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

[doty_soty]

So your original statement saying "SFP is better than FFP for most things" was really only about reticle visibility?

I do enjoy seeing my reticle, yes.

The right answer is “it depends on what you’re doing”. I have plenty of both. I actually have more FFP than SFP. I don’t use them interchangeably either though, and which is best depends on the task at hand.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I do enjoy seeing my reticle, yes.

The right answer is “it depends on what you’re doing”. I have plenty of both. I actually have more FFP than SFP. I don’t use them interchangeably either though, and which is best depends on the task at hand.

Well we're in the Long Range Hunting forum and the OP's subject line says SFP is better than FFP for long range hunting. Is SFP better for that? As for reticle visibility I do think it's an extremely overblown issue with FFP that gets exaggerated a lot, though there is some validity to it in rare situations

 

[Balderdash]

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%!

It might be more common than you think. Seems we carry a spotter less and less these days due to hunting more areas lately wherein seeing over 1k is not that common; but we always spot for each other with our scopes or a mil reticle spotter, so that corrections, when necessary, can be made quickly and accurately.

Unless I'm just sight seeing, I feel ill equipped without a mil reticle in the spotter. in addition to helping get shots to land where theyll do the most good, they also make it easier to describe to others where animals are in relation to a visible point of reference.

 

[doty_soty]

Well we're in the Long Range Hunting forum and the OP's subject line says SFP is better than FFP for long range hunting. Is SFP better for that? As for reticle visibility I do think it's an extremely overblown issue with FFP that gets exaggerated a lot, though there is some validity to it in rare situations

Probably actually, yeah. If we narrowed down the constraints of this hypothetical to a known long distance shot, of what benefit would having true subtensions at close range be, especially when considering the drawbacks of FFP mentioned earlier?

And I’ve not found these drawbacks to be overblown. I’ve not had the reticle to be too thick outside of precision shooting (as opposed to mil or hunting shooting), but I’ve absolutely had a hard time discerning the reticle, let alone subtensions, of a dialed down FFP.

Obviously all of this depends on the actual scope though. There are FFPs that are great compromises, or rock it up high, or down low, etc. lumping them all together like this isn’t terribly helpful.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Probably actually, yeah. If we narrowed down the constraints of this hypothetical to a known long distance shot, of what benefit would having true subtensions at close range be, especially when considering the drawbacks of FFP mentioned earlier?

I don't quite know what this means. Do you not hold for wind?

 

[solarshooter]

Correction factor of .4 mils Starting at 400 yards. At 400 yards to 600 yards take .4 off the average gun.

572 yards- base a 3.7. Take .4 off 3.7= 3.3 mils elevation.

That does help, I had been applying a correction of 0.5 for everything over 200. I removed that, and changed it to 0.4 for 400 and above.

 

[Balderdash]

I apologize if the following has already been covered. If so, I didn't see it. And otherwise, my opinion is just too valuable to not share!

Seriously, there's been some great points raised in this discussion. My foremost reason for preferring FFP over SFP by a large margin is the ability to use the lowest X that's suitable for a shot. Primarily this preserves FOV, which is critical for spotting shot placement, seeing animal reaction/direction/location of egress/cover, and in getting back on the animal as quick as possible for follow up shots.

Another benefit of low X is that it doesn't magnify inconsequential movements when trying to steady up for a shot, thereby greatly decreasing the set up to send it time. Likewise with follow up shots.

Last year I did a fair amount of shooting with a 15x SFP, LHT scope I was setting up for a good friend. It had been years since I did much serious shooting with a SFP over 10x, and I couldn't believe how much longer than usual it took me to get on target and get settled in when being constrained to use 15x in order for the subtensions to be correct. He took it hunting and lost an animal because he couldn't get back on it and settled in quick enough for a follow up shot before it walked into heavy, steep cover. His spotter, also a friend, told me he had ample time to get off several shots if he could've recovered and got back on the animal right away. Conversely, on multiple occasions I've put game down with quick follow up shots that saved a lot of game recovery strife.

There's several well designed FFP reticles out there that are plenty usable thought the X range without being lit. It's been covered in great detail here and on other forums, but to share a couple that have worked for me: SWFA MQ, Bushy LRHS. S&B P3.

 

[lhbackcountry]

And, I say that with all the love in my heart…

@hereinaz not sure your affiliation with thunder but FYI when I click on the website for gamebags, I get this message each time. Could issue with google chrome.

 

[lhbackcountry]

also sorry for hijacking the thread just figured he may want to know. following for info on MIL vs MOA as I have been MOA and making the switch for two LR hunting rifles.

 

[JohnJohnson]

following for info on MIL vs MOA as I have been MOA and making the switch for two LR hunting rifles.

MRAD is plainly a better system for long range, 100% make the switch. The best arguments people can make for MOA is that "it's not THAT much worse" and other stuff like that. If you are shooting long range and it's not F-Class, you should use MRAD.

 

[lhbackcountry]

MRAD is plainly a better system for long range, 100% make the switch. The best arguments people can make for MOA is that "it's not THAT much worse" and other stuff like that. If you are shooting long range and it's not F-Class, you should use MRAD.

Ya I am SLOWLY making the switch but the credit card can only go so high

 

[doty_soty]

I don't quite know what this means. Do you not hold for wind?

If it’s more than a few inches of hold I’d probably be at max mag anyway; so again it’s a moot point, and again the right answer is “it depends on the scope, the reticle, and what you’re doing with it”.

 

[JohnJohnson]

If it’s more than a few inches of hold

What do inches have to do with it?

I’d probably be at max mag anyway

Unless your scope is something like a 3-12, why?

“it depends on the scope, the reticle, and what you’re doing with it”

As the OP said, long range hunting is what you're doing with it.

 

[doty_soty]

What do inches have to do with it?

Unless your scope is something like a 3-12, why?

As the OP said, long range hunting is what you're doing with it.

I’ve already given my opinion and explanation for it. No one said you had to agree with it.

I do enjoy FFPs though. I have more of them than SFPs. They’re nice for some things. They’re deficient for others. Whether they’re best or not depends on what you’re doing.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I’ve already given my opinion and explanation for it. No one said you had to agree with it.

You said SFP is better for most things (in a thread about long range hunting) and seemingly could only come up with low power reticle visibility when I asked for examples. I don't agree with your opinion because quite frankly you haven't actually given one of substance to agree/disagree with. You said something, I followed up to get you to actually give something concrete about why you said it, and you couldn't.

 

[stan_wa]

in summary from this thread ...
on MOA vs Mills
the big most significant difference is for wind brackets if you divide by 10 or by 4. My thought is dividing my 10 is easier but in the time it took me to read this thread i could have memorized my 4 x time table (what fun would that be tho) so this is not a MAJOR trade off. -key takeaway; if your buying a new scope look at mill for easier wind hold, if you have a MOA scope you like and you care about you bank probably just keep it and do the wind holds as needed.

on FFP VS SFP-

• having a constant ruler at all magnification is a huge advantage for all holds
• FFP redical are worse at close range but functionaly is anyone gonna miss a 50 yard shot cause they cant see the radicle and there battery died, probably not, on my trijicon i can see the redicle at all zoom and the battrey like stupid long.

Why don't we see more dual focal plane scope? it seems like the best of both worlds, below is an example. i do not love how busy this is, but something like this without a charismas tree seems ideal. i dont want to convert this discussion in to how to make the best DUAL reticle, rather ask why we done see more of them?

 

[Balderdash]

in summary from this thread ...
on MOA vs Mills
the big most significant difference is for wind brackets if you divide by 10 or by 4. My thought is dividing my 10 is easier but in the time it took me to read this thread i could have memorized my 4 x time table (what fun would that be tho) so this is not a MAJOR trade off. -key takeaway; if your buying a new scope look at mill for easier wind hold, if you have a MOA scope you like and you care about you bank probably just keep it and do the wind holds as needed.

on FFP VS SFP-

• having a constant ruler at all magnification is a huge advantage for all holds
• FFP redical are worse at close range but functionaly is anyone gonna miss a 50 yard shot cause they cant see the radicle and there battery died, probably not, on my trijicon i can see the redicle at all zoom and the battrey like stupid long.

Why don't we see more dual focal plane scope it seem like the best of both worlds, below is an example. i done love how busy this is but something like this will way no charismas tree seems ideal. i dont want to convert this discussion in to how to make the best DUAL redicle, rather ask why we done see more of them?
View attachment 651921

QF's. . .

Buddley, is that you?

 

[stan_wa]

QF's. . .

Buddley, is that you?

First off what’s qf And who is buddley

 

[Balderdash]

First off what’s qf And who is buddley

Not Buddley I guess. Too bad.

It's a little inside, I know.

Context:

QF: Quigley Ford. Scopes that were/are dual focal plane. IMO, they were way, way overpriced ChiCom scopes that were a bit like buying a but out tool or a cough silencer back in the day. They also offered custom BDC reticles instead of dials, which is really useful if you're going to do all of your hunting and shooting with one load at a set atmospheric condition.

Buddley was a poster on another forum that elevated to some renown in the rifle scope community due to his fierce defending of QF scopes and the ridiculously high prices he paid for them. He was not short on self confidence, and, as is often a corrallary, he was long on oblivious irony, which made his posts so memorable and widely known.

 

[hereinaz]

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

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.

I believe this is the personal choice that people make that stick with SFP and MOA. It’s OK, but with things as clear as this, sometimes I wonder if it’s what is called “magical thinking.”

Cost and the hassle to change causes some resistance as well.

Ultimately, as long as there is resistance to actually give it an honest try, we end up with threads like this where I trust the OP isn’t trolling.