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

[solarshooter]

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.

Applying my same method to start:
5mph per 0.25moa at 100 = 7.2mph per 0.1mil at 100, so I'll use a 7mph gun for this example.

So for 5mph at 537, I would do roughly 2/3 of 5.5, call it 4 clicks or 0.4mil. Actual is 0.35. So it works just as well (in my 8mph/630yd example I was right on at 2.5moa), but I think it really amounts to the same number of operations in your head, with the exception of dividing number of clicks by 4 rather than 10 to get the value, which is admittedly harder.

Your method is even a step simpler, I'd have to think more and test some examples to see how much error it introduces.

 

[JollyRoger]

While we are at it; with mils and with rifles between 2600 and 2800fps muzzle velocity we can easily remember drops. Do a search for Formidilosus as he explains it really well. But basically for ranges around 300 to 700 or so take the range, take two off the first number for the base hold. Then use the remaining range number for the tenths

537 yards - dial 3.4 mils (5-2=3. Then add in the remaining 37 yards. 3.37 is rounded up to 3.4

No it won’t be exact but it’s a starting point for a lot of the 308, 6.5, and others in that velocity range.

ETA: yes this is a calculation but it’s extremely fast. No division or multiplication. See the range, drop two and use the rest for the tenths. Easy

 

[jamesmc8]

MILS vs MOA makes absolutely no difference. As long as you know your dope and how to dial. They are both angular measurements... different ways to skin a cat. MOA is a slightly finer scale but in the hunting woods that level of accuracy is not going to make a difference. It will take a couple less clicks to dial in your MIL hold but again that is unlikely to actually make any difference in a hunting scenario. I think the only thing that matters is if you hunt with others that you all use the same system. Other than that 100% personal preference.

 

[solarshooter]

While we are at it; with mils and with rifles between 2600 and 2800fps muzzle velocity we can easily remember drops. Do a search for Formidilosus as he explains it really well. But basically for ranges around 300 to 700 or so take the range, take two off the first number for the base hold. Then use the remaining range number for the tenths

537 yards - dial 3.4 mils (5-2=3. Then add in the remaining 37 yards. 3.37 is rounded up to 3.4

No it won’t be exact but it’s a starting point for a lot of the 308, 6.5, and others in that velocity range.

In this example I'd be off by 0.4mil, which is almost 8". It's a decent approximation but not sure how useful for hunting.

 

[JollyRoger]

In this example I'd be off by 0.4mil, which is almost 8". It's a decent approximation but not sure how useful for hunting.

If you’re shooting a fast rifle or a slower rifle they’ll be different. The post by Formidilosus explains the case for ‘good gun’ and ‘bad gun’ really well.

It’s extremely useful in those 300-700 yard ranges for rifles in that MV range

 

[JollyRoger]

Read these:

https://rokslide.com/forums/threads...cope-reticle-turrets-and-proper-usage.315942/




https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/mk5-hd-vs-nx8-thoughts.245782/page-5#post-2396969

 

[Jsanford0521]

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!

Welcome to RS

 

[Formidilosus]

MILS vs MOA makes absolutely no difference.

Snip

. Other than that 100% personal preference.

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. Double points if they dial wind.

 

[solarshooter]

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. Double points if they dial wind.

Regarding mil vs moa, assuming we use a rangefinder and have a drop card taped to the rifle (or a gorgeous homemade bdc tape on the turret), meaning that range and drop are measured and not estimated, the main difference all boils down to the wind bracket math and whether we divide by 4 or 10 to go from clicks to mils? It seems like the most error prone or "rounding intensive" part of the wind bracket math is when you have awkward range or wind factors, like 1.3*8.7 or something like that. In which case you round and move on with the math. The final step to go from clicks to units does seem easier with mils but I just want to be sure I'm understanding where exactly the mils clean up the calcs.

 

[Marbles]

My SWFA 3-9 FFP works great in low light on 3x.

In my opinion, large magnification ranges are grossly over rated. They are like megapixels on a camera, a unit of measure that is much less important that the attention it gets at the expense of more important factors.

Most of the market disagrees with me, which is why no one makes an FFP, 42 mm objective, 2-8 scope and why good fixed 4x scopes are not a thing. So, probably should not listen to they guy who lost his marbles.

 

[Formidilosus]

Regarding mil vs moa, assuming we use a rangefinder and have a drop card taped to the rifle (or a gorgeous homemade bdc tape on the turret), meaning that range and drop are measured and not estimated, the main difference all boils down to the wind bracket math and whether we divide by 4 or 10 to go from clicks to mils? It seems like the most error prone or "rounding intensive" part of the wind bracket math is when you have awkward range or wind factors, like 1.3*8.7 or something like that. In which case you round and move on with the math. The final step to go from clicks to units does seem easier with mils but I just want to be sure I'm understanding where exactly the mils clean up the calcs.

No. Mils has wind brackets that no version of MOA is as quick and foolproof. It has quick drop, that no version of MOA exists, and it is a base 10 system.
Because Jesus loves tens, base ten systems are easier and quicker to visually and mentally work. A “little” better normally, can be, and often is a “lot” better under stress.
Again because Jesus loves us, the path for most standard cartridges will be .1 mil per 10 yards from 300 to around 600 yards. Magnums/fast MV usually be .1 mil per 20 yards. Again, this makes data by memory, and corrections quicker and easier.

Breaking a reticle down into .25 MOA, on average takes between two and 4 times as long, because it isn’t intuitive in any reticle that isn’t 1 MOA per hash. But 1 MOA per hash is getting quite busy for general hunting. Even still, it takes longer.



Using any reticle or system in linear terms- “inches, feet, etc” is a very compromised way to do so. It’s slower, more error prone, and way more probability of failure under duress.

 

[turbobrick]

I like the options that FFP offers, and I prefer MOA, but I understand the advantages that MIL provides. If I were competing I'd switch over to MIL.

 

[wind gypsy]

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.

Lets be honest, effectively none of us in hunting situations are using spotting scopes with a reticle or have a spotter giving angular corrections. If a shooter has a 2FP MOA scope there's a good chance they aren't at a magnification level where their reticle is useful without math anyway. So when shooter is at 600 yards and spotter calls out "few inches over his back, windage good", fat chance shooter is figuring out how many total inches high that is and multiplying quarter inches by 6 to figure a MOA correction and dial. If they are shooting again they are probably just holding under belly and sending it.

 

[hereinaz]

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.

Opposing winds might not be common, but different winds are absolutely common.

Wind can’t and doesn’t flow the same through a canyon.

 

[hereinaz]

Lets be honest, effectively none of us in hunting situations are using spotting scopes with a reticle or have a spotter giving angular corrections. If a shooter has a 2FP MOA scope there's a good chance they aren't at a magnification level where their reticle is useful without math anyway. So when shooter is at 600 yards and spotter calls out "few inches over his back, windage good", fat chance shooter is figuring out how many total inches high that is and multiplying quarter inches by 6 to figure a MOA correction and dial. If they are shooting again they are probably just holding under belly and sending it.

I don’t want “inches” from a spotter. cause no spotter is going to be accurate. I sure am not going to convert it to hold with a reticle.

Tell me half a plate/body high. Something in reference.

Also, I spot my own shots so I am going to reference the miss with my reticle. Having FFP/SFP doesn’t matter for follow up shots, it just becomes a spot.

But with FFP, if I measure my miss I then have data that can be applied to future shots.

 

[hereinaz]

MIL is far better than MOA and it is not personal preference. You think you can do 1/4 fractions fast, but it’s a lie cause you can subtract and add and divided and multiply dimes faster than quarters.

One reason MIL is superior named above and cannot be overstated is that the MPH wind number for rifle works most easily in MIL with few calculations.

 

[huntnful]

Opposing winds might not be common, but different winds are absolutely common.

Wind can’t and doesn’t flow the same through a canyon.

Okay I understand what you’re saying for sure. No argument here at all. If it’s blowing 3MPH at the shooter and 8mph out across the canyon. You better be holding more than 3MPH wind lol.

Sorry for the confusion. For some reason my mind immediately went to opposing winds when that statement of “closer to the target” was brought up.

 

[ElPollo]

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!

Back before FFP scopes and BDC reticles were a thing, I used to measure my own subtentions from a standard duplex reticle to range deer and elk based on average chest depth. It was a huge pain in the ass and I never had the time or the brainpower to actually use it in the field. Do yourself a favor and get an FFP scope. You will never look back. Using one is way simpler than the novella you wrote to explain why you don’t need one.

And if wind is a thing for your shooting, MILs are way simpler to deal with than MOA, inches, feet, yards, miles, rods, chains, etc. It takes a little effort to make the mental switch, but MILs makes wind calls quick and simple. Look up Form’s posts MIL-MIL scopes and wind brackets. There is no need for all the mental gymnastics that you are putting yourself through.

 

[squid-freshprints]

Hybrid reticle please? Is this possible? The SFP vs FFP conversation always turns to MOA vs MIL. LOL.

 

[solarshooter]

MIL is far better than MOA and it is not personal preference. You think you can do 1/4 fractions fast, but it’s a lie cause you can subtract and add and divided and multiply dimes faster than quarters.

One reason MIL is superior named above and cannot be overstated is that the MPH wind number for rifle works most easily in MIL with few calculations.

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.