FFP VS SFP for Hunting

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by matt_3479, May 8, 2011.

  1. matt_3479

    matt_3479 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    886
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    I decided a while back that i will be purchasing the Vortex Viper PST 4-16x50mm for my main hunting/target rifle. I wanted to get into some serious long range target shooting and be more prepared for hunting.

    This rifle will be used for stuff like moose, elk, bear, caribou and deer at ranges out too 600 yards and targets between 100-1000 for now :). But i dont know if the FFP or the SFP would suit me better. For hunting the FFP seems like the smartest option due to the fact that i can use the reticle on every power, but the SFP is cheaper. i have also read the FFP isn't the best for targets at extended ranges.

    I know Joesph enjoys his and doesn't mind his FFP but i would like to hear what others have to say about there experiences with SFP vs FFP for hunting mainly then for target shooting.
     
  2. sticknstring

    sticknstring Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    87
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    subscribimg to this thread also...
     

  3. freese

    freese Member

    Messages:
    13
    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    IMHO...if your type of hunting requires you to take a quick shot at a variety of known distances, then you can benefit from the FFP with some sort of milling reticle. But if you have time to range your target and dope your scope, then I don't seed the need for FFP. I must admit that I prefer a simple duplex sight and if I have to rush to get a shot off, I'll let the animal go and wait for the next opportunity. There are a lot of variables in determining whether or not having a FFP on your scope is necessary. If you don't mind the cost then go for it. I don't see how it would hurt. I’ve hunted with a FFP scope and still found myself making dope adjustments before pulling the trigger.
     
  4. sp6x6

    sp6x6 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,043
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Matt, I favor the first. I like reading reticule and holding or adjust all same to me, circumstance of shot. Im shooting a 6-20 mil/tmr for long range main. I have B&C, BALLISTIC plex, varmint, mildot, like em all.I like more info in the reticule. I t is personal preference.
     
  5. Michaelvoigt1

    Michaelvoigt1 Member

    Messages:
    16
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Hi Matt

    First focal plane is the only way to go if you are using the reticle for elevation or wind holds.

    I typically dial for elevation and hold for wind, but this can be done at any power with FFP.

    Also, if you are using a spotter with MIL reticle in spotting scope... you will only get useful information of you both are using accurate scales. FFP insures this.

    So... SFP doesn't make much sense to me other than in a target scope where the shooter will dial both elevation and wind and then may use the target for corrections to point of aim/impact.

    The only place that FFP doesn't work is when a mfg tries to make a "do it all" variable with low power at the bottom end. The reticle can become almost invisible at the lowest magnifications (1-5x for instance).

    FFP and never wonder if your holds or ranging is accurate due to magnification
    Mike
     
  6. matt_3479

    matt_3479 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    886
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Thank you to all. I wanted to make sure buying the FFP was the right choice before dropping 150 dollars more.