FFP vs SFP and necessity

[taskswap]

I have one of each and really believe it comes down to preference and training.

 

[justin davis]

I’m a sfp guy. But I don’t do holdovers. I prefer to dial to the exact range im shooting

 

[Weldor]

I would think Lighted reticle will take care of that.

The reticle is still very small.

 

[Thinkingman]

SFP beyond 15xish is bad news. Not enough FOV. I own a nx8 4-32 and it’s great but worthless under about 8-10x. Despite what some here say, there is no universal superiority of one over another. It’s personal preference.

What do you mean about FOV?
The field is the field, regardless of the size of the reticle at any particular magnification setting.

 

[JohnJohnson]

What do you mean about FOV?
The field is the field, regardless of the size of the reticle at any particular magnification setting.

I think he means shooting game above 15 power (so your subtensions are correct on a SFP scope with a max power over 15) is bad because you lose a lot of field of view that you would have had by staying at a lower magnification.

 

[Macintosh]

Agree, its because over about 10-12x magnification the field of view is too narrow for most shots outside of a flat range, even at ranges long-enough to want to use the reticle. Imo sfp is a liability over about 10-12x on a hunting gun if you plan to use a graduated reticle, for just this reason. I know people do it, but on a scope with a higher magnification I find ffp a neccessity in order to effectively use the reticle at a magnification setting where most shots are taken. Its just too much of a compromise for most shots to go with 2fp in that case, and unless you are trying to shoot tiny groups on paper its not as much of a benefit as I once thought. The higher the magnification, the more I think this is true, to me a 20+ x scope in 2fp is a total non-starter.

 

[Sundodger]

I prefer SFP for anything up to 16x. Bought a 4-20 SFP and between the eyebox being too twitchy at max mag and it being 20x I decided the cut over point is somewhere between 16x and 20x where I would want a SFP vs FFP.

Now I have a 5-25X FFP Vortex Strike Eagle on that rifle and even at 25X with illumination on max the cross hairs are too thin to see against the backdrop of dark targets 200 yards and further out, so now I am trying to find a scope with a thicker reticle or brighter illumination (hopefully both).

 

[Mojave]

Where do you live? How far are you shooting?

Tell us more!

 

[Mojave]

This is the best 2nd plane 30mm scope other than the Swarovski X5.

ZD 6-24x56 RD

ZD series riflescopes are avaible with an array of reticles that can be matched to any tactical platform. If you demand the most from your optics, demand a Meopta ZD. Aim accurately whether the target is near or far. Every perfect sniper will appreciate the rangefinder scale to accurately...

meopta.store

It has transvestite reticle/vertical dials. In that the dials are MOA and the reticle is usually mils.

The x5 is the best SFP 30mm hunting scope made.

Nightforce SFPs are like looking through a toilet roll at low power.

 

[ID_Matt]

I’m a sfp guy. But I don’t do holdovers. I prefer to dial to the exact range im shooting

Dial wind?

 

[SDHNTR]

What do you mean about FOV?
The field is the field, regardless of the size of the reticle at any particular magnification setting.

Correct. In order for your subtensions to be accurate, you need to be at max power. So anything over 15X (my own opinion, some may say more or less) shrinks FOV to the point of being detrimental. You can’t spot hits and can’t get back on target quickly for a follow up shot.

I shot a buck several years ago by myself. SFP scope at max power. It was in a small clearing, across a canyon, amid thick trees. There was enough wind to matter so I used a hash or two. I shot and heard the bullet hit, but recoil blew me out of the shot picture. I had no idea if the deer went left or right, up or down. He just wasn’t in that clearing anymore, dead or alive. I found it after some searching (it ran a bit, went right down, then slid downhill a ways) but it sure would have been nice if I had be able to see what happened.

FOV matters. When people buy high mag sfp scopes, I don’t think they understand what they’re buying. They think they are fixing one problem while in reality they are creating an even bigger one.

A buddy just recently showed me his new custom gun and scope he was all excited about. Zeiss 6-24x on top. He said “man the 24 power on this baby is so awesome for my old eyes”! I said, so you plan on shooting it in the field at 12x and doubling the subtensions for wind holds? He looked at me puzzled, and then like I just called his baby ugly.

 

[Thinkingman]

Correct. In order for your subtensions to be accurate, you need to be at max power. So anything over 15X (my own opinion, some may say more or less) shrinks FOV to the point of being detrimental. You can’t spot hits and can’t get back on target quickly for a follow up shot.

I shot a buck several years ago by myself. SFP scope at max power. It was in a small clearing, across a canyon, amid thick trees. There was enough wind to matter so I used a hash or two. I shot and heard the bullet hit, but recoil blew me out of the shot picture. I had no idea if the deer went left or right, up or down. He just wasn’t in that clearing anymore, dead or alive. I found it after some searching (it ran a bit, went right down, then slid downhill a ways) but it sure would have been nice if I had be able to see what happened.

FOV matters. When people buy high mag sfp scopes, I don’t think they understand what they’re buying. They think they are fixing one problem while in reality they are creating an even bigger one.

A buddy just recently showed me his new custom gun and scope he was all excited about. Zeiss 6-24x on top. He said “man the 24 power on this baby is so awesome for my old eyes”! I said, so you plan on shooting it in the field at 12x and doubling the subtensions for wind holds? He looked at me puzzled, and then like I just called his baby ugly.

I guess I really don't understand.
If I dial back a SFP scope, I have good vision of the reticle (most important) and I have good FOV.
If I dial back a FFP scope, I have very little detail of the reticle, so the subtensions are potentially useless.
Personally, unless I know I am shooting really long distances, a FFP is of no use TO ME.
Note caps for emphasis.

 

[SDHNTR]

Have you actually used both? Your post says no.

Dial a SFP scope back from 20 to 12x to a reasonable FOV and your subtensions are damn near useless without complex math.

Dial a FFP scope from 20x back to 12x and they remain perfectly useable and perfectly visible. No one is dialing a FFP scope back to the point of a reticle not being visible.

And of course if we’re talking about back east or deep woods style hunting where 200 yards is long, none of this matters.

 

[wind gypsy]

I've found that under time stress, at ranges I'd actually shoot at animals (say under 600 but more like under 500), I find myself at 6-10x magnification and holding wind using a FFP reticle. No concerns about what mag a guy is on, just adjust it to get the FOV/sight picture you want for finding targets and seeing impacts. That Maven reticle really is a good balance. I've had no issues with the LRHS ffp reticles either at low power but prefer the maven.

 

[SDHNTR]

I've found that under time stress, at ranges I'd actually shoot at animals (say under 600 but more like under 500), I find myself at 6-10x magnification and holding wind using a FFP reticle. No concerns about what mag a guy is on, just adjust it to get the FOV/sight picture you want for finding targets and seeing impacts. That Maven reticle really is a good balance. I've had no issues with the LRHS ffp reticles either at low power but prefer the maven.

I agree with this but for me, I tend to live at 8-12x ish. Same principle tho.

Or with a limited mag SFP like a 2.5-10 NXS, same concept. Just grip it, crank it, and rip it.

 

[tracker12]

The reticle is still very small.

I never look at the reticle when using the dot. But that me. But for my eastern woods I stick with the SFP Leupolds VX5HD that do 2-10 power.

 

[kickemall]

Neither one of those is optimum for hunting.

Maven RS1.2 SHR-mil. Then you aren’t compromising on anything- the reticle is as viable as a standard SFP duplex on low power and is a very good mil FFP above 5x.

This is spot on. I compared my RS 1.2 to some sfp scopes. A Maven RS 5, two Nightforce scopes and a Leupold VX5 and the Maven RS1.2 reticle is just as usable at 2.5 in low light, thick timber as the ones listed and actually better than the NFs.

 

[Macintosh]

I guess I really don't understand.
If I dial back a SFP scope, I have good vision of the reticle (most important) and I have good FOV.
If I dial back a FFP scope, I have very little detail of the reticle, so the subtensions are potentially useless.
Personally, unless I know I am shooting really long distances, a FFP is of no use TO ME.
Note caps for emphasis.

Eastern woods hunter here so I know exactly what you are saying. I would have agreed with that for a long time, because I had not used a first focal plane reticle that was designed for hunting. I agree 100%, if you get one of these PRS type reticles, they suck for hunting in broken terrain and backgrounds and many are un-useable at lower to moderate magnification. However, that is not inherent in being first focal plane, they are simply bad hunting reticles because they are not useful throughout their magnification range. Why on earth would any designer in their right mind put a reticle in a scope that is not useable for a third or even half of its magnification range? I’ll tell you why, it’s because people don’t actually shoot those scopes at low magnification, they only zoom down to find targets and then zoom back up to 12-18x to shoot. They are literally not designed for shooting under eight or 10 or 12X. BUT there ARE a handful of ffp reticles frequently mentioned on this forum that are easily usable without illumination from minimum through maximum magnification. That’s where I would look.

 

[LongWayAround]

I have only used one ffp scope (lrhs) so my experience with them is limited. If a person is turning the magnification all of the way down to where the subtensions are difficult to see clearly, it is for close targets. I walk around with my scope on minimum power for quick, close opportunities. Other reticles may be less useful, but I have no problem with the G2H. If the reticle almost completely goes away at low power, it's the wrong tool for the task.

If a target is far enough to dial for, turn up the magnification until it's comfortable. It's the same process as having to turn an sfp to its calibrated magnification. For me, I find that about 8x-12x is most comfortable to distances that I care to shoot, while the 18x top end is useless to me.

If an sfp is calibrated to a certain magnification, how much error is introduced by missing that perfect power level? How do you know if the power ring perfectly matches the design values?

 

[bnewt3]

for a Comp/Target scope at that distance that will also pull hunting duty, I would go with FFP.