remember that the only thing that matters in low light are the thick bars, not the cross hair. That Zeiss link clearly illustrates this. Both scopes are 1.5-6x, one SFP and the other a FFP.

 

[Graham]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sami</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you still think seeing a cross hair is required to make the shot with thick bars?</div></div>That's an interesting idea: Perhaps, if you know your scope, you don't need any bars.

I'm serious: I am sure that if there was no reticle, and if your target was large enough, you could hit it without using any internal references at all.

 

[Sami]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sami</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you still think seeing a cross hair is required to make the shot with thick bars?</div></div>That's an interesting idea: Perhaps, if you know your scope, you don't need any bars at all. I am sure that if there was no crosshair, and if your target was large enough, you could hit it without any internal references at all.

</div></div>
You are correct of course. If you know the scope is set to the centre of the lens all you need to do is have the target centred in the middle. That doesn't mean the thick bars won't help you, a lot. One has to remember that hunting big game is totally different from hunting small game. 3-9x scope might be great for deer hunting at a blind but way too large for someone who does moose hunting. They would opt for 1-4x or similar. Same with reticles, what works for varmints isn't suitable for big game.

This reticle below is great for big game but it's not going to get you the perfect group from 1000 yards. Nor is it going to be the best option to go shoot prairie dogs but it works for bears, moose and elk. The right tool for the job, isn't that how it goes?

 

[tigerfan_9]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sami</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I'll give it a try but Viper PST isn't a very good low light scope. </div></div>

Is this from first hand experience? Which pst model or all? I am looking for a combo hunting/tactical optic and was looking at pst. For hunting poor low light performance would certainly be a turnoff. Which optic do you like better in low light?

 

[Sami]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tigerfan9</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is this from first hand experience? Which pst model or all? I am looking for a combo hunting/tactical optic and was looking at pst. For hunting poor low light performance would certainly be a turnoff. Which optic do you like better in low light? </div></div>

I have a Viper PST 4-16x50. I did a little test couple weeks ago but it was with a variety of scopes, 3 hunting scopes and two tacticals. The other tactical, Weaver 3-15x50, performed better at low light but I do like the features on the PST much better. If you weren't looking for tactical features my recommendation for the money would definitely be Minox ZA5.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sami</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was at the lease alone this weekend so I decided to take some scopes with me and do a little un-scientific low light comparison between them. I was only looking for clarity at low light conditions at 40 yards. Scopes were compared at 12x and at 10x (Burris only goes to 10x). Higher magnification didn't seem to improve clarity, at least on such a short distance so 12x was the base line while Burris was referenced to others in 10x magnification.

Scopes tested, name and price paid (total out the door):

Swarovski Z3 4-12x50, $870 (new)
Burris Euro Diamond 2.5-10x50, $549 (demo unit)
Minox ZA5 4-20x50, $399 (demo unit, black friday special)
Weaver Tactical 3-15x50, $550 (used)
Vortex Viper PST 4-16x50, $750 (used)

My test panel:

First test was done with a little helper light on the panel to get a baseline on how the scopes performed on better light conditions.

These are all my opinions as I was just trying to get the picture as clear and sharp as possible. I resisted the temptation to upgrade scopes with a more pleasant view and easier eye relief (one scopes is above all in that regard and some are worse than others but that was not the goal for this test).

First round results:

1. Burris
2. Swarovski
3. Minox
4. Weaver
5. Vortex

All 5 scopes performed quite well with the little help from the flash light. Differences were minimal and to my surprise I was able to get the Burris to focus on the test panel the best. YMMV of course. It is also worth to note that the top 2 don't have parallax adjustment.

Next up was the same panel without flash light.

The tables turned here a little bit.

1. Swarovski
2. Minox
3. Weaver
4. Burris
5. Vortex

This chart might indicate that the biggest "loser" was Burris which dropped from top to #4. In my observations the biggest drop in quality was however from the Vortex. All top 4 still managed to get quite a clear picture while on the Vortex the drop in PQ was quite drastic. Not a lousy performance but in this company it was noticeable. The biggest surprise to me was Weaver which seemed like it improved its position when the lights got dimmer. Not enough to surpass Minox which was quite close to Swarovski. Surprise to me since the Weaver doesn't have the "WOW" factor when looking through daylight.

Overall all scopes performed well, there aren't really any losers in this group as all are very good scopes. All have their strong points and weak points.

<span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">Swarovski Z3 4-12x50</span></span>

If you're looking for a basic hunting scope with no frills, then Swarovski doesn't really have many weak points other than maybe price. It is light and very easy on the eyes in both picture quality (not only sharpness) and eye relief.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Minox ZA5 4-20x50</span>

Minox is a very close performer to Swaro but I found it to be a little picky about eye position. This is your scope if you're looking for excellent glass at a great price. Also available in 3-15x50.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Burris Euro Diamond 2.5-10x50</span>

Burris was a minor disappointment in low light but it has a good price point since it is a close-out model in addition to having a lighted reticle. Make no mistake, the low light performance is still plenty good to benefit from lighted reticle. Also available in 3-12x50.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Weaver Tactical 3-15x50</span>

Weaver has combined good glass with tactical features like first focal plane MRAD reticle and tactical turrets. It is of course a heavy scope so not the one for your light weight rig.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Vortex Viper PST 4-16x50</span>

While I rate the glass on Vortex the lowest of this group in low light, I do think it is a great scope that offers excellent features for its price. FFP, MRAD, zerostop etc. I do think its reticle design is one of the best I have seen, minimizing the negatives of having a FFP scope. It's also a very attractive looking scope if that matters (and yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course). </div></div>

 

[21Bravo]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

Just posting my experience for what it's worth. I believe SFP vs FFP for hunting depends on a number of factors.

1. Reticle design, if it's fine and cluttered it makes picking it up more difficult on low power.

2. Terrain you hunt. I hunt broken terrain with quite a bit of low brush. On longer shots 150 yds on further, the FFP reticle has been fine for me, this includes Leupold TMR and Vortex EBR. But with exception, and this is a big exception, if the animal is inside of 100 yds and there is any clutter, ie brush (small amount, I'm not talking thickets)I have had to make a considerable effort to not loose my reticle in the clutter, this is on lower powers around 4-6.

4. Do you plan on ranging the animal with reticle? In my terrain that's tough to do as they generally do not remain still and often are in and out of concealment. I use an laser range finder and actually make a mental range card from my shooting position after I set up.

3. Money. It all comes down to this eventually. The rifles I hunt with are not my primary long range rifles. If a guy wanted to run with the same rifle to hunt with and shoot comps or whatever, go with a FFP. If not, I honestly believe SFP is the way to go. That is if your hunting terrain like mine, some long shots but close up cluttered and occasionally fast and furious. If your terrain is more open than mine FFP would likely be good to go.

Hope this helps,

Craig

 

[Sami]

Re: SFP vs FFP for hunting

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 21Bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If not, I honestly believe SFP is the way to go. That is if your hunting terrain like mine, some long shots but close up cluttered and occasionally fast and furious. If your terrain is more open than mine FFP would likely be good to go.</div></div>

I think that pertains more to tactical scopes, not so much for hunting scopes. Especially on thick terrain FFP is a great choice. I just got a replacement scope for my main hunting rifle, a Zeiss Victory Diavari 3-12x56 with a #8 reticle. I don't think anyone would take a similar SFP scope over it for short range hunting in thick terrain.