FFP vs SFP

[Alberta Bigbore]

Building a rig with its purpose to be more of a long range dedicated rig. Not one id grab for a average hunt out of the safe. Been looking at some higher end scope and learning about using the reticles and turrets to dial ranges more complex than a CDS dial, and how FFP and SFP work. Both seem to have advantages and disadvantages.

Which is more suited to an average joe hunter whos looking to upgrade his skills and spend more time on the bench and in the field?

[rugerfan]

If you are planning to shoot using the reticle FFP simplifies things because your subtensions will always be the same, so if you’re working off a chart on you stock or whatever you don’t need to worry about what power setting you’re on. It can also be useful if you plan to range using the reticle but most use a proper rangefinder these days. If you’re planning to dial all the time there is no real advantage to either and you can probably save some money getting a standard duplex or something like that in sfp. I personally use a ffp on my primary coyote/wolf gun as it makes fast adjustments easy, most of my other long range shooting is done using a turret to dial.

[A207X2]

Originally Posted by Alberta Bigbore

Building a rig with its purpose to be more of a long range dedicated rig. Not one id grab for a average hunt out of the safe. Been looking at some higher end scope and learning about using the reticles and turrets to dial ranges more complex than a CDS dial, and how FFP and SFP work. Both seem to have advantages and disadvantages.

Which is more suited to an average joe hunter whos looking to upgrade his skills and spend more time on the bench and in the field?

As I'm reading what you wrote, it sounds like you are looking to build a rifle from the ground up that will be used for "long range hunting", is that correct?

Here's what I understand:

The FFP scope is more suited towards target shooting, where you're not cranking out shots quickly. The FoV gets smaller as you zoom in, so in terms of hunting game, that would be a problem. For long range target shooting I don't believe it would be an issue though. Quoting from a web site that explained it better than I can:

"Because the reticle will grow and shrink in the same proportions as the image, the markings are always correct. That means that no matter what magnification the scope is on the holdovers and range estimation work as intended". https://northernrifle.com/ffp-vs-sfp...r-for-hunting/

As I said above, if you're hunting using an FFP scope as you zoom out to acquire a target, you'll get a wider FoV, however as you increase magnification, that FoV shrinks. When you're on a long range target, and you're getting to the point of pulling the trigger or losing the game, it might be a problem should you lose target acquisition whilst zooming in.

Again, quoting from the same source:

"First focal plane scopes are the better choice if you hunt an area that is wide open and mid to long range shots are the norm. If spot and stalk hunting the west is your hunt style then consider a first focal plane optic. The reticle scaling with the image will make holding for wind at distance more precise and also allow more accurate follow up shots and range estimation at distance. Furthermore, the extra weight of the first focal plane may actually benefit you when it comes time for a long shot".

My eyes are no longer what they used to be, nor is my confidence in taking a shot longer than 300 yards. So for me, I wouldn't be able to take advantages of an FFP scope. I opted instead for the Leupold VX-5 HD series of scopes which are SFP. More than anything else, I believe the quality of the glass is much more important than whether a scope is FFP or SFP.

Good luck with your pursuit!

[rugerfan]

The fov loss should be the same on a ffp and sfp scope, it is a result of the magnification not the reticle. The difference is that the reticle visibly grows and shrinks as you adjust magnification on the ffp.

[Alberta Bigbore]

Originally Posted by A207X2

As I'm reading what you wrote, it sounds like you are looking to build a rifle from the ground up that will be used for "long range hunting", is that correct?

That is correct. One that i can learn to use effectively on the range and in the field once ive put the work in. Just something new id like to play with.

[32-40win]

I think if you want to use an FFP for something like yotes or larger in the field, it likely ought to have an illuminated reticle, if nothing else but to delineate the reticle center better at low power for in closer, faster shot stuff, it does seem to help. All but one of my big game hunting guns still have SFP's on them, other than one .22LR I use for gophers. The gopher one is a 4-20x50, has a tree reticle, the one I'm experimenting with on the big game gun has an illuminated crosshair with .2mil graduations on a 4x-16x44, with an open center and a very small dot in it. Also have a 4.5-36x56 which is illuminated as well, but likely will never be used in the field, it was bought as a range scope only,as between it and the gun, are up in the 14lb zone.

[wallz]

I use mostly ffp scopes and the odd sfp, for hunting, and that is only because the options were not there in that brand I bought.

ffp for long range target shooting, and hunting for me. I just find it simpler, and all in mils. Why, again I find it simpler.

What I find for the longer distance as you zoom in more the reticle is perfect proportion to the target, and the sfp gets too big to make any fine pinpointing of your target area from. Aim small, hit small. If you have a sfp and zoom to say 20X, but are still targeting something at say 600m the crosshairs are just too large on target to get any real accurate "zone" to aim small at.

I generally try to get simple reticles but with wind extensions left and right. Range with bino range combo, dial bullet drop, and check for wind, and just hold left or right as required.

That is what I have practiced at the range for anyways, but most of my hunting has been under 300m shots. My main reason for all this is because of an elk we had a slim chance on years ago that was a tanker 6x but could only get to within 850m. I was only dialed in and practiced out to 500m that year, and vowed to never let that happen again. Now I practice out to 1100m with my hunting rifle, and have a bench rifle I shoot out to our range max of 1400m. This gives me lots of confidence to make the call while out in the field weather to even try the long range shot, upon conditions at the time.
My last week elk hunt was a 30 yrd shot on the 1st shot, followed by 2 more, and that scenario I have not really practiced. Was a bit high on the should, but in the end, he didn't get away, and that is what counts. This will change for next years hunting as well, as I'll run that scenario at the range and practice up a bit. I was running a ruger single shot and practiced multiple reloads with it, and that came in super handy when it mattered the most.

In the end, go with what you have practiced up with and are comfortable with, as when the crunch happens it will kick in subconsciously and things happen. Sometimes you have time to prepare for the shot, and sometimes well, you just got to make it happen quickly.

[pikergolf]

If you are going to be dialing for elevation it doesn't matter FFP or SFP. The tricky part is windage, using the reticle for windage is what most long range shooters do, it is just more efficient, winds come and go the windage doesn't need to be changed if you use the reticle. FFP the windage on the reticle is accurate at any power on the scope. SFP the windage is accurate at only one power setting, and it is usually at or near the highest power which for hunting can be a little much. So my choice would be FFP in your situation. As an aside I thought I could make a SFP work for the precision rimfire stuff, I couldn't, shooting at max power all the time was not possible and the mental gymnastics to make it work with math was just to much for this old brain.

[3blade]

The main disadvantage to FFP is the tiny reticle at low power, which causes issues in low light or close range where/when the majority of big game is killed. The work around is illuminated reticle, if available.

The main disadvantage of SFP is the reticle only works at one magnification usually max. The work around is choosing a scope that has the right maximum power for your shooting.

I went SFP MOA/MOA because that’s how my brain works. I can use the elevation subtensions and make a wind call with no dialing. Specifically a nightforce SHV 2-10. 10x does fine at 250-500 yards and 500 is where my bullets are just above minimum opening velocity. It’s also, imo, pretty much the limit of SFP as far as hitting a 6” target every time. People will talk about maintaining MOA at longer distances but a deers vitals don’t get bigger. Gotta hit that 6” zone.

If I’m taking a shot outside 200 I will take the time to go prone, range, crank the scope. That’s how I’ve chosen to do it and I don’t miss very often, but I do pass on longer shots. As you can tell, there’s a ton of personal preference involved and no real right or wrong choice, just tradeoffs.

[catnthehat]

All of my scopes on my hunting rifles are SFP, but I tend to shoot inside 300 yards with either 4 or 6X scopes.
In the past when I was shooting and killing at extreme distances, the animal was ranged and the scope turreted.
If I am shooting a target scope ( which I rarely do ) it is also a SFP because I shoot on fixed ranges at stationary targets such as across the course or Fclass .
Cat

[6.5 shooter]

I shoot SFP simply because I don't like FFP scope reticules growing so big I can't see my intended target. If your shooting a 30" plate of steel, I am sure they are fine but if it is the eye of a newt, they grow to big for fine work IMHO.

[Smokinyotes]

For shooting a 1000+ yards I usually have the magnification cranked up anyhow. I really like the NF MOAR-T for precise shooting. I find the MOAR reticle even a little thick at extended ranges.

[elkhunter11]

I have only owned one FFP scope, and I found that it covered more of the target than I liked. I have several scopes wirh turrets, and all are SFP.

[LJalberta]

Once I tried FFP, I sold off all my SFP scopes. For hunting, I don’t see a scenario where SFP presents a superior option. As a note, issues with reticle size being not visible or unusable at lower power are more down to a poor choice in reticle or scope. Where there is a huge zoom range in the scope, the answer can be an illuminated dot at the bottom end as others mentioned. There are some excellent FFP reticles for hunting.

I’d take a good look at the Maven RS 1.2 in Mils for your use. I’ve been quite happy with mine so far.

[6.5 shooter]

Originally Posted by Smokinyotes

For shooting a 1000+ yards I usually have the magnification cranked up anyhow. I really like the NF MOAR-T for precise shooting. I find the MOAR reticle even a little thick at extended ranges.

I have basically the same reticule in my Sightron only with a floating target dot LOVE em.

[Alberta Bigbore]

MRAD or MOA easier for a beginner to start learning long range shooting long range past 500 yards?

[rugerfan]

It depends how you think and what you learned on. If you’re starting from scratch MRAD is much simpler with its base 10 system. MOA can provide finer adjustments with the right setup but unless you’re shooting at a competitive level in something like Fclass it’s probably not noticeable. These days most long range type optics are more MRAD based.