SFP is BETTER than FFP for LR Hunting... Change My Mind

[hereinaz]

You make some great points, my wallet is getting nervous!

Can you elaborate on the "mph gun method with mil"? I think you mean wind bracket right? I use the same method but per click (0.25 moa). So I have a 5mph gun in this parlance, ie 5mph full value to produce one click of wind at 100yds. For say an 8mph wind at 630, I would say 1.6*6.3 which mentally I simplify into 1.5*6 + about 0.4 =~ 9.5 =~ 10 clicks or 2.5moa of wind. Is there something about mils that makes this easier?

Go to your ballistic program.

Start with 8 mph wind. Starting looking at 300 yards, and every 100 yards after.

Move the wind up or down by one mph until the wind hold is .3, .4, .5 and so on from 300 yards on. You should get it to walk up from 300 to 800 yards, sometimes further.

This is an 8 mph wind with my 25 SST.

 

[wind gypsy]

I'm still waiting for someone to show me why the mil wind bracket math is so much easier than the moa wind bracket math. To me it seems like the only difference is dividing by 4 vs 10 at the very end.

Yeah. Maybe you're rainman or maybe i'm stupid, but moving a decimal one place within existing #'s takes zero thought. multiplying/dividing by 4 does.

Multiplying/dividing by 4 isn't hard math but it's still math that can be eliminated.

 

[solarshooter]

Go to your ballistic program.

Start with 8 mph wind. Starting looking at 300 yards, and every 100 yards after.

Move the wind up or down by one mph until the wind hold is .3, .4, .5 and so on from 300 yards on. You should get it to walk up from 300 to 800 yards, sometimes further.

This is an 8 mph wind with my 25 SST.

View attachment 651815

This same thing works for moa, using a wind that produces 0.25moa drift per 100yds. You still need to ratio your "gun mph rating" to the wind value, and your range to 100s of yds. Same math. Then the only difference is dividing by 4 rather than 10 to get the unit value correction. 5mph for my 284 win shown below:

 

[solarshooter]

Yeah. Maybe you're rainman or maybe i'm stupid, but moving a decimal one place within existing #'s takes zero thought. multiplying/dividing by 4 does.

Multiplying/dividing by 4 isn't hard math but it's still math that can be eliminated.

Agreed, it is easier. By a little.

 

[Formidilosus]

Lets be honest, effectively none of us in hunting situations are using spotting scopes with a reticle or have a spotter giving angular corrections.

I/we do. And if people are shooting long range without it they are just adding complexity and errors. If people are taking long range hunting shots on animals without a spotter, they’re going to miss and wound animals they shouldn’t have. Without a spotter, success rate at long range drops by probably 50% over having a competent spotter. Calling shots/misses by “inches”, “close to”, “near”, etc. is a recipe for disaster.

“Oh! you went just over and left a bit” is confusing, subjective, requires thought and almost always more questions to clarify- it is slow and error prone.

“Down .3, left .7” is specific, clear, and directive- it is unambiguous.

 

[KenLee]

I'd ju

Real quick, which hatch mark are you using on a 546 yard shot with a 9mph wind at 2 o’clock and you are on 9.3x magnification?

Because I know the answer with my FFP scope.

I'd just yell "Kentucky" after I killed whatever is at 546 yards

 

[wind gypsy]

I/we do. And if people are shooting long range without it they are just adding complexity and errors. If people are taking long range hunting shots on animals without a spotter, they’re going to miss and wound animals they shouldn’t have. Without a spotter, success rate at long range drops by probably 50% over having a competent spotter. Calling shots/misses by “inches”, “close to”, “near”, etc. is a recipe for disaster.

“Oh! you went just over and left a bit” is confusing, subjective, requires thought and almost always more questions to clarify- it is slow and error prone.

“Down .3, left .7” is specific, clear, and directive- it is unambiguous.

I dont have any argument to your points. Maybe "effectively nobody" was too strong but I don't think what you're describing is common. Further, it points a pretty poor picture (not saying it's inaccurate) of what shots people are taking if not having a spotter reduces success by 50%!

 

[hereinaz]

Agreed, it is easier. By a little.

Yes, everything about MIL is easier math. A little means a lot, especially in high pressure situations that require many mental tasks like long range hunting.

Now, that doesn't mean MOA isn't usable. On a range or target shooting, without pressure, there is no practical difference if you can take time for your shot process.

 

[Formidilosus]

I dont have any argument to your points. Maybe "effectively nobody" was too strong but I don't think what you're describing is common.

Thats correct. But what is being done needs to change.

Further, it points a pretty poor picture (not saying it's inaccurate) of what shots people are taking if not having a spotter reduces success by 50%!

Haha. I witnessed or ran into a bunch of people hunting this year, and only one said that hadn’t missed at least once this year. It happens at close range as well of course, but the amount of people slinging bullets at 600+ yards is astounding- all missing and wounding.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Thats correct. But what is being done needs to change.

What spotting scope (with reticle) are you using?

 

[Formidilosus]

Agreed, it is easier. By a little.

No, it’s not. It’s a lot easier. I have seen hundreds of shooters, and dozens that claim what you are- I have yet to see a single MOA shooter know their data for a shot without a table, and competently use a wind bracket version under time/stress constraints.

I and a couple other’s I am around will go back and shoot MOA exclusively for several months- angry the entire time. No mather what we do, MOA us can’t beat Mil us. Similarly, SFP us, can’t beat Mil us.

 

[wind gypsy]

Agreed, it is easier. By a little.

Say you've got a 5 MPH (1/4 MOA) gun and a 5 MPH (0.1 mil) gun. 500 yards 8 MPH wind. MOA, my brain would say "5*.25 = 1.25. 1.25* 1.6 = uhh eff lemme think.." With Mils my brain says "0.5*1.6= hold 0.8".
[Edit: it's been pointed out that the MOA side of this would be much easier if done 5*1.6=8, 8*.25= 2 MOA]

Under time pressure it is significantly easier. There is nothing about MOA's correlation to inches that would help me make hits under time pressure better to offset that.

 

[solarshooter]

I/we do. And if people are shooting long range without it they are just adding complexity and errors. If people are taking long range hunting shots on animals without a spotter, they’re going to miss and wound animals they shouldn’t have. Without a spotter, success rate at long range drops by probably 50% over having a competent spotter. Calling shots/misses by “inches”, “close to”, “near”, etc. is a recipe for disaster.

“Oh! you went just over and left a bit” is confusing, subjective, requires thought and almost always more questions to clarify- it is slow and error prone.

“Down .3, left .7” is specific, clear, and directive- it is unambiguous.

Most spotting scopes don't have reticles, correct? At least not the ones I've used out hunting...

In a linked post, you described a situation where you and your crew went 15 for 15 on kills without using a dope chart, and said that in roughly half of those there would have been no time to consult a chart or app. But setting up a spotter takes alot more time than that....

So I'm confused, are we checking apps and setting up a spotter? Are we doing the spotter but no app? Are we sending shots in sub 20 seconds without consulting anything? Is there an impact to success rate if you do one or not the other? From your report it would seem like no spotter or app is needed to still achieve 100% success...

 

[JohnJohnson]

I'm not saying MOA is un-usable but I just don't think it can be argued that it's as good as MRAD for anything other than maybe F-Class (due to its slightly finer adjustments). Claiming otherwise is why this thread derailed immediately from the intended (?) subject of FFP vs SFP.

 

[hereinaz]

Thats correct. But what is being done needs to change.


Haha. I witnessed or ran into a bunch of people hunting this year, and only one said that hadn’t missed at least once this year. It happens at close range as well of course, but the amount of people slinging bullets at 600+ yards is astounding- all missing and wounding.

100% we need changes and education so people stop ignorantly slinging bullets. Field shots bear little resemblance to the range. That is where the difference between FFP and SFP makes a huge difference in eliminating stupid errors. You might have higher levels of concentration than the normal population to run SFP, but are you really applying your intelligence to its fullest if you compromise with SFP?

Again, I don't know anyone who jumped into FFP, did field shooting with someone who helped them learn it, and then chose to go back to SFP. This is especially true for anyone who experienced time stages in NRL Hunter or PRS.

The people I meet here in AZ are 10-1 completely incompetent long range shooting. When they came back from hunts over the years, there were far more misses, like probably 90%. They talked about missing by yards with their 300 RUM/Win Mag, etc... it was ridiculous. They weren't bragging of course, but mocking each other.

Listening to them talk is what made me think, that is crap, and I am going to learn how to shoot long range if I am going to hunt.

Those guys completely ignored me for a couple years until we all finally went to the range. When I was banging steel and shooting smaller groups than them with their monstrous rifles, they at least started listening. Now, one friend that jumped in with both feet is shooting and killing at higher rates. The other friends have improved and some bought capable rifles, but they still don't practice enough and still can't kill reliably.

I make it a practice to remind them that they still can't shoot long range and call wind if they don't spend the time slinging bullets.

 

[jamesmc8]

Snip

No, it is not “100% personal preference”. When seen in large numbers of people, shooting large numbers of rounds, in varied terrain under some level of time and emotional stress, one “system” will perform better.

The people that say “they’re the same”, are people who haven’t shot enough, with enough different people, all trained optimally for each system, and then measured the results.

I’m still waiting for an SFP MOA shooter to show me how easy it is at speed in broken terrain.

My two rifles for longer range hunting are a 280 AI and 6 creed. In both set-ups with a 200 yard zero I hold 1 MOA for every 50 yards. In both rifles this easily & accurately gets me to 500 yards using hold overs. Anything beyond that I am dialing and my usual max distance is about 600 yards. For my needs this system is very quick and easy to use when hunting.

I have both MIL and MOA and find that MIL scopes work better hold over wise with my 6.5 CM and 308 with a 100 yard Zero and that faster rounds line up a bit better with MOA. Honestly I am probably going to be dialing anything past 400 so out to that distance either work work just fine hold-over wise.

One advantage of hand loading is you can tune your load to either a MOA or MIL reticle for optimal accuracy.

 

[hereinaz]

I'm not saying MOA is un-usable but I just don't think it can be argued that it's as good as MRAD for anything other than maybe F-Class (due to its slightly finer adjustments). Claiming otherwise is why this thread derailed immediately from the intended (?) subject of FFP vs SFP.

To be fair, his actual post was my SFP/MOA is as good as FFP/MIL...

 

[JohnJohnson]

To be fair, his actual post was my SFP/MOA is as good as FFP/MIL...

True. When I read this line of his post below:

I have an INTUITION for inches/feet/yards/miles

I thought "he doesn't get it". And then I read the rest of it and got the impression he doesn't want to get it.

 

[solarshooter]

I'm not saying MOA is un-usable but I just don't think it can be argued that it's as good as MRAD for anything other than maybe F-Class (due to its slightly finer adjustments). Claiming otherwise is why this thread derailed immediately from the intended (?) subject of FFP vs SFP.

It was about both, and if anything I'd say the only thing that's settled is FFP being better than SFP provided you have a reticle that works well at both zoom extremes without illumination.

Mil vs moa is interesting, pretty much the only advantages I see are dividing by 10 rather than 4 when doing wind bracket math, and this tenuous drop approximation method which I don't think any of us will ever use given even a few seconds to consult a drop card or a few 10s of seconds to consult an app. And it's worse should you ever want to relate distance on target to angular correction - which everyone claims they would never do.

 

[Formidilosus]

Most spotting scopes don't have reticles, correct? At least not the ones I've used out hunting...

Yes. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t, or that you can’t give angular corrections from it.

In a linked post, you described a situation where you and your crew went 15 for 15 on kills without using a dope chart, and said that in roughly half of those there would have been no time to consult a chart or app. But setting up a spotter takes alot more time than that....

? The shooter getting into position and on target, and the spotter doing the same- at the same time takes more time? More time than what?

So I'm confused, are we checking apps and setting up a spotter?

are confused. You are conflating multiple things to fit your desired view. So I will break them down by question. Where have I mentioned checking an app in this thread? And how does it take someone longer to setup a spotter, than it takes the shooter to setup for the shot?

Are we doing the spotter but no app? Are we sending shots in sub 20 seconds without consulting anything?

What do you mean by “we”. “We” haven’t done anything. If you mean “did you all”, then yes, we have and do kill without using an app all the time- because mils and quick data.

The time is what it is. What is your question specifically about “sub 20 seconds”?

Is there an impact to success rate if you do one or not the other?

One what with what other?

From your report it would seem like no spotter or app is needed to still achieve 100% success...

There is no such thing as 100%. If you shoot enough you will miss eventually regardless of range.