Vortex Viper PST FFP or SFP?

[TORCHRIDER]

I am thinking about getting a Viper PST in 4-16 or 5-25 MIL/MIL assuming I can find one.

My question is: I understand how the FFP reticle is used for ranging and holdover, but is there an application when I would prefer to have a SFP reticle?

[Good]

The only benefit of the SFP is at extreme ranges if your reticle completely covers the target you can dial down/up a bit to be able to see the target instead of making a blind shot. Others will have to chime in per their experience, but I don't think you'll have that problem with the EBR1 reticle.

The FFP reticle stays in relation to the target's size throughout the magnification range, hence why you can use the reticle for ranging on any magnificaiton. The SFP has to be on a specific magnification set by the manufacturer to use the reticle for ranging. That can be a pain in the rear if that magnification is like 10x and you're ranging prarie dogs at 1 mile or whatever. The Trijicon 5-20x was made to use the reticle for range estimation on max power though, so it is possible Vortex did the same thing.

A buddy has the 6-24 IOR Valdada FFP with MP8 reticle and it is nice, just large. I wish the posts and hashes were 1/4 the size they are. It has a tiny floating dot in the center that is awesome though, but I don't like the rest of the reticle due to it's size. Awesome scope though. Anyway, hope I helped.

[TORCHRIDER]

Good, thanks for the valuable feedback.

[Good]

Originally Posted by TORCHRIDER

Good, thanks for the valuable feedback.

No problem. If it were me I'd get the ffp. I'm torn between the 5-20x Trijicon Accupoint and this same Vortex 6-24 ffp scope right now myself.

To me it boils down to glass, tritium, and durability of the Trijicon, and ffp, reticle, max power, and warranty of the Vortex. We'll see.

[Jon A]

I have both the 4-16 and 6-24 PST FFP's and can tell you Vortex did an excellent job sizing these reticles. They're very easy to see and fast to use on low power without being excessively thick on high power. The illumination works very well so there is no worry about seeing the reticle very well in any light condition.

The only application where SFP would be better is if you were specifically buying the scope to shoot prairie dogs at extremely long range or for BR competition, etc. As a general use long range hunting/precision/plinking all around scope there is no disadvantage.

Of course they cost a little more and some people simply like thinner SFP reticles better which is fine and would be a couple other reasons to choose SFP. I think of those as personal preferences though, not really performance issues with FFP.

[joseph]

I think that as I see it (the reticle in relation to the target) with my 6-24x50mm PST FFP MOA scope the reticle is the same thickness at 6x as 24x. By this I mean that at 100 yds. at 6x the reticle can be held inside a .22 cal. hole in your target ( if you could see the bullet hole). When you turn the power up to 24x the reticle "looks" thicker, but your target is larger in relation to the reticle. Even though the reticle "looks" thicker at 24x it will still hold inside a .22 cal. hole in the same target because the hole is 24 times larger.
I think that a FFP is more useful for long range then a SFP. A SFP reticle stays the same thickness at all magnifications. When aiming a SFP at longer ranges the target gets smaller while the reticle stays the same thickness which can cover up your target like a prairie dog. In order to make the prairie dog not be covered up with a SFP you would need to increase the magnification to make the dog larger. With a FFP the reticle always stays the same thickness in relationship to the target at all magnifications.
When I hunt deer here in Georgia almost all my shots are from 10 yds. to a max of 200 yds. In this situation I like to use a SFP scope.

If anyone disagrees please chime in. This is a good discussion and we all can learn from our experiences. Even me!! If I am stating something that is inaccurate tell me about it.

"Aim small miss small",

joseph

[Good]

I think you're right on Joseph! Pretty much what I was trying to explain earlier, just from a different facet of the jewel.