SFP vs FFP

[StrutNut]

I am picking up a 300 win mag for short to long range hunting in all legal light conditions both in deep timber and open country. I have been reading a lot about the debate between FFP and SFP. I have two scopes in mind to go on the rig. A NightForce SHV or a Bushnell LRHS. I am on the fence as to what is better for hunting, FFP or SFP. For those that have experience hunting with both types of scopes...thoughts?

 

[Graindrain]

http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-viper-hs-t-4-16x44-riflescope-with-vmr-1-moa-reticle

This is the scope I have on my 300 win mag custom. I built a custom rifle out from West Texas Ordance from Ackerly and cant speak highly enough of them.

I was looking at the SHV but once I was able to use the Vortex I couldn't justify the cost of the other scopes. This is a remarkable scope and does everything that you are asking. I hunt in the sand hills of SE New Mexico to the brush country of North Texas, not quite timber but very thick.

It tracks perfectly and glass is great. My only complaint is the turrets are a little "sticky" but I would rather have tight than loose.

You can usually get some great deals on Vortex. With the MOA reticle in the SFP I have not had any problems with reticle covering my target, although I have only shot this current rifle to 600 yards.

With a higher power scope or a rifle that will not be used for anything less than 300 yards, then look at FFP. But in your case, similar to mine, SFP has not been an issue.

I have not looked back since buying the HS-T in 4-16.

P.S.- After my last experience with Bushnell and warranty with binos I will never buy their stuff again. My dad bought me a pair of binoculars for a Christmas present and the eye piece came loose and broke, they would not warranty because I was not the original owner.

Vortex has a no question return.

 

[hunting1]

I am sure you will get different opinions but for hunting I want SFP. I love the NF NXS and at long range I will always be at the higher range. I have both and will stick with SFP, it is just cleaner to me. I have the 2-10 on a 300WM and a MKIV SFP on my 300WSM. The FFP is on my Kimber Advanced Tactical which even there I am usually on higher power.

 

[Sam Millard]

They will both work for LR hunting. IMO, FFP is not needed if hunting is all you'll use it for. I have two Nightforce F1s I'm testing right now. As nice as they are, my upcoming 300WM build will wear a SFP Nightforce.

 

[josef]

Are you hoping to use your reticle for ranging purposes or ballistic drops? If you are then FFP is pretty useful (read idiot proof). If you are looking to use the reticle for those purposes a SFP reticle will still work but only on a single power (unless you are crazy good at math). Personally I would use a SFP reticle for almost all hunting applications. I always carry a range finder and if I am shooting over 500 yards I am dialing using turrets and not holds.

To be honest this is sort of one of those "if you have to ask..." questions. If you cant think of a reason to use a FFP reticle then you probably dont need it.

 

[KMD]

To be honest this is sort of one of those "if you have to ask..." questions. If you cant think of a reason to use a FFP reticle then you probably dont need it.

I'd hafta agree.
But, to add:
Pick the right reticle for your chosen task, and you'll have no worries with either platform. IMHO, Bushnell did a nice job in designing the reticle on the LRHS to make is usable throughout the scope's magnification range.

For conversation, here's a shot of a couple whitetails @ ~725yds, taken thru a Premier FFP scope, on 15x magnification:

Notice, the fine aiming point of that FFP reticle is neither too thick, nor too thin, when shown in relation to an average sized game animal.
Crank that same scope down to 3x, and those inner subtensions appear to 'shrink away'. The thicker outer bars keep your eye centered, and the reticle as a whole functions as if it were a standard Duplex. Also, the center aiming " + " portion of the reticle can be illuminated red, if a bit of contrast against a dark backdrop is required. IMHO, a wonderful example of how a FFP optic can be used throughout its magnification range for most any hunting situation...

Choose wisely!

 

[StrutNut]

KMD thanks for posting that up. Pretty good argument for a lighted reticle. I think the biggest gain I can see on the FFP vs the SFP is the ability to hold for wind at any magnification. Also, from what I understand its easier to engage moving targets and hunting public ground in MN and WI often times the target is most definitely moving! On the SFP scopes that I have used most of the time I have not shot at max power and there is a plus to being accurate at any magnification. I can see a major disadvantage of a FFP is loosing the reticle on low power where to be honest is where my scope starts and sits most of the time. This rig is not going to be a dedicated long range rig but a dedicated anything, anywhere, any distance kind of rig. I have done a lot of research and still see valid points for either type of optic. I asked because this purchase is likely going to be 3-4 times what I have spent on a scope in the past. I have had a few VX III's and honestly thought they were clear but had reticles brake on all but one. CS took care of it but that didnt help me when it broke on a hunt. I really appreciate the information and PM's I have received on the topic. So yes, I guess I need to ask and yes, I have gained a lot of knowledge but lack the experience with both.

 

[josef]

StrutNut- I wasnt trying to pick on you with that comment so sorry if you felt that way. My comment should have been that if you are worried about consistent subtensions of your reticle throughout your power range then go for it. If you are not worried about that then you are spending money on something you do not need. Almost all FFP reticles are glass etched which cost a lot more to make than their wire or electroformed counterparts. This savings is almost always pasted on to consumers.

 

[StrutNut]

no worries, I didnt take it that way and it is a valid point.

 

[KMD]

Youre' welcome, Strut!
From a practical perspective, a scope's reticle can function as both a measuring device and an aiming device. A FFP simply allows both of those tools to be used throughout the scope's magnification range.
We, American hunters were born & raised using SFP scopes, so that's what the collective has gravitated toward. That's perfectly fine! And there are certain instances where a more specific tool (scope/reticle) can be a better mousetrap for a specialized task. But at the same time, trivializing the potential positives of using FFP scopes doesn't make a SFP the 'better choice' for hunting, by default. Heck, most European made hunting scopes ARE FFP! A driving factor for the big name European scope manufacturers to offer SFP scopes is basically to satisfy the US demand for them...

And with companies like Bushnell actually seeking out the knowledge base of veteran big game hunters to design an optic specifically geared toward hunting at extended range, I think that's a HUGE step in the right direction! Premier's Gen II mildot reticle I showed above just happens to be an excellent choice for the 1-800yd shots I'd take with that rifle/scope. Which goes back again to choosing the tool that fits the task.

Try to get behind as many scopes as you can, before you drop coin on one.
Good luck & have fun deciding!

 

[hunting1]

My $.02 is get a NF SHV 3-10 MOA or Vortex PST 2.5-10 MOA (ill Reticle). Both solid performers and will get it done. I run a Leupold MK IV on my WSM which works well too, all SFP, Leupold wins in glass and weight. The internet says they fail, but I havnt busted one yet, even on 338 WM.

 

[bradb]

I use both and heck I am not sure which I prefer! hope that helped

 

[jaxdialation]

I use FFPs exclusively. One reason - a fall back for range estimation