FFP vs. SFP

[Toolmaker2000]

Looking for input on the pros and cons of FFP scopes. I'm looking to buy a mid to higher end scope for the first time.
I'm new to this forum and would appreciate the input. This scope would be mainly for hunting and some longer range shooting.
(New to shooting beyond 400yds also). Thank you in advance.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I prefer FFP but the highest mag FFP I have is 15x and I don’t think I’ve ever shot it over 12x. Normally shoot at 6-8x for FOV.

The high zoom mag FFP reticles tend to be gear more toward upper mag level rather than lower end.

 

[wind gypsy]

What rifle is it going on. Where do you live, what/how do you intend to hunt?

A lot of the common/typical FFP scopes aren't great for folks who do primarily close range hunting in timber. There are some that work well enough and provide benefits if you're actually going to use the reticle for holding wind or hold over. A lot of people get a FFP and then never really learn how to hold wind anyway so they just dial and hold crosshairs thus a FFP isn't really a benefit.

 

[Toolmaker2000]

It's going on a Christensen Arms Mesa 6.5 CM. Most of my hunting is in NW Missouri farm country.
I hunt a lot of ag fields with the potential for 500 to 600 yds. Also planning an antelope hunt in Wyoming
next year. And before everyone starts bagging on the rifle, I'm one of the lucky ones that has one that shoots : )

 

[dieselchessy]

FFP scopes the sub-tensions remain the same through the magnification range.
This is helpful in that you dont have to be at a certain magnification to use the reticle.
But it can be not helpful in that the reticle can be very small at lower magnification.

SFP you need to consider what magnification the sub-tensions are set at and how that relates to your use.
The reticle stays large and easily visible through the magnification range.

I tend toward FFP so I have one less thing to think about. I also tend toward lower magnification range scopes, 15x and under and havent spent time with the 6x and 8x range scopes. Those may be best in SFP.

Its a use case and preference deal, like about everything.

 

[BRTreedogs]

Here is the deal.
2fp reticle is easier to see for fast shooting on low mag.
But you most like will forget the sub tensions are not correct if not at max power if you are using it to measure or get good enough to make accurate wind calls or have a spotter that give you a correction and you use the reticle to compensate.

Ffp the reticle sub tensions will always be correct at every magnification. So any measuring/correction will be correct, if you make an accurate wind calls the reticle will be correct at all zoom powers.
Ffp is hard to see on low power.

Pick your trade offs.

 

[Toolmaker2000]

Thank you for the insight. I'm leaning towards FFP mainly for the reasons you stated above. I'm just starting
to take a deep dive into longer range shooting and from what I'm learning, there are plenty of things to think about without adding to it.

 

[Steve300xcw]

I prefer FFP. That said a lot of them are damn near unusable at lower power's and thats a problem for me.

 

[Fetty Wapiti]

For that rifle and your location I would probably go with a SFP. Usually lighter weight, better light gathering, better at low mag ranges. Just keep it under 15 max zoom and you will most likely be at or close to max when holding any serious wind. For 500-600 yard shots the sub tension difference at 12 power vs a max of 15 is negligible in most situations.

 

[BRTreedogs]

For what it’s worth I’m currently in ffp camp as I found I missed more with reticle errors then by having a low visibility reticle.


But as my eyes age idk
I hope they come out with more usable ffp reticles in next 10 yrs

 

[MuleyFever]

I prefer SFP and have never wished I had an FFP scope in a hunting situation. I have tried a couple FFP scopes and sold them. The main reason I like SFP is just for the consistent reticle size at lower power.

 

[NealS02]

I use FFP primarily because I hold wind rather than dialing it. If you’re gonna be starting to shoot beyond 400 yards, learning how to hold and read wind is going to be essential. As noted previously the sub-tensions will remain consistent with FFP, which is something I really value. You certainly can get by with SFP, but I would argue that if you want to grow into a better long range shooter, it is a good idea to start with a system that enables you to do so, and that would be FFP, or at least it has been for me.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Thank you for the insight. I'm leaning towards FFP mainly for the reasons you stated above. I'm just starting
to take a deep dive into longer range shooting and from what I'm learning, there are plenty of things to think about without adding to it.

Maven R1.2 w/mil SHL reticle is a solid contender. The MOA reticle isn’t as bold at lower mags as MIL

 

[WCB]

My scopes are never lower than half their max mag and most the time sitting around top mag. Most are 12-15x. I have had zero issues with FFP. But again never run low end of magnification in the field. Just shooting targets I have and still could use the reticle for normal hunting ranges.

IMO reticle size at low mag is a non issue.

 

[Steve300xcw]

IMO reticle size at low mag is a non issue.

get into the dark timber with a reticle you can hardly see and it becomes an issue rather quick

 

[SDHNTR]

If you hunt mostly at shorter ranges where 9-10x max will get the job done, and wind is less of an issue, the point is moot and it’s a matter of subjective opinion. I prefer SFP for that purpose.

If the ranges might stretch out, you want more magnification and wind is regularly an issue, FFP is the right call.

You need to understand the drawbacks of high magnification, SFP reticles, and shrunken FOV. FOV matters and spotting hits is very important. That’s nearly impossible at high mag when you need a wind hold with SFP.

 

[AM_Hunter]

I prefer FFP as well. Shot my buck at 32 yards in darkish timber with a Trijicon Tenmile 3-18. Had no issues finding him or my crosshair and getting a shot off in ~1 second.