This is NOT a "whats the difference b/w FFP and SFP question

[RussellC]

I know what the difference is, what I would like to hear is your experienced, not internet read, but experienced opinions on when and where one is preferable to you over the other and why. I would also like to hear your retical choice and why as well.

I hear experienced shooters preferring both at different times.

I only have experience with SFP type scopes, I currently like the idea of SFP, as the retical doesnt increase in size on longer distance targets. Clearly, I have a lot to learn here, as people are paying lots of money for them and I am sure there is a reason for that. I also figure retical choice is paramount with FFP.

Ok, school me please!

Russellc

 

[stoky]

If you're using BDC, the distance between the reference points doesn't change with FFP.
I like Mil dot reticles, particularly the "Christmas tree" types, so I have additional refs for windage.
Some don't like "busy" reticles, and I get it.
ymmv

 

[RussellC]

Thanks for the input, are my fears that the retical on the FFP scopes obscuring the target not founded, or are the ones you've stated avoid the problem?

Thanks,
Russellc

 

[Jenrick]

If you are mil'ing your target, using the dots for hold overs or windage, etc. Then a SFP scope is not a good idea, as you'll have to shoot at whatever the magnification that the scope manufactures scaled everything for which is usually not the one you need right then. If you are not doing any of the above, and are instead dialing in elevation, windage, etc then there is really not a a reason to use a FFP scope.

If your reticle doesn't have stadia (mil dots, hashes, etc) then there is no reason to use a FFP. A duplex (old school cross hair) or similar, isn't effected by changing magnification as there's nothing to expand or contract on the reticle. I personally find that for most hunting and target shooting environments there is no lose in going with a SFP. If you are a long range hunter who knows how to use the features of your reticle, or shoot in "tactical" type matches, then a FFP is probably a better option for you.

-Jenrick

 

[stoky]

Thanks for the input, are my fears that the retical on the FFP scopes obscuring the target not founded, or are the ones you've stated avoid the problem?
Thanks,
Russellc

It depends on the reticle. Mine doesn't obscure the target. There's actually an open space where the cross hairs come together.

 

[Varminterror]

If you're ranging with the reticle, an FFP is very valuable. If you're holding over for wind or elevation with a reticle, FFP is very valuable. I do both, especially the latter, so I favor FFP scopes.

The math to correct for zoom setting in an SFP isn't difficult, and remembering to INCLUDE the math to correct for zoom setting in an SFP, but at some point in time, you WILL forget to correct at one end or the other. Or you'll correct the wrong direction (divide by 18 and multiply by 12 instead of dividing by 12 and multiplying by 18...).

I instruct new mid and long range shooters, and I've found correcting for SFP's can be distracting for many shooters. Using a mil-dot or mil-hash reticle, the shooter has to remember to correct the scale - so when you read 1.3 DOTS on a mildot reticle, it's not really 1.3 mils unless you're on the reference setting. It's easy to remember which way to scale at the computer or at the range, but it's easy to get flustered and forget in the field when a trophy animal is walking through your view, or when you're on the clock at a match.

Similarly, FFP's can be disorienting for semi-experienced shooters who are used to SFP's. Guys get distracted by the change in reticle size, and some guys get frustrated trying to read hashes with the zoom set at the lower end. Most new shooters don't have an established preconception, so the size change isn't distracting, it's the guys who have been hunting for years with an SFP who have trouble adapting.

SFP's work, it just requires extra steps in the math, and extra diligence by the shooter. FFP's are more expensive, and if a guy isn't ranging with the reticle, or holding over for wind or elevation, it's not worth the cost.

 

[LoonWulf]

Similarly, FFP's can be disorienting for semi-experienced shooters who are used to SFP's. Guys get distracted by the change in reticle size, and some guys get frustrated trying to read hashes with the zoom set at the lower end. Most new shooters don't have an established preconception, so the size change isn't distracting, it's the guys who have been hunting for years with an SFP who have trouble adapting.

From personal experience i have to agree there. Ive only used a few, and never owned any FFP scopes, and ive missed a couple quick shots when using a borrowed gun for hunting as im expecting the reticle to be more prominent. Practice would obviously solve these issues.
For me its rare when having to dial up or down the power on a scope to use the reticle is an issue, but again RARELY do i need it for general use, its mostly only when im goofing off that i uses it. so neither time nor missing a few shots is an issue.

If i get into long range shooting with real interest ill probably take the time to learn and familiarize myself with a FFP scope....ill also have to buy better gear LOL.

 

[Varminterror]

If you are mil'ing your target, using the dots for hold overs or windage, etc. Then a SFP scope is not a good idea, as you'll have to shoot at whatever the magnification that the scope manufactures scaled everything for which is usually not the one you need right then.

You're not stuck shooting ONE magnification with an SFP, although it can make life easier.

With an SFP, a guy simply has to scale their mil reading according to what zoom setting they're actual using vs. their scope's reference setting. For example, I read 1.3 DOTS (not mils) on the 10" wide target in the picture below, with my scope on 18x, while the reference setting was 12x. At 18x, 1.3 DOTS is actually 0.87mils. Run that through the mil ranging formula: 10 * 27.7778/0.87 = 320yrds. Laser reading for the target was 325yrds. OR... A guy can do the standard formula with the reading 10 * 27.7778/1.3 = 213yrds, then correct for zoom on the back end by multiplying by 18 and dividing by 12 (aka, multiply by 1.5), which yields 320yrds...

 

[RussellC]

If you're ranging with the reticle, an FFP is very valuable. If you're holding over for wind or elevation with a reticle, FFP is very valuable. I do both, especially the latter, so I favor FFP scopes.

The math to correct for zoom setting in an SFP isn't difficult, and remembering to INCLUDE the math to correct for zoom setting in an SFP, but at some point in time, you WILL forget to correct at one end or the other. Or you'll correct the wrong direction (divide by 18 and multiply by 12 instead of dividing by 12 and multiplying by 18...).

I instruct new mid and long range shooters, and I've found correcting for SFP's can be distracting for many shooters. Using a mil-dot or mil-hash reticle, the shooter has to remember to correct the scale - so when you read 1.3 DOTS on a mildot reticle, it's not really 1.3 mils unless you're on the reference setting. It's easy to remember which way to scale at the computer or at the range, but it's easy to get flustered and forget in the field when a trophy animal is walking through your view, or when you're on the clock at a match.

Similarly, FFP's can be disorienting for semi-experienced shooters who are used to SFP's. Guys get distracted by the change in reticle size, and some guys get frustrated trying to read hashes with the zoom set at the lower end. Most new shooters don't have an established preconception, so the size change isn't distracting, it's the guys who have been hunting for years with an SFP who have trouble adapting.

SFP's work, it just requires extra steps in the math, and extra diligence by the shooter. FFP's are more expensive, and if a guy isn't ranging with the reticle, or holding over for wind or elevation, it's not worth the cost.

This is the sort of answer I was looking for. I am getting my first bolt gun, and it looks like I have some learning to do!

Russellc

 

[RussellC]

You're not stuck shooting ONE magnification with an SFP, although it can make life easier.

With an SFP, a guy simply has to scale their mil reading according to what zoom setting they're actual using vs. their scope's reference setting. For example, I read 1.3 DOTS (not mils) on the 10" wide target in the picture below, with my scope on 18x, while the reference setting was 12x. At 18x, 1.3 DOTS is actually 0.87mils. Run that through the mil ranging formula: 10 * 27.7778/0.87 = 320yrds. Laser reading for the target was 325yrds. OR... A guy can do the standard formula with the reading 10 * 27.7778/1.3 = 213yrds, then correct for zoom on the back end by multiplying by 18 and dividing by 12 (aka, multiply by 1.5), which yields 320yrds...

View attachment 586505

I am beginning to understand...that's good, but by understanding I am beginning to see how little I know. I greatly appreciate this sort of input.

My current scope has a BDC retical, and I have tended to just zero it to the target, at what ever distance I am shooting. It is a basic 4-12 x 40, and I tend to use it at 100 yards, and "adjust" it for zero for what ever bullet Im using!

Since I obviously need to learn to use a scope correctly, and my interests are drifiting to longer ranges, I my as well learn correctly on a nicer FFP.

I see instructors for handguns and so forth, but I have never seen instruction for basic scope how to, for s guy who wants to start increasing distance in his shooting. Any suggestions?

Russellc

 

[RussellC]

Also, this is my first scope, having only fired AR15 guns with iron sights and red dots. ( as far as rifles are concerned) So I havent adapted to either type from years of use.

Russellc

 

[Varminterror]

FFP will be easier to adapt for long range shooting. A guy doesn't have to remember to correct for zoom setting.

Buying a scope which uses the same units for the reticle AND for the adjustments, as in MOA/MOA or mrad/mrad also makes life easier. Drop Compensating Reticles aren't worth anything to me. Regularly graduated reticles are worth a lot to me, and having my reticle and turrets match for adjustment is worth a lot to me too.

Any book you buy on the topic of long range shooting will have the same formulas, then roughly the same advice for wind reading... I've been to classes, had mentors/coaches/instructors, read thousands of pages of books on shooting... The material is never different from one book to another, and when the material IS different, it's typically some "bullshido" junk an instructor or author came up with to set themselves apart, but without any real practical advantage.

None of the math for long range shooting is difficult, but if a guy is using an SFP scope with mixed units between the reticle and the turret, then remembering to keep all of the corrections in line can be a challenge. It's kinda like a foreign/second language, it does take regular use or practice to stay "fluent." I'm catching myself lately even - I'm teaching a co-worker how to shoot and use the gear, but his optic is MOA/MOA, whereas everything I own is either mil/mil or mil/IPHY.

If I were to guess, there are likely 1,000 handgun instructors around the country for every rifle instructor. Similarly, it's easier to recruit 100 handgun class students before I could fill a 10 slot rifle class at the same price (which tends to cost more and have more difficult logistics to put on). I usually end up doing one-on-one or one-on-group private coaching for rifle instruction, and often don't even end up charging, simply because it's nice to get a chance to do rifle work instead. As an example, I'm 'coaching' a co-worker now on mid & long range shooting. He's in the middle of building his first rifle, so we're doing one on one sessions with my loaner rifles to train him up, then also working remotely (he's based out of a different office than I) on "ballistic word problems" during the week.

If you're interested, shoot me a PM, I'd be happy to help walk you through different equations and some example problems, talk gear, etc.

 

[MCMXI]

Drop Compensating Reticles aren't worth anything to me.

All of my hunting rifles have Zeiss Conquest SFP scopes mounted with RZ600 or RZ800 reticles. No turrets to mess with, no parallax to mess with, just dead on reliable holdovers out to 600 yards or 800 yards with 5 and 10 mph wind stadia. Once you run your load data through Zeiss' calculator you get a specific zoom value at which the reticle is accurate which is typically at the higher end of the magnification range. I keep the scope on the lowest power setting for anthing inside 200 yards but have a mark on the power ring to remind me of where the magnification needs to be in the event of a longer shot where I need to use the holdovers.

For my tactical type rifles shooting out to 1,300 yards I use FFP scopes with mil/mil reticles and adjustments.

 

[cdb1]

If I shot long distance I'd have FFP scopes. I've looked through many and shot a few rifles with them mounted. The reticle changing size was not a distraction.

The max distance for me to take a shot at an animal is 400 yards and that's theoretical because the max distance I've ever shot at an animal is a lasered 331 yards. I'm 58 and have been hunting since I was a child.

I don't target shoot. I also understand there are circumstances due to terrain and animal species where longer shots than I take are common. There have been times when I could have taken 500 and 600 yard shots but 400 yards is the limit where I feel comfortable.

So because of all that I have no need for a FFP scope. I don't dial either. If I look at two scopes with the same glass, one FFP and the other SFP, the FFP scope will cost more. I'll spend the extra money for better glass as opposed to getting FFP. As previously stated there are situations where FFP is better and I would use FFP scopes if said situations applied to me.

 

[Klint Beastwood]

If you shoot any distance, and use a reticle for any reason it should be a ffp. If you buy a sfp, what good really is the reticle? I chalk it up to someone who just wants to plink and have a good ol cheap easy going time. Nothing wrong with that, but you cant really expect to use sfp reliably, even for close range work. I will say that some are better than others though, like in most cases.

 

[Varminterror]

If you shoot any distance, and use a reticle for any reason it should be a ffp. If you buy a sfp, what good really is the reticle? I chalk it up to someone who just wants to plink and have a good ol cheap easy going time. Nothing wrong with that, but you cant really expect to use sfp reliably, even for close range work. I will say that some are better than others though, like in most cases.

I wouldn't go that far. It's a lot easier to range and hold with an FFP, but the math isn't any more difficult to use an SFP than the math for an FFP, it just requires more steps in the math to use an FFP than an SFP. SFP's are useful, but FFP's are faster and easier.

No idea what you're meaning by saying an SFP can't be reliably used for close range work.

 

[Klint Beastwood]

I just dont trust that if you are at whatever power mag is true to range est that something that you would dial would be completely accurate...it couldn't be consistent every time you got to that power. Unless one was to know what the subtensions are equal to at every range as the reticle expands?

 

[cdb1]

Nothing wrong with that, but you cant really expect to use sfp reliably, even for close range work.

I had the same reaction as Varminterror when reading this. People have been doing it with great results for a long time.

 

[MCMXI]

If you shoot any distance, and use a reticle for any reason it should be a ffp. If you buy a sfp, what good really is the reticle? I chalk it up to someone who just wants to plink and have a good ol cheap easy going time. Nothing wrong with that, but you cant really expect to use sfp reliably, even for close range work. I will say that some are better than others though, like in most cases.

If you're talking about a duplex reticle or a reticle that has no holdover stadia then you have a point. But if you're talking about an RZ type of reticle then you don't. I use RZ reticles (SFP) on hunting rifles exclusively and they work extremely well in terms of putting a bullet where you want it out to the limit of the reticle. Like many here I know how to range a target using a multi-stadia reticle but I have no interest in doing so since I have a fancy Swarovski laser range finder that can range out to 1,900 yards.

 

[Chuck R.]

FFP will be easier to adapt for long range shooting. A guy doesn't have to remember to correct for zoom setting.

Buying a scope which uses the same units for the reticle AND for the adjustments, as in MOA/MOA or mrad/mrad also makes life easier. Drop Compensating Reticles aren't worth anything to me. Regularly graduated reticles are worth a lot to me, and having my reticle and turrets match for adjustment is worth a lot to me too.

This IMHO is key and will save a lot of grief later on. I had a new(er) shooter out today for the only second time he'd shot any distance. We shot from 200 out to 800 and he didn't have any settings yet, nor a firm idea of how a ranging reticle works. Luckily he had an MOA to MOA scope, so at least that was easy to understand. After an hour or so he was working both adjustments and holdovers using his reticle.

I've had guys with MIL reticle and MOA adjustments and it is a PITA top work holdovers and adjustments, especially if your using your reticle to make adjustments.

Much, much easier to see a .6 MIL adjustment in the reticle, and simply make 6 clicks on the turret.

Chuck

 

[Zerodefect]

2nd is fine for a clean hunting scope with simple crosshairs or one bright triangle like the Trijicon Accupoints.

But I'm starting to prefer Christmas trees used in the Vortex long range scopes, and 1st focal plane is the way to go for those. There's already too many steps in calculation, accounting for my magnification is too much.

And the new 1-8x Trijicon 3gun scopes have a real nice segmented circle for 1x shooting, and when you zoom in, there's fine crosshairs inside it for use at 8x. That's a neat trick for 1st focal plane.