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

[solarshooter]

Did my clickbait get you? Good, because I really want to learn more and provoke some good discussion here! I'm new here and not trolling, just trying to learn more about the popular preference for FFP/MIL scopes over SFP/MOA. I'll start by describing why I am an SFP/MOA user:

• I have an INTUITION for inches/feet/yards/miles, bred by a lifetime and a career working in those units, so the inch/100yds conversion is more useful for me when trying to match up dimensions on target to scope angular correction. I don't have an intuition for what 0.2m or a 0.6yd is on target, so when estimating target size for ranging or when spotting impacts and estimating a correction, MOA are more useful and direct for me.
• I have had several hunting experiences where having a large/clear SFP reticle at low zoom made all the difference. Specifically short range shots on dark targets, or in low lighting. I don't love illuminated scopes, because it's more controls on the scope, a battery to die on me, and another adjustment to make before taking the shot. So that "workaround" for very small or fine FFP reticles at low zoom doesn't sit great with me. This is particularly true for FFP scopes with large zoom ranges (6-8x) where the change in reticle size at min zoom is really extreme.
• I like a high power scope, not for shooting, but for final animal ID/confirmation of antlers/points before shooting, without having to switch to a different optic and break my position. I typically shoot at no higher than 12-14x at my MER of 600yds.

My current primetime hunting scope is a Trijicon Accupoint 4-24x50 SFP with the green MOA ranging reticle (https://www.eurooptic.com/Trijicon-...rosshair-w-Green-Dot-30mm-Satin-Black-Ri.aspx). The fiber optic illumination solves my battery/illumination dilemma (and provides an incredible low-zoom quick-acquisition reticle), and the ranging crosshair and 24x max zoom have some hidden benefits that I find uniquely helpful for hunting and LR shooting. They are:

• The MOA hashes are 1:1 at 24x. Because 24 has a lot of factors, the hashes are also 2MOA at 12x, 3MOA at 8x, 4MOA at 6x, and 6MOA at 4x. Lots of useful whole numbers. I dial as a rule, for both elevation and wind, and will only hold to correct based on an observed impact. Really any reticle subtension/zoom setting is useful for this, because you can just hold relative to your sight picture, but it's really easy to be purposeful about what zoom you set and use any of the above factors.
• There is a very tricky and cool ranging feature for SFP scopes with MOA hash reticles with max zoom (where hashes are 1:1) of either 12x or 24x (or any multiple of 12). It goes like this:
  • Estimate dimension of target in feet - this could be height of shoulder, depth of chest, width, etc
  • Adjust zoom until reticle measures that number of hash marks on target (ie 4 hashes for a 4ft target)
  • Look at zoom ring, that is your range in 100s of yds for a 12x max zoom scope, or zoom number/2 for a 24x scope (and so on)
  • As an example using my 24x scope, say you have a 4ft target at 300yds. That target is 16moa, which would be 16 hash marks at 24x, or 4 hash marks at 6x. So using the 1ft/hash rule, you would look at your zoom ring and see 6x. 6/2 = 300yds. Boom, it works. Like I said, it's even more straightforward for 12x max zoom. Intermediate zooms cause the division to be a little less easy, but still doable. I encourage you to test some examples for yourself.
  • I think this is even easier and more straightforward than using an FFP reticle to measure angle and then convert to range, whether MOA or MIL. You just remember 1ft per hash, and the only mental math is to divide the number you read on the zoom ring by 2 (or whatever your max zoom/12 is)

OK, thesis ended, now tell me why I'm wrong!

 

[Axlrod]

Welcome to RS! If you search there are threads on here with all of your answers.
As far as ranging, it doesn't get more accurate and fast then pushing a button on my Leica RF!

 

[stan_wa]

Primarily I prefer to hold for wind so for me the convince of having consistent holds at all mags is outweighed by cons of having a small reticle at low zoom
I prefer to trust my rangefinder for ranging in all situations.
I got a ffp trijicon much like yours but mine is 3-18 and I am happy

 

[Cactus kid]

I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

 

[hereinaz]

Did my clickbait get you? Good, because I really want to learn more and provoke some good discussion here! I'm new here and not trolling, just trying to learn more about the popular preference for FFP/MIL scopes over SFP/MOA. I'll start by describing why I am an SFP/MOA user:

• I have an INTUITION for inches/feet/yards/miles, bred by a lifetime and a career working in those units, so the inch/100yds conversion is more useful for me when trying to match up dimensions on target to scope angular correction. I don't have an intuition for what 0.2m or a 0.6yd is on target, so when estimating target size for ranging or when spotting impacts and estimating a correction, MOA are more useful and direct for me.
• I have had several hunting experiences where having a large/clear SFP reticle at low zoom made all the difference. Specifically short range shots on dark targets, or in low lighting. I don't love illuminated scopes, because it's more controls on the scope, a battery to die on me, and another adjustment to make before taking the shot. So that "workaround" for very small or fine FFP reticles at low zoom doesn't sit great with me. This is particularly true for FFP scopes with large zoom ranges (6-8x) where the change in reticle size at min zoom is really extreme.
• I like a high power scope, not for shooting, but for final animal ID/confirmation of antlers/points before shooting, without having to switch to a different optic and break my position. I typically shoot at no higher than 12-14x at my MER of 600yds.

My current primetime hunting scope is a Trijicon Accupoint 4-24x50 SFP with the green MOA ranging reticle (https://www.eurooptic.com/Trijicon-...rosshair-w-Green-Dot-30mm-Satin-Black-Ri.aspx). The fiber optic illumination solves my battery/illumination dilemma (and provides an incredible low-zoom quick-acquisition reticle), and the ranging crosshair and 24x max zoom have some hidden benefits that I find uniquely helpful for hunting and LR shooting. They are:

• The MOA hashes are 1:1 at 24x. Because 24 has a lot of factors, the hashes are also 2MOA at 12x, 3MOA at 8x, 4MOA at 6x, and 6MOA at 4x. Lots of useful whole numbers. I dial as a rule, for both elevation and wind, and will only hold to correct based on an observed impact. Really any reticle subtension/zoom setting is useful for this, because you can just hold relative to your sight picture, but it's really easy to be purposeful about what zoom you set and use any of the above factors.
• There is a very tricky and cool ranging feature for SFP scopes with MOA hash reticles with max zoom (where hashes are 1:1) of either 12x or 24x (or any multiple of 12). It goes like this:
  • Estimate dimension of target in feet - this could be height of shoulder, depth of chest, width, etc
  • Adjust zoom until reticle measures that number of hash marks on target (ie 4 hashes for a 4ft target)
  • Look at zoom ring, that is your range in 100s of yds for a 12x max zoom scope, or zoom number/2 for a 24x scope (and so on)
  • As an example using my 24x scope, say you have a 4ft target at 300yds. That target is 16moa, which would be 16 hash marks at 24x, or 4 hash marks at 6x. So using the 1ft/hash rule, you would look at your zoom ring and see 6x. 6/2 = 300yds. Boom, it works. Like I said, it's even more straightforward for 12x max zoom. Intermediate zooms cause the division to be a little less easy, but still doable. I encourage you to test some examples for yourself.
  • I think this is even easier and more straightforward than using an FFP reticle to measure angle and then convert to range, whether MOA or MIL. You just remember 1ft per hash, and the only mental math is to divide the number you read on the zoom ring by 2 (or whatever your max zoom/12 is)

OK, thesis ended, now tell me why I'm wrong!

Your thesis starts with the presumption that SFP is superior, rather than starting from ground up.

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.

Your thesis involves doing “very tricky” mental math, and that adds time and potential for error. Using FFP eliminates mental math for adjustments and such you describe. Why not use one ruler for everything?

Your thesis point above, is actually belied by a later reason you give for not liking FFP— batteries as one possible point of failure. You can control the failure of batteries with a couple dollars and a new battery before the hunt. You can’t control your failure of mental math.

Your specific intuition for inches and yards only makes it easier now. Intuition is really just guess work. Why not just use one ruler, whether MOA or MIL?

Sure, you can use subtentions and calculations, but are you the one hunter who doesn’t get buck fever and can manage the many discrete tasks for a precision shot at long range? Why not use one ruler?

Your general intuition analyzing the difference leads you to think about it all the wrong way.

Virtually no one shooting long range uses SFP. Dark timber shots are not long range, so your example draws in an irrelevant factor to long range.

Moreover, your thesis adopts assumptions that are untrue, like there are no FFP scopes with acceptable low power reticles. And, the possibility of a battery dying makes it unacceptable.

You have to completely change your frame of reference, or you won’t see the benefit of FFP.

 

[hereinaz]

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

 

[JollyRoger]

If it works for you then it works. Drive on and kill stuff.

For me: I don’t know about .2m or .6yd but I don’t need to. The ruler is staring me in the face on how much of an adjustment I need. And, those adjustments/hash marks are accurate and mean the same thing whether I’m at 4x, 7.27x, 10x, 15.2x, etc. They’re always the same and always accurate. Smarter guys than me on here have related it to your speedometer in your car… what’s the point if it’s only accurate at 55mph? And you have to do math to determine your true speed at any other speed?

For making adjustments, there are some shortcuts that apply to many cartridges to where I can quickly know my drop based on the range. I can even pretty accurately guess on a buddy’s rifle and get him on target.
Also, without looking at an app or kestrel…. I know what I should hold for wind out to about 800 yards fairly easy with minimal thinking.

All of that combined has helped me be better shooter. I spend less time calculating or thinking about numbers. And more time getting a good position and executing the fundamentals of making a good shot.

 

[solarshooter]

Your thesis starts with the presumption that SFP is superior, rather than starting from ground up.

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.

Your thesis involves doing “very tricky” mental math, and that adds time and potential for error. Using FFP eliminates mental math for adjustments and such you describe. Why not use one ruler for everything?

Your thesis point above, is actually belied by a later reason you give for not liking FFP— batteries as one possible point of failure. You can control the failure of batteries with a couple dollars and a new battery before the hunt. You can’t control your failure of mental math.

Your specific intuition for inches and yards only makes it easier now. Intuition is really just guess work. Why not just use one ruler, whether MOA or MIL?

Sure, you can use subtentions and calculations, but are you the one hunter who doesn’t get buck fever and can manage the many discrete tasks for a precision shot at long range? Why not use one ruler?

Your general intuition analyzing the difference leads you to think about it all the wrong way.

Virtually no one shooting long range uses SFP. Dark timber shots are not long range, so your example draws in an irrelevant factor to long range.

Moreover, your thesis adopts assumptions that are untrue, like there are no FFP scopes with acceptable low power reticles. And, the possibility of a battery dying makes it unacceptable.

You have to completely change your frame of reference, or you won’t see the benefit of FFP.

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.

 

[Cactus kid]

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.

 

[Macintosh]

Im a die hard 2fp user and I agree that most ffp reticles are either terrible or unusable for most of my hunting. That IS relevant for LR because I’m hunting with the option to take a longer range shot OR a shorter range shot, not only one or the other. I wont settle for a reticle that doesnt work and work well at lowest magnification, un-illuminated, end of story.
Thats about where my agreement ends though.
—Bad reticles are not inherent in ffp scopes, even though it sometimes seems like it. There are a number of good hunting reticles in ffp scopes that also work at close range, low power, dark timber, etc. Examples include s&b P3L which just looks like a normal duplex at lowest magnification, or maybe the new Maven reticle (although I havent looked through)
—if you are “converting” inches or feet to moa, imo thats not as good a way to think about it as just leaving everything in moa or mils. The easiest way to do this is simply not to convert in the first place.
—if you are using your reticle for anything other than the center crosshair, ffp is better. With the possible exception of the ranging method you outlined. I use a lrf which hasnt ever been an issue, but in general I have proven to myself that always having hash marks equal the same measurement is way, way simpler.
—if I have to come off the scope to check exactly what magnification im on so my formula works, to me thats a problem. I want to zoom in and out without ever coming off the scope.
—wind is the major factor for me. Ffp makes a reticle hold for wind realistic to me, this reason may trump everything else.

All that said, if it works for you, it works for you. Old habits practiced for decades dont come undone easily, and its probably not worth trying in some cases. Thats not the same as what’s overall easier for someone who doesnt have those same old habits already, though.

 

[JollyRoger]

Not arguing. Just explaining from my experience on this

Your ruler is broke if it’s only good at one magnification. I usually I don’t care about converting anything to inches… I see the target I want to hit or the animal I want to shoot. Only exception is if I need to range the target manually. And that’s a quick calculation in the worst case scenario. Also, I still incorporate wind brackets. But I don’t need any electronics to do it quickly for a shot at normal hunting ranges…. And, I can do it at low power, max power, or anything in between.

 

[Lawnboi]

The only positive to a spf scope is the more distinguished reticle at low power.

I thought it was a problem, till I shot a few coyotes in near dark sub 20 yards on top of my call. Without illumination. It’s not the deal people make it to be.

It’s not an issue.

Every other facet a ffp scope is easier.

I’m in the boat that mils are also easier in my mind, having used both a bunch.

 

[JohnJohnson]

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

Does your scope adjust in inches? You mentioned how it helps when you're dialing in corrections for missed shots. Why not just use the ruler in front of your eye that's in the same units as your scope? This is one reason why I think MRAD is better for LR shooting. It gets people out of the useless headspace of linear units like inches/feet/yards when thinking about scope adjustments.

 

[Bluumoon]

I have a NXS SFP MOA in the classifieds, please buy it and show me the advantages. I’d like it to go to a home where it will be loved.

 

[solarshooter]

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 either dial, or check my zoom before holding, but point taken.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

I am with you - I hate FFP scopes. I regularly practice out to 1250 yards and do just fine with my SFP scopes.

 

[huntnful]

Learn how best to use what makes your heart happy and go shooting. FFP is faster for longer range, but I'm sure if someone is intentional and calculated with their SFP scope they would be fine. But you better not slip up in the heat of the moment and have your magnification wrong while holding for wind.

 

[solarshooter]

Agreed with all points here about using the ruler, and how ffp is superior for that because it's zoom insensitive. I still maintain that checking zoom and using an sfp the same way isn't a huge deal, but I agree it's worse in that regard. If I could find a reticle that worked well without illumination across a wide zoom range I wouldn't have a problem with it, but like I said I've only seen a few I liked, and they were $$$.

As far as mil vs moa, I still think there's value in being able to readily translate from distance on target to angular correction. For instance if you are spotting for someone on a spotter which has no reticle, and want to relay impact location.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Learn how best to use what makes your heart happy and go shooting. FFP is faster for longer range, but I'm sure if someone is intentional and calculated with their SFP scope they would be fine. But you better not slip up in the heat of the moment and have your magnification wrong while holding for wind.

Its not that hard to dial wind or even use inches. In steep country wind readings are a crap shoot anyway. Most people use a kestrel and get a reading at their location. In the mountains winds swirl and do all sorts of crazy stuff. You bullet is most effected by the wind closer to the target.

 

[JohnJohnson]

You bullet is most effected by the wind closer to the target.

Why would pushing a bullet by 1 degree when it's inch from the target have more of an effect than pushing it off 1 degree when it's 500 yards away and has more distance to be affected by that change?