Rifle Scopes What is the real word difference? (FFP and SFP)

[TheBigCountry]

I know this thread topic has been beat to death, and I apologize in advance. But with the amount of cash I am considering dropping, I have to ask.

I have a 308 being built by Accurate Ordnance. Its use will be mainly paper punching and ringing still; basically learning LR shooting beyond what the 'Corps has taught me. I am going the buy once cry once route on this rig. The rifle will need an optic...catch where this is going?

My google-fu has shown me some prefer FFP, some prefer SFP (yes here we go again, sorry).

So, like the title states, what will be the real world difference? I have never used a FFP scope before; all of my shooting experiences have been with SFP hunting scopes and a 4x ACOG to punch paper. I can see the disadvantages and advantages of both, but still am shaking my head at what will work best for me.

I am highly considering several scopes right now; if I had to put them in order it would be the new Vortex Razor HDII 5-25 and Steiner Military 5-25. For SFP, the Nightforce ATACR is looking REALLY nice as well.

Since this is my big jump into LR shooting (I fully intend on taking courses), and the main goals are to learn the art, punch paper, and ring steel for now (competitions will come later; for that I plan on building a 6 or 6.5), why should I choose a FFP over a SFP, or reverse?

Thanks in advance,

A.J.

 

[ShtrRdy]

Hopefully someone with more experience than me will chime in, but I see the pros/cons like this:

FFP Pros:
- you don't have to remember to adjust the power ring to a certain power setting to make the reticle scaling correct
- you can adjust the amount of magnification as needed to range an object.

FFP Cons:
- for low power settings, it's really tough to see the reticle. Illumination helps here.
- more expensive

SFP Pros:
- the reticle size is constant, so you can see it regardless of magnification setting.
- less expensive

SFP Cons:
- you have to remember to adjust the magnification if you want to use the reticle for ranging, hold-over, hold-off

 

[USMCCOMBATVET]

Unless you intend on ranging the targets using the reticle you will be fine with a 2nd focal plane; however if you intend on learning the concept of ranging targets using the reticle to measure target size, ect you want a 1st focal plane. If you are going to buy once and not regret it, put the money into a MIL/MIL 1st focal plane and be done with it.

 

[LawnMM]

FFP is not just about ranging. You can range with SFP. The real world difference is that in the real world you don't have time for the mental math of halving, quartering, thirding, three eigthsing your hold overs and hold offs. Nobody shooting tactical rifle competitions or shooting in LE/MIL is using SFP except the one guy that pipes up after I post this just to be different.

It's simpler to have correct values on your reticle despite your magnification. If you are hunting shooting minute of deer or will only shoot on a square range and never under pressure SFP is fine but frankly with the options available these days at competitive prices why handicap yourself?

 

[Rhyno]

Get a FFP and forget it. With a well designed FFP reticle there is no disadvantage.

 

[Captain Kirk]

With a FFP optic, the reticle AND the target increase and decrease with magnification changes, all of the mathematics of ranging and trajectory stay consistent regardless of magnification. If you find yourself shooting fixed distances, a FFP optic becomes less critical. If you often engage targets of unknown distance (UKD) or varying distance, or you want to use the reticle to make corrections, a FFP retcile is very helpful.

 

[RobertB]

I think they both are awesome. I have several of both. Hard to deny what people have been doing with sfp NF nxs for a long time. If your looking for an lower power range then sfp is the only way to go for me. For higher power scopes FFP is awesome if you have the right reticle. If you don't then it will be either too big for linger ranges or too small and in low light you will loose it. And some will loose some of the reticle for high power. I've used premier, s&b, nf, Bushnell, and Swfa ffp scopes. The premier, SB are really nice but you will pay for them. When you look at the features and reticle together I really like what the bushnells give you with the g2 reticle. They seem to be setup just right IMHO. As far as sfp, they will do anything the ffp will do but you just need to be on top of things. If you will always dial and yiy know that then I say go sfp. If you will hold and you wanna go really fast then a ffp is hard to beat. I competed with a nf 2.5-10 sfp scope and I was really happy with my performance but I have been happy with my ffp in other situations. I just think that if your in top of what your working with then you'll be fine. If you want a higher power scope and don't mind spending money then I would probably vote for a ffp mil/mil scope and I bet that if your north happy then it wouldn't be too hard to swap out. But I bet you'll be happy. Good luck sir.

 

[loudandproud]

One thing I like about FFP optics is being able to correct my holdovers quickly without zooming back out to measure how far I was off.

Oops...I hit .7 mils low. ZIP ZIP ZIP... BOOM..............................DING.

Don't forget about the Bushnell XRS with the G2 reticle. Very nice glass for the money and the tracking is dead nuts.

 

[Ledzep]

Real world difference is honestly not that much. Give and take if you will...

My mk6 3-18 is rough from 3x to 6x because the reticle is thin. From 15-18x it's pretty damn thick, too. But I don't have to worry about holds. A mil is a mil all the time. My NF 2fp scopes have awesome crisp thin precise reticle, but I'm doing swag math for holds (mostly wind) if not at the highest zoom.

I think it's a personal preference thing. Try both and see, you won't lose much money selling after trying.

 

[Toast]

I use both. If you're not sure, get the FFP and don't worry about it. Over time, you'll care less about it. Both work just fine, you just have to learn how to use the scope that is mounted to your rifle.

Try to get your hands on the new Vortex 4.5-27. A used Vortex Viper will fit the bill nicely. You can sell it for almost what you paid for it when you figure out what you like/dislike about scopes.

If you want to buy once, cry once, get a Nightforce BEAST or S&B or the Vortex 4.5-27, in that order. That's my 2 cents.

 

[TheBigCountry]

Thanks for all the input so far everyone.

With the overall consensus saying FFP, the choice is clear. The Vortex 4.5-27 it is. Should be a nice match for my 308

 

[rw496]

After starting out with ffp, sfp just seems weird...best way I can explain it. I don't like sfp

 

[RRA_45]

Ffp sucks for low power scopes imho. I have to squint to see the reticle at 1 power which makes it really slow even though 1 power is for speed.

 

[Rhyno]

Ffp sucks for low power scopes imho. I have to squint to see the reticle at 1 power which makes it really slow even though 1 power is for speed.

Depends on the reticle design.

 

[BobinNC]

To the OP,

Rather than focus on "The Real world Differences between SFP & FFP" I think a better analysis is to define what will you be shooting at, and at what ranges. Here's some examples:

These are some general rules that most folks seem to follow:

Targets that are moving laterally are better handled by FFP scopes (assuming of course you have the right reticle) because you can use your windage lead marks at almost any power.

Targets that are over 200 yds or greater away from you and/or may be at unknown distances are usually better handled by FFP scopes, unless the target is very small.

If you want to range at all, FFP scopes are better because you can usually range targets at any part of the upper 80% of your zoom range, regardless of most conditions.

Targets less than 200 yds are usually better handled by SFP scopes, because these are generally point and shoot type targets anyway, and the lower 20% of the zoom range of most (but not all, it's very reticle dependent) FFP scopes are near useless.

Targets that can bite, claw or stomp you to death are handled much better by SFP scopes, cause the ranges will be very, very short, and the quarry can be very, very quick.

Targets that are very small, such as some varmints or small stationary paper targets, or shooting for groups in competitions at known ranges, are usually handled slightly better by SFP scopes, mainly due to the reticle size at high powers as seen in relation to the target.

 

[Rhyno]

Eh, again it comes down to reticle design, as there are reticle on ffp that are just as fine at high magnification as sfp models, and there are reticle that are just as thick or thicker at low magnification.

 

[BobinNC]

Eh, again it comes down to reticle design, as there are reticle on ffp that are just as fine at high magnification as sfp models, and there are reticle that are just as thick or thicker at low magnification.

Rhyno,

You said the same thing twice "it comes down to reticle design", which may be true, but some examples of which specific FFP reticles that are superior, at both low and high power, would be imminently more useful to any one reading this thread.

Thanks

 

[steve123]

For shooting long range in a dynamic environment I'd rather think about other important things than the mil or moa values being correct, especially for holdoffs when the solution is dialed. "Yes, with a SFP scope the reticle values are incorrect for holding off for wind except on one magnification". I want to concentrate on how I'm shooting the stage and the intricacies thereof, what the wind speed is and where it's coming from, building as solid a position as possible, etc. I do not want to think about "anything more" than I already deem necessary.

Another thing I feel I need is picking the ideal mag and the ideal FOV for the situation while having the holdoff values staying true, = FFP.

For holding over I've felt hamstrung using a SFP scope in comparison to FFP. I'd almost rather have a fixed power scope because of the times I've forgotten to change mag to the setting where the values are correct, also I've made the wrong wind calls for friends using a SFP scope on the wrong mag because I'm so used to not having to do so on a FFP.

All that being said for a scope like a 1-4 or 1-6 power I'd rather use SFP. With a scope like this I wouldn't be using it for any more than medium distances anyway but primarily close range.

Paper target shooters have rings on bulls they shoot to use as a reference on where to aim for wind and are typically shooting at a certain distance for the match. I could see where FFP isn't so advantageous. Also many of them dial for wind and/or are using a reticle with no hash marks for reference.

 

[WaShooter]

I was in this dilemma over the past year looking for the best scope to to suit my needs. I considered a FFP scope in the 5 or 6-25'ish power range for long range predator hunting and chuck shooting. Long story short, several reasons, I selected the Nightforce SHV 4-14x56 SFP MOAR reticle, for MY purposes of use, where most of my kills are under 400 yards but can be made at 1000 or more, the SFP scope and MOAR reticle should produce fine results. I am accustom to using the 4-14 line of Leupold and Zeiss scopes so the power range was adequate for my distances. I laser all of my shots anyway so no need to range with a reticle, I'm not shooting tactical matches, I can't see for shit anyway and my shooting sucks in general as it is. The glass is very, very clear, the turrets adjustments are crisp and repeatable it is not a small scope yet not quite as heavy as others available. Plus I do some night hunting with lights so I picked the illuminated version which I believe the SFP scope will perform perfectly in such application where most kills at night are under 100 yards.
It's not what most Tactical event shooters would choose but for me, it should perform very nicely this fall/winter when I begin chasing fur. It is not even mounted on a $3000 rifle either just a simple box stock Ruger American 243W. YMMV

 

[Rhyno]

Rhyno,

You said the same thing twice "it comes down to reticle design", which may be true, but some examples of which specific FFP reticles that are superior, at both low and high power, would be imminently more useful to any one reading this thread.

Thanks

No doubt. I don't know all of the reticle designs though.

IMO people are trying to do to much, they build rifles suited for 1000 yards, then want a reticle that they can see in the dark woods at under 100 yards. I've seen SFP that you would lose in that situation.

When you want to do the extremes of both ends of the spectrum (Heavy at low end, thin at high end) it can't be done, however I can't think of a real world application where such a spectrum would be required.

For everything else you can find a reticle design that will work. With the added bonus of your subtensions being correct at all times.

 

[TheBigCountry]

One again thanks for the input from all. FFP is definitely worth the investment to me for my needs, especially since I want to learn to range with the reticle, and as some have stated the added benefit of having the holdoffs remain true regardless of the magnification.

I see the topic of reticles has been discussed. It has prompted me to look at some of the reticles on the market right now. For some reason the MSR reticle really catches my attention. As good as the reviews are on the new Vortex, I cant say I am crazy about the reticle...the Steiner with MSR is really looking good. So is the S&B with MSR, but the price just about knocks the wind out of me...

 

[bogeybrown]

If I were putting together a rifle to shoot at 100yds or maybe a bit further, I'd probably go SFP.

Here's the scenario which has pushed me to FFP on all of my recent scopes:

You're out shooting at fairly long range (800+) and in the morning you're able to dial way up and use the top end of your mag range, let's say 25x or so. Then the mirage kicks up or some other factor comes into play such as FOV and you want to dial down a bit and find that sweetspot where you still have good mag but you're just below the threshold where mirage is beating you up.

On a SFP, all of your wind data is sort of out the window once you've adjusted your magnification and you have re-calculate your holds. On a FFP you can run your mag in and out as needed and your holds don't change.

That's where I ended up with it and have purchased scopes accordingly.

 

[TheBigCountry]

If I were putting together a rifle to shoot at 100yds or maybe a bit further, I'd probably go SFP.

Here's the scenario which has pushed me to FFP on all of my recent scopes:

You're out shooting at fairly long range (800+) and in the morning you're able to dial way up and use the top end of your mag range, let's say 25x or so. Then the mirage kicks up or some other factor comes into play such as FOV and you want to dial down a bit and find that sweetspot where you still have good mag but you're just below the threshold where mirage is beating you up.

On a SFP, all of your wind data is sort of out the window once you've adjusted your magnification and you have re-calculate your holds. On a FFP you can run your mag in and out as needed and your holds don't change.

That's where I ended up with it and have purchased scopes accordingly.

Another very valid reason to go FFP. Thank you sir. I can definitely see what you mentioned occuring down here in hot and humid FL

 

[bogeybrown]

Another very valid reason to go FFP. Thank you sir. I can definitely see what you mentioned occuring down here in hot and humid FL

No problem buddy. I'm down on the Gulf Coast when I'm in the States, so I can sympathize with the heat and humidity even at short range when trying to zero.

 

[4000fps]

Ranging and hold overs are still an option with a SFP, you just need to be on high power. The only time I could see it being a problem is if you are in a timed event and you want your scope on a lower power to quickly locate them and range them.

 

[desert dog]

I have no issues using both for target shooting. If a target is far enough away to NEED to range with the reticle, I like the accuracy of doing it at full power anyway, negating the need for FFP. Also, If I have time to range an object in my scope, calculate the distance, and get my ballistic solution - then I also have a few extra seconds to dial in my turret. However, I do like the convenience of wind holds at any power with FFP; that is the real advantage IMO.

For hunting or defensive rifles, I greatly prefer SFP optics because I take just as many shots at low power as I do high power and hate all of the FFP reticles at low power in dim light. And these types of rifles are sighted in for "point-blank range", which means you will be aiming on the crosshair anyway.

 

[Ranger413]

From studying posts here, and on other forums, I was easily sold on the FFP concept (as well as Mil/Mil reticle and turrets). I participated in a precision rifle class where we were using SFP MIL/MOA scopes. I know that "used" to be the standard, but when I decided to go FFP and Mil/Mil, the results were instantly gratifying. No more zooming up to max power to make sure my reticle was "on", no more math to make adjustments - hit a mil low, dial up a mil, bingo. My first choice for anything tactical will be a FFP scope.

For specific uses, like shooting a 50 BMG at 1000 yards (and only ever shooting it in matches at that distance) the SFP scope would make sense. I can also see the use of SFP for say a 1-6 or so scope that doesn't have a mil-based reticle. Saw one of the new Steiners that I liked that had an illuminated dot for use at 1X and a BDC-type reticle for use at max power - made sense. As much as I like FFP on a tactical rig, that doesn't convince me to go out and replace all of my hunting scopes (they're working just fine on my big/small game rifles).

I the end, you'll have to decide which suits you best. Determine your purpose and choose FFP or SFP based on that. Then, evaluate the best reticle for your particular needs.

 

[roggom]

For me it really depends on the use of the rifle. If you are shooting with a spotter who is calling shots, then the FFP is great as you can quickly hold the amount and make corrections. For me that just is not the case.

For the type of shooting that this forum was created for, the FFP is justly prescribed but not absolutely necessary.

If you take a proficient shooter, even with a simple duplex hunting scope, he will put hits on targets. Its all about mastering your rifle.