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

[PredatorSlayer]

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?

Bullet is traveling slower closer to the target and can be more impacted by wind. BC is also impacted by velocity, thats why you can input multiple BCs in ballistic calculations.

 

[Stave]

Ffp and mil provide many advantages to the long range shooter. That being said, quality glass and lots of practice are more important. You can be extremely deadly at any distance with either.

I shoot a Zeiss 4-16x SFP scope on my do-all big game rifle (KY, MI, AZ, WY, . . .) I love the reticle at low power and low light scenarios. And I don't feel limited when I'm shooting 1000 yards at the range.

I use a dope card out to 600 yards, past that I rely on Hornady ballistic calculator. I dial for elevation, zoom to 16x and hold for wind. It's second nature.

 

[GreyBeck]

If under 300yds and dialed back from 100% zoom I’ll dial when zeroed at 100yds but rarely hold for wind at that range unless 20+mph. At that range I’m 2.5moa up 1.75moa for 15mph wind @ 90degree angle. SFP the aim point on the target is negligible and FFP the hash marks are too small. “Tad” hold for wind on either works. Prefer FFP because I can squint better than I can do math when it matters.

 

[huntnful]

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.

I didn’t say it was ineffective, I said it was slower. It is slower to dial than to hold. Not by much, but it is. It’s also easier to hold into the wind with your mind, than making the correct rotation on the dial, and not accidentally doubling the wrong wind correction on your turret.

Also that’s absolutely incorrect about the wind closer to the target affecting the bullet flight the most. Wind at the barrel has the most effect 100%.

 

[hereinaz]

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.

Wind estimating, the MPH gun method with MIL is fast and requires no real math or use of the actual reticle. All that happens outside of the scope.

Reticle ranging argument about FFP is done by cosplay snipers and preppers. No hunter is going to waste time with that nonsense.

There are many FFP reticles these days that are perfectly acceptable at close range.

Your “intuition” about inches also applies to FFP reticles at close range. Don’t you think you could put the center of a deer shoulder in the center of the scope and kill at short range? We can do it with a shotgun on moving game and a bead.

Also, buy quality FFP scope for better glass and better reticles.

As far as illumination failing, the odds of that happening are far smaller than the odds of you making a mistake under pressure with all your mental math and gymnastics.

Go head to head in a few hunting scenarios and see how many mental mistakes you make vs someone who uses FFP make in a timed situation.

No shooter in a time pressured match includes any extra garbage into their shot process.

Again, we are talking long range here: FFP vs SFP for long range, and the benefits of FFP long range overwhelm the minor benefit of SFP at short range.

The number of shooters who adopt FFP and MIL that would ever consider going back to SFP and MOA are nearly zero. Those that do go back aren’t really getting after it in the field. And, their arguments always include close range shots and intuition—not whether it is better.

 

[huntnful]

Wind estimating, the MPH gun method with MIL is fast and requires no real math or use of the actual reticle. All that happens outside of the scope.

Reticle ranging argument about FFP is done by cosplay snipers and preppers. No hunter is going to waste time with that nonsense.

There are many FFP reticles these days that are perfectly acceptable at close range.

Your “intuition” about inches also applies to FFP reticles at close range. Don’t you think you could put the center of a deer shoulder in the center of the scope and kill at short range? We can do it with a shotgun on moving game and a bead.

Also, buy quality FFP scope for better glass and better reticles.

As far as illumination failing, the odds of that happening are far smaller than the odds of you making a mistake under pressure with all your mental math and gymnastics.

Go head to head in a few hunting scenarios and see how many mental mistakes you make vs someone who uses FFP make in a timed situation.

No shooter in a time pressured match includes any extra garbage into their shot process.

Again, we are talking long range here: FFP vs SFP for long range, and the benefits of FFP long range overwhelm the minor benefit of SFP at short range.

The number of shooters who adopt FFP and MIL that would ever consider going back to SFP and MOA are nearly zero. Those that do go back aren’t really getting after it in the field. And, their arguments always include close range shots and intuition—not whether it is better.

I can honestly ditto this entire statement 110%. Coming from an original SFP/MOA guy and thinking it was “fine”. It’s literally trash compared FFP/MIL when it comes to long range. And I had no problem rolling up deer and elk at 100 yards either with my FFP reticles.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

I didn’t say it was ineffective, I said it was slower. It is slower to dial than to hold. Not by much, but it is. It’s also easier to hold into the wind with your mind, than making the correct rotation on the dial, and not accidentally doubling the wrong wind correction on your turret.

Also that’s absolutely incorrect about the wind closer to the target affecting the bullet flight the most. Wind at the barrel has the most effect 100%.

You sure?

 

[huntnful]

You sure?

Yeah wind hitting the bullet right out of the barrel affects it the entire flight. A small misdirection compounds over the entire bullet flight. Much more than 100 yards before the target.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Yeah wind hitting the bullet right out of the barrel affects it the entire flight. A small misdirection compounds over the entire bullet flight. Much more than 100 yards before the target.

Split it into thirds. The wind values in the last two thirds will have a greater impact on the bullet for a long range shot. It looks like you are from Cali and likely shooting low BC monos, so long range might not be your jam.

I shoot out to 1250 all the time on a range with wind flags. Adjusting for the wind Values the last 2/3s are always more accurate.

 

[hereinaz]

Also that’s absolutely incorrect about the wind closer to the target affecting the bullet flight the most. Wind at the barrel has the most effect 100%.

I and my good internet friend Bryan Litz disagree. Bryan doesn’t know I chose him as my friend, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

Wind matters the most where it affects the bullet the most… if you are in a sheltered spot for the first 200 yards, there is no way muzzle wind affects it most. And, there are many other scenarios where the middle or first or last wind matter more.

 

[huntnful]

Split it into thirds. The wind values in the last two thirds will have a greater impact on the bullet for a long range shot. It looks like you are from Cali and likely shooting low BC monos, so long range might not be your jam.

Hahaha yeah monos are trash when it comes to BC. You got that right for sure.

Well now splitting it into thirds is a more reasonable statement. Even though you’re trying to include the last 2/3rds, when that isn’t “closer” to the target. 1/2 way would be. Just a blanket statement that closer to the target matters more is absolutely false with zero added description.

I putting 500 rounds on a 300 Norma Improved over the course of 2 months shooting from 1000 to 1700 yards. You might be wrong…. Maybe.

 

[hereinaz]

Split it into thirds. The wind values in the last two thirds will have a greater impact on the bullet for a long range shot. It looks like you are from Cali and likely shooting low BC monos, so long range might not be your jam.

I shoot out to 1250 all the time on a range with wind flags. Adjusting for the wind Values the last 2/3s are always more accurate.

Bullets are in the air significantly longer in the last third of its path.

Bullets are affected so little in the first third, that the amount of wind later overwhelms the small amount. Wind doesn’t really compound.

So, I agree with predator that it is better to go off of last third wind flags.

 

[rootacres]

Different strokes - Different folks

For me, FFP makes the most sense in the long range game. I would wager most hunters dial for elevation and hold for wind. That makes the consistency of the windage sub tensions that much more important. I have a couple scopes I use on the hunting rigs. I'll use anywhere from 12x to 25x while getting reps at distance on the range. Having the sub tensions consistent across all those magnification ranges is what I need.

** I did use a SFP scope back in 2021. That was a 15x max scope. It needed to be at 15x for the sub tensions to be accurate. I knew it, it wasn't that big of a deal.

*** Inside the deer woods or really any kind of timber hunting I use a SFP scope. Where you can actually see the reticle at low power.

 

[solarshooter]

Wind estimating, the MPH gun method with MIL is fast and requires no real math or use of the actual reticle. All that happens outside of the scope.

Reticle ranging argument about FFP is done by cosplay snipers and preppers. No hunter is going to waste time with that nonsense.

There are many FFP reticles these days that are perfectly acceptable at close range.

Your “intuition” about inches also applies to FFP reticles at close range. Don’t you think you could put the center of a deer shoulder in the center of the scope and kill at short range? We can do it with a shotgun on moving game and a bead.

Also, buy quality FFP scope for better glass and better reticles.

As far as illumination failing, the odds of that happening are far smaller than the odds of you making a mistake under pressure with all your mental math and gymnastics.

Go head to head in a few hunting scenarios and see how many mental mistakes you make vs someone who uses FFP make in a timed situation.

No shooter in a time pressured match includes any extra garbage into their shot process.

Again, we are talking long range here: FFP vs SFP for long range, and the benefits of FFP long range overwhelm the minor benefit of SFP at short range.

The number of shooters who adopt FFP and MIL that would ever consider going back to SFP and MOA are nearly zero. Those that do go back aren’t really getting after it in the field. And, their arguments always include close range shots and intuition—not whether it is better.

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?

 

[Shraggs]

OPs post reminds me of the arguments stinky coyote used to make…

 

[huntnful]

I and my good internet friend Bryan Litz disagree. Bryan doesn’t know I chose him as my friend, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

Wind matters the most where it affects the bullet the most… if you are in a sheltered spot for the first 200 yards, there is no way muzzle wind affects it most. And, there are many other scenarios where the middle or first or last wind matter more.

Okay I like that statement. “Wind matters most, where if affects the bullet the most.”

There is no argument to that whatsoever.

A 10 MPH wind at the muzzle, and 3/4 of the way to the target has far more of an affect than an opposing wind in the last 1/4.

I understand the thought process for sure.

It’s blown way out of proportion than it actual appears in field conditions. Opposing winds across a canyon are not common.

 

[JollyRoger]

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?

That’s a lot of math

Take the first number of your G1 BC as a starter. Put it in your calculator to be sure but what it does is this:

Full value wind at that mph will move my bullet .1 mil for every 100 yards out to decent hunting distance. If my rifle is a 5mph gun: 537 yard target, 5mph wind at full value based on feel, mirage, kestrel, etc. I’ll hold .5 into the wind. 675 yards, I’ll hold .6

From there you can figure out easily what to hold for various scenarios.

 

[SDHNTR]

With a 24x SFP scope scope, you basically have tossed out the utility of top half of magnification range. Anything over 12 is going to make your wind holds too complex to factor quickly, and your field of view too narrow to see hits and make follow ups.

 

[id_jon]

Is there something about mils that makes this easier?

Your multiplier is always .1

 

[jamesmc8]

Either can work extremely well as long as you know your system and its limitations. I think people run into issues by going with too much magnification with a SFP. If using a SFP and keeping the top end mag to 15-16 makes it easy to go to full mag and use your reticle for wind on any shots over 300 yard. Also on my 15x SFP I can easily use it for wind holds when dialed to 12x where each hash mark is 1.25 MOA. Everyone is GUESSING at wind values anyway. FFP provides more flexibility in reticle use at distance and you can use the level of mag that is most comfortable, provides the desired field of view etc. The trade off is that most FFP reticles suck in dark environments and on dark targets, but that can be overcome with a well designed reticle with illumination. There is no perfect solution, just trade offs and finding the scope that works for YOU in the environments you hunt. Pick the scope that will work best for 90% of the shots you actually take NOT the 10% you worry about in your head.