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

[solarshooter]

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.

I am literally researching FFP/MIL scopes as we speak hahaha. I have a 6CM Bartlein being cut for my next Tikka build and it needs a scope...

 

[stan_wa]

I am literally researching FFP/MIL scopes as we speak hahaha. I have a 6CM Bartlein being cut for my next Tikka build and it needs a scope...

maven 1.2, ( for best warranty and i think best redicle) trijicon ten mile(highest zoom), swfa 3-15 (best price)

 

[WCB]

Agreed on the "benefit" of ranging with reticle being obviated by rangefinders - the rangefinder is always option 1 for me (the 4ft 300yds was just random numbers for an example). But I've often heard/read that the FFP reticle can more readily be used for ranging, and I was offering a counterpoint to that. The mental math with a "ranging reticle" SFP scope is much easier than any FFP ranging math, at least it seems that way to me.

All mental math for shooting could be argued to be unnecessary these days, but we still practice/use wind brackets and basic ranging techniques. I think it increases awareness of how wind impacts trajectory to do this math, rather than always trusting the black box.

As far as using the ruler, I think it works fine for my scope for example if you just set your zoom intentionally for that purpose. I agree it's irrelevant if you're staying in angle increments the whole time, but it does become more difficult (for me) to work in MILs if you ever want to convert into "length on target" units.

I've seen other failures with illuminated reticles, like the button doesn't work, or the setting is way off either too dark or too bright. And the dark/close shot is not long range, but it is related because a reticle that works at long range/high zoom is compromised at short range/low zoom. I have seen a couple reticles that are ok, usually on very expensive scopes, but to me they still aren't as good as an SFP at low zoom. I would like to see some examples of good FFP low power reticles - I can search around here too.

Everything is the same all the time with FFP. I have NEVER had a low light situation using FFP where The reticle was unusable (of course this is something I checked out before I bought the scope). Wind calls are a no brainer for holding off /quick corrections without having to know what power I'm on. And if you do have BDC marks or mildot type scale in the scope again zero queston what they represent.

Your thesis brings up points no one will ever encounter, like a 4 foot target at 300 yards. Rangefinders eliminate the need for reticle measurement to determine range anymore, except preppers and sniper cosplayers.

I shoot FFP scopes and see ZERO issues with them and have to disagree with this point. There have been a couple times I have ranged with my reticle where the range finder was not giving me readings. One Mule Deer hunt in particular. I could not get the correct range on a buck due to terrain and minor vegetation. I know I was hitting grass WAY infront of him (reading like 230yrds and then trying to hit his head/antlers I was missing and hitting Way behind him (700yards). But since I could make out his back to chest I used my reticle and basic knowledge of a bucks size and put two perfect shots into him before he disappeared. He ended up at 460 yards on the first shot.

Of course I practice a bunch on known objects and a fwe coyotes and deer in the off season with a range finder for confirmation.

 

[SDHNTR]

Sweet baby Geezus. Use what works for you and let that be the end of it.

 

[Dobermann]

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.

Form, what spotting scope and reticle are you using in hunting scenarios? Cheers.

 

[Formidilosus]

Form, what spotting scope and reticle are you using in hunting scenarios? Cheers.

Leupold Mark 4 12-40x with H32 is the spotter that I prefer. However I do almost all spotting while hunting with 15x binos.

 

[Dobermann]

Leupold Mark 4 12-40x with H32 is the spotter that I prefer. However I do almost all spotting while hunting with 15x binos.

Thanks. And apols if this is a stilly quetion but do you run the standard H-32, or inverted? Leupold's site seems to show the same reticle for each listing ...

 

[Shraggs]

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?
View attachment 651921

Not directed at you.

As a fairly recent convert to mil/ffp the most compelling reason is less complex and faster to hold for wind accurately. Elevation is largely a push.

It seems those who favor sfp and moa look at this as two different decisions. In my view that’s the miss, no pun intended.

A “wind bracket” - if your bullet is .6 BC it takes 6 mph of wind to push .1mil per 100 yards. If a .5 BC it takes 5mph wind to move Bullet .1 mil per 100 yards. Generally. Etc. Proponents of mil/ffp have mention its faster due to less math. Honestly there isn’t any real math until you get to in between brackets. Say 5 mph bullet and you’re shooting in 8 mph wind for example. But It really is memorized and quick interpolation. Very simple. And just simply using the mil ruler in the scope on what you did in your head.

For holding wind, as already thoroughly detailed by Balderdash - I may use/hold at any magnification. Folks can poo poo all you want but it’s faster. I come out if thick timber on low power, in the fields are animals at distance moving away —- changing magnification is my last concern for wind call.

This system takes both mil and ffp to reap legitimate time savings. I think if you nit picking these attributes individually you missing the the process altogether.

 

[stan_wa]

Not directed at you.

As a fairly recent convert to mil/ffp the most compelling reason is less complex and faster to hold for wind accurately. Elevation is largely a push.

It seems those who favor sfp and moa look at this as two different decisions. In my view that’s the miss, no pun intended.

A “wind bracket” - if your bullet is .6 BC it takes 6 mph of wind to push .1mil per 100 yards. If a .5 BC it takes 5mph wind to move Bullet .1 mil per 100 yards. Generally. Etc. Proponents of mil/ffp have mention its faster due to less math. Honestly there isn’t any real math until you get to in between brackets. Say 5 mph bullet and you’re shooting in 8 mph wind for example. But It really is memorized and quick interpolation. Very simple. And just simply using the mil ruler in the scope on what you did in your head.

For holding wind, as already thoroughly detailed by Balderdash - I may use/hold at any magnification. Folks can poo poo all you want but it’s faster. I come out if thick timber on low power, in the fields are animals at distance moving away —- changing magnification is my last concern for wind call.

This system takes both mil and ffp to reap legitimate time savings. I think if you nit picking these attributes individually you missing the the process altogether.

If you have a FFP MOA there are only 2 differences i can see. 1 is that you have to use a ballistic calc to find your wind rating and, this takes all of about 5 minutes. the 2nd difference is that after you establish the clicks it takes you then divide that number by 4 to get a moa hold, where with MILS you divide the "clicks" by 10 to get the Mil hold.
If there is something else im missing let me know , i ask in the most genuine and respectful way.

 

[jamesmc8]

If you have a FFP MOA there are only 2 differences i can see. 1 is that you have to use a ballistic calc to find your wind rating and, this takes all of about 5 minutes. the 2nd difference is that after you establish the clicks it takes you then divide that number by 4 to get a moa hold, where with MILS you divide the "clicks" by 10 to get the Mil hold.
If there is something else im missing let me know , i ask in the most genuine and respectful way.

There is an easyish wind hold method for MOA which works very well enough on a wide variety of cartridges and scales with 5, 10, 15, 20 mph winds.

For a 10 MPH wind apply (0.5 MOA) per each 100 yards:

For Example: 5 mph wind at 600 yards = 1.5 MOA
10 mph wind at 500 yards = 2.5 MOA
20 mph wind at 700 yards = 7 MOA

10 MPH WIND
100 yards = 0.5 MOA
200 yards = 1 MOA
300 yards = 1.5 MOA
400 yards = 2 MOA
500 yards = 2.5 MOA
600 yards = 3 MOA
700 yards = 3.5 MOA
800 yards = 4 MOA

It also works out to be 1 MOA per 100 yards for a 20 MPH.

Another trick for a 10 MPH wind is your yardage to target divided by 200 = you wind hold (then you can half it for 5 MPH or double for 20 MPH)

400 yards/200 = 2 MOA wind hold @ 10 mph
700 yards/200 = 3.5 MOA wind hold @ 10 mph

 

[Shraggs]

I dial for distance and I hold for wind using the reticle. I range with a ranging tool. I’m pretty good at reading wind but use a kestrel also.

I have no reason to do any division… maybe you’re trying to predict inches at the target???? And convert to moa??? I could care less and skip that altogether. It’s not needed. I want the angular adjustments or holds in the scope that put the bullet on target once I know range and current environment conditions.

1 if I’m referencing my app: I’ll keep my app updated with DA and temp 3 to 4 times a day so my solution for elevation in “clicks” and “wind hold” both in mil are current based real time data. I simply read what the app says.

2 if time is going to be short I have dope charts taped to gun for several DA and multiple wind brackets for distances. I also am familiar with elevation adjustments generally for my load and rely on the wind bracket above to hold using my reticle if I’m comfortable I actually know the wind.

3 using my RF binoculars gives me the precision of my app with one press of the button and I dial immediately. Still will need to make a wind call and hold accordingly. This is the fastest.

Again I have zero reason to be doing any division as long as a person commits to angular thinking in either system. It can be done in either moa or mil.

The base 10 mil system just so happens to correspond to the g7 bc using the process I noted in my last post. It’s not math it’s memory and it’s mirrored exactly in base 10 layout in a mil based scope.

Maybe Form can be less wordy than I. But I hope that offers sone information your not seeing or doing.

 

[JollyRoger]

I am literally researching FFP/MIL scopes as we speak hahaha. I have a 6CM Bartlein being cut for my next Tikka build and it needs a scope...

I’ve got a 6CM Tikka rifle with a Bartlein and it shoots great. Mine has a 20” barrel and wears an SWFA 5-20 (ffp, mil/mil). Hits at 1000+ yards at 7x is pretty dang cool.

 

[solarshooter]

I’ve got a 6CM Tikka rifle with a Bartlein and it shoots great. Mine has a 20” barrel and wears an SWFA 5-20 (ffp, mil/mil). Hits at 1000+ yards at 7x is pretty dang cool.

Glad to hear it. I'm going 18" and the mission for this gun is lighter weight and more nimble for deer and western wa thick woods hunting. Also to carry if I'm scouting and happen to see a bear. My main hunting rifle is a 26" Benchmark on a Tikka chambered in 284 win. Just a bit long for the tight woods and overkill for blacktail.

 

[jamesmc8]

Spent a couple hours last night running wind calls using the "Gun Wind Number" in MILS. vs other wind hacks with MOA. Both were reasonably accurate to 400-500 yards. However I gotta say I was definitely faster using MILS and I found I was more accurate at longer distances w/ stronger winds using the Wind Gun Number Method, seems pretty fool proof. If you carry a dope card that you reference for your shots its probably not a big deal but in a quickly changing wind I can certainly see the advantage to using the MIL for quicker adjustments

For hold-overs I still find that my faster rifles line up a bit better with MOA holds but past 400 I am typically gonna dial anyway. Got me thinking for sure.

 

[solarshooter]

Well I put (all) my money where my mouth was! The quick drop rule sold me. I would still always rather check the app given time, but being able to get within 4" out to 900+ yards in a few seconds without having to consult anything is a huge asset that just can't be argued with.

As far as wind bracket math I honestly consider that a wash. And finally regarding FFP vs SFP, I think this reticle will be serviceable, maybe with illumination in extreme cases (which I don't love, but am willing to try).

I'll be mounting this on the 6CM for some b2b testing. One way or another I'll be selling a scope or two in the next couple months. Thank you all for enlightening me!

 

[Balderdash]

Goo

View attachment 652573
Well I put (all) my money where my mouth was! The quick drop rule sold me. I would still always rather check the app given time, but being able to get within 4" out to 900+ yards in a few seconds without having to consult anything is a huge asset that just can't be argued with.

As far as wind bracket math I honestly consider that a wash. And finally regarding FFP vs SFP, I think this reticle will be serviceable, maybe with illumination in extreme cases (which I don't love, but am willing to try).

I'll be mounting this on the 6CM for some b2b testing. One way or another I'll be selling a scope or two in the next couple months. Thank you all for enlightening me!

Good luck. Please report back with your thoughts.

 

[5811]

View attachment 652573
Well I put (all) my money where my mouth was! The quick drop rule sold me. I would still always rather check the app given time, but being able to get within 4" out to 900+ yards in a few seconds without having to consult anything is a huge asset that just can't be argued with.

As far as wind bracket math I honestly consider that a wash. And finally regarding FFP vs SFP, I think this reticle will be serviceable, maybe with illumination in extreme cases (which I don't love, but am willing to try).

I'll be mounting this on the 6CM for some b2b testing. One way or another I'll be selling a scope or two in the next couple months. Thank you all for enlightening me!

I appreciate that you were open minded and able to see another side. It's rare. I hope you are rewarded for it by the fruits of your decision.

 

[stan_wa]

View attachment 652573
Well I put (all) my money where my mouth was! The quick drop rule sold me. I would still always rather check the app given time, but being able to get within 4" out to 900+ yards in a few seconds without having to consult anything is a huge asset that just can't be argued with.

As far as wind bracket math I honestly consider that a wash. And finally regarding FFP vs SFP, I think this reticle will be serviceable, maybe with illumination in extreme cases (which I don't love, but am willing to try).

I'll be mounting this on the 6CM for some b2b testing. One way or another I'll be selling a scope or two in the next couple months. Thank you all for enlightening me!

And I got Convinced it buying one of these as well. Always used moa so I’m open to see if the mills makes my life easier

 

[Evasal]

No way I am changing your mind. That how I like it too. Can someone tag and confuse me too

 

[Scottf270]

I have always been using simple sfp scopes at mpbr, always worked in Missouri and Montana. I recently used a sfp scope in moa to shoot some steel at 500 yards.

I used hold overs based on Hornady ballistic info. Hit my first shot at 500 yards. Cool as hell. I'm ready to up my game.

Going straight to mils as it seems more straightforward. Just bought a 3-12 LRHS from the classifieds and plan to order a Maven RS1.2 also. I'm a hunter first and will always try to get as close as possible but I am willing to learn. Thanks to all for having a good discussion and sharing.