FFP vs. SFP for practical use—do you actually care, or is this more of a range flex than a field necessity?

[lancegrsn78]

There’s always debate around First Focal Plane (FFP) vs. Second Focal Plane (SFP) scopes. Some folks swear by FFP for holdovers and “serious” shooting, others say SFP gets the job done just fine—especially for home defense or plinking. Curious where you all stand.

 

[InTheSwamp]

FFP
The ruler is in the reticle.

 

[joneb]

SFP with a fixed power will range like a FFP but the FFP will range at any power which is good , but at low power the reticle in a FFP scope is very small.
So if a SFP scope is a 3x9 power and has reticle hash marks at some power between 3 and 9 power the scope should range.

 

[Varminterror]

FFP’s are better in long range, field applications where wind and range compensation, range estimation, moving target or moving shooter compensation, or observation is pertinent than are SFP scopes.

SFP scopes aren’t particularly “better” in any particular application, however the drawbacks of variable relative scale for the reticle are less influential in short range and fixed/known distance shooting.

That describes a difference in functional suitability for field applications, based on the demands of the application. A minivan is a great tool for a particular transportation/vehicular task, but absolutely not suitable for other transportation/vehicular tasks. For a daily commuter, single occupant, any of a handful of vehicle types can do the job, because the demands of the application aren’t particularly stringent. For Top Fuel Drags, a minivan won’t particularly suit the task at hand.

 

[jmorris]

I use both all the time, red dots and irons too, just depends on what I am doing and what I am expecting.

 

[Laphroaig]

The trouble with FFP is that the reticle size changes with the power so that it's smaller (finer) at low power and bigger (coarser) at high powers. That's opposite of what I'd want for practical use; bigger at low power to stand out for quick shots, moving targets and such, finer for high power precision shots. FFP's practical use is with a Christmas tree type reticle where the subtensions are constant through all powers. IMO the reticle gets so so small at low powers it's not practical to use anyway.

If your use is plinking and home defense, and I'll throw in hunting, I prefer SFP. There are ranging reticles suitable for hunting but you have to remember to set it on the highest power or you'll shoot high at longer ranges. I don't think that's an unreasonable proposition considering you should be thoughtful and deliberate if the range is long enough to need holdover.

Redfield was first to develop SFP variables and it was a big selling point when they did that.

 

[mavracer]

They both have strong points and drawbacks. Having a well designed reticle can ease the impact of the drawbacks some.

 

[Hunter 08]

I've only recently acquired a FFP scope and haven't used it yet. It's only been within the last couple years that I really learned the differences between the two, bit it's also been within the same time frame that you could get a decent entry level FFP scope, and not have to drop over a grand for one.

 

[Peakbagger46]

FFP is usually my choice for distance shooting. That said, I use a Kahles 1-6 LPVO in SFP and it’s just fine due to the limited magnification.

 

[jmr40]

For what I do I don't need FFP. I zero my "Hunting" rifles at the highest magnification then move to the lowest magnification and confirm the zero is still the same, or close enough for hunting out to 200ish yards.

When I hunt, I leave the scope on the lowest setting and almost never use anything else. I've killed deer at 200 yards with the scope set at 2X. If I need more than the lowest magnification, I have plenty of time to turn the dial up to the highest magnification.

During the rest of the year when I shoot at the range for fun, I always use the scopes set on the highest magnification where the hash marks are accurate. I have NEVER fired a shot with any of my rifles with the scope on any setting but the lowest, or highest. I simply never use anything in between. And at the ranges I'm shooting with it on the lowest magnifications I don't need hash marks.

Of course, my scopes are 1-4X, 3-9X or 4.5-14X. The 4.5-14X scopes are all on rifles I only use at the range, and they always stay on 14X.

If someone is using a scope with a very wide range of magnification, then a SFP scope makes a lot of sense. There could easily be times where an 8-32X scope needs more than 8X, but less than 32X. And having the hash marks accurate on 15X is a good idea. But for what I do if 3X isn't enough, there is no handicap to go straight to 9X.

 

[Lo-Profile]

I have both, it's a non issue with me. Both work equally well.

Almost as bad as the Mil Dot vs MOA or which reticle is better debate

 

[FL-NC]

At the distance most people shoot for fun or actually take most game (less than 100 yards) or when the distance to the target is known, I say it doesn't matter. For longer unknown distances when you don't have a range finder and you need to mil the target, FFP is 100% the way to go.

 

[FL-NC]

I'm pretty sure most if not all FFP scopes have some sort of mil or MOA dots or hashmarks or grid or something like that on the reticle, for ranging, holds for wind and elevation, etc. Without something like that, as in a simple duplex reticle, I would say it truly doesn't matter- such as for the SFP 3-9 duplex reticle scope on my 30-30 that I use for deer hunting- I wouldn't push that gun past 150 yards on a deer, and in actual practice, it is much closer.

 

[s4s4u]

Everybody loves FFP because the interwebs told them so. Truth is, it depends.

If you utilize reticle information for ranging and holdovers there is an advantage to FFP in that the values are consistent through the magnification range. Problem is, the size of the reticle increases as magnification increases and not all reticles are created equal, some look good in the upper end and nearly useless at the lower end or vice-versa.

In an LPVO below 6x maximum magnification FFP makes little to no sense because by the time you need to utilize reticle information you (or at least I) will be on 6x anyway. I even question FFP in a 1-10x, but I would not own a 1-10x LPVO due to the compromises it takes to make that work. If I need more than 6x, I can to without 1x.

If you are trying to shoot tiny groups on paper, or the heads of prairie dogs, @ 600 yards and beyond you (or at least I) don't want the crosshairs to cover 3" or more of target area so FFP is a no-go. If you prefer to dial, and range with a range-finder (as do I) FFP has no advantage. I prefer SFP in all my LD optics.

MPVO's are the place that I see actual positives with FFP, a midrange primary application where quickness is a requisite and wind holds/elevation adjustments must be made on the spot. Reticle design will make or break an FFP scope so pay careful attention when you are shopping. A 2-10, 2-12, 2.5-10, 2.5-15, etc I will consider FFP, but other than that SFP for me.

JMO, FWIW, YMMV, and all that

 

[Walkalong]

In PRS sometimes we don’t have time to dial for each yardage on a stage, so FFP is critical for holding, it has to be right at any power.

If you like to hold out past 400 yards or so it’s also critical. If you want the option to dial or hold it’s critical.

Folks doing that are not generally using the lower powers where the reticle is very thin. That said, the small skinny reticle is more usable than some folks let on.

If one likes fat reticles, they probably won’t like FFP.

SFP works for a great many things. All the target shooters who know the distance use thin reticle SFP scopes, like the Leupold 36X fine cross hair scope on my Benchrest gun.

 

[Varminterror]

That said, the small skinny reticle is more usable than some folks let on.

^Bingo.

Throw illumination in the mix and life is pretty easy.

At high power, it’s a data reference tool, at low power, it’s essentially a duplex. That’s macro and micro, gross and fine, incorporated into one tool. SFP’s aren’t that.

 

[Varminterror]

Everybody loves FFP because the interwebs told them so.

Most shooters love guns because the interwebs told them so. Equally not because they have any practical use or even experience which would qualify them to determine utility. Most pickup trucks are driven by office workers, most hammers are owned by men who aren’t “handy.” Such is the way of the world - but the derelict nature of limited owner experience and demand doesn’t change the fact that an F-250 does indeed have more horsepower and higher towing capacity than a Honda Civic.

 

[Boom Vang]

I never saw the point of FFP riflescopes. At the distances I actually need to range and compensate on an unknown distance target, I'm usually at full magnification anyway. What good is some tiny little grid at 2x power at 437 meters?

On the contrary, the variable magnification itself of a SFP riflescope can be used to range distance on a known size target, in conjunction with the reticle. The TDS reticle is an earlier example of that, and one of the best hunting reticles I've used. Sadly no longer available due to patent royalty issues.

On a known distance course of fire, FFP is mostly useless. The only employment I can imagine for it is on relatively close target where lower power is appropriate, but wind correction is still necessary. That's a very small subset of shooting solutions.

 

[Varminterror]

. At the distances I actually need to range and compensate on an unknown distance target, I'm usually at full magnification anyway.

Most of us which shoot these distances as regular course are not.

the variable magnification itself of a SFP riflescope can be used to range distance on a known size target, in conjunction with the reticle.

This requires an extra step of math to scale the observed measurement from the current magnification back to the reference scale magnification. Wasted time and energy.

On a known distance course of fire…

… wind still exists, such consistent and true reticle references remain pertinent.

 

[Chuck R.]

I have and use both.

Anything that will be used for precision, and/or distance gets a FFP scope, it's just easier to use.

I also like a FFP on a LPVO for a defensive carbine because at 1X with illumination, the reticle acts like a large dot. Normal distance hunting rifles I'm fine with a SFP scope.

I never saw the point of FFP riflescopes. At the distances I actually need to range and compensate on an unknown distance target, I'm usually at full magnification anyway. What good is some tiny little grid at 2x power at 437 meters?

I used to think that way.. all it took was trying to find targets on a clock at max zoom to convince me otherwise.

 

[mavracer]

In an LPVO below 6x maximum magnification FFP makes little to no sense because by the time you need to utilize reticle information you (or at least I) will be on 6x anyway. I even question FFP in a 1-10x, but I would not own a 1-10x LPVO due to the compromises it takes to make that work. If I need more than 6x, I can to without 1x.

I agree with some of your premise with a 1-4x the FFP isn't much of an advantage, but when you start cranking up that zoom to 6x,8x or 10x and shrinking the field of view it's nice to be able to dial that 4X up and still have a usable ranging reticle.

 

[Walkalong]

wind still exists, such consistent and true reticle references remain pertinent.

An important fact that’s easily overlooked

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I use fixed 10X riflescopes on my rifles that I shoot a longer distances

FFP or SFP? It doesn't matter to me.

 

[Boom Vang]

Most of us which shoot these distances as regular course are not.



This requires an extra step of math to scale the observed measurement from the current magnification back to the reference scale magnification. Wasted time and energy.



… wind still exists, such consistent and true reticle references remain pertinent.

Mine and many others knowledge and experience over decades of use is so completely opposite of yours - on this and other related topics - that there is nothing to debate. It's simply a matter of perspective, and you prefer your own. Vive le difference!

 

[CraigC]

I have little use for FFP but this is the first I've heard of a scope being a "range flex".