SFP or the FFP for big game rifle hunting

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by matt_3479, Mar 28, 2011.

  1. matt_3479

    matt_3479 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    886
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    This rifle is a 300. wsm which is only used on Moose, Elk, Caribou, Black bear and deer. Deer is the smallest game this gun will be used on. I have never owned an FFP scope before but it seems like a smart idea if someone plans on using the rifle for long range hunting and shooting. I wont make any shots past 600 yards not even on targets. I was thinking that the FFP reticle gives me the ability to use the turrets if i have time to set up, and if i need to make a quick shot, it allows me to shoot on any power, at most ranges as long as i know the drop in inches/moa. What is your thoughts on an FFP reticle for big game hunting, Mainly Moose, Black bear, Elk, Caribou with the odd deer?

    The scope im talking about is the Vortex Viper PST 4-16x50mm SFP or FFP Moa reticle and turrets.
     
  2. mtngun

    mtngun Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    46
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    I'm on the fence about ffp. I'm going with the 2nd fp because I feel ranging and atmospheric correction will allow more accurate shot placement. With f1 one still needs to use the turrent for atmospheric correction.
    The ffp has it's place if one desires to use the reticle for ranging as it will work at any mag level.
    I think the f1 would shine if one zeros it at a greater distance than 200 yds (say 300-500 yds) and creating charts for hold under/over for the range your target lies.
    I know Nightforce has several versions of their velocity reticles that is etched to match your load and mv. They are spendy though.
    I know it's a dfficult choice, any scope will compromise the hunter unless much time is spent familiarizing oneself with it's reticle and how it interacts with the specific round being fired and the atmosphere.
     

  3. LR3

    LR3 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    216
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    For out to 600 I would suggest a Leupold B&C You can work out your distances using a ballistic program for the various lines eg I set mine up for 350, 500 , 575 and 650 yd and is much quicker than turrets. Keeps about 3.5 " drop within those ranges. Beyond 600 I use both ffp and sfp but prefer most times ffp
     
  4. matt_3479

    matt_3479 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    886
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    i was thinking Leupold but decided to go vortex i believe. I want to start getting more into long range hunting and shooting. i am very interested in it, it opens all new windows and i firmly believe that the Viper PST is the scope to get for beginners or relatively new into it.

    Im going with PST and i think im getting the FFP model. I will only shoot out too 600 yards for now, but eventually shoot out too 1000 on targets but stick with 600 for game due to 300. wsm power.
     
  5. Ian B

    Ian B Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    75
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    This is a question of much debate amid shooters I know quite a few people who hate FFP and will never change from SFP.
    IMO they both have their advantages over one or the other but the advantage is no game changer given modern technology talk more about that later.
    The FFP is a better choice for ranging as said above but that comes at a cost as the reticule stays the same size through out the magnification ranges in other words its smaller when you want it bigger and vice versa makes a difference on smaller targets at long range.
    Honestly unless you can do the math equations in your head or bring along a calculator in the field the ranging feature is useless not to mention reticule ranging is often inaccurate it might get you close but at longer ranges close is off target or injuring an animal.
    The calculation would look like this if the it where a Mil/Mil FFP to get range in yards.
    size of target X 27.778 = yards
    Mil reading

    This calculation would be the same if it were a SFP scope to but it would only work at one Magnification range.

    The reason why FFP IMO does not have a huge advantage over SFP is because we have LRFs and ballistic calculators and range cards. The only time FFP would show a real advantage is the military world where equipment gets destroyed more frequently and you might not have a LRF even then SFP still works for reticule ranging you just have the extra step of zooming which takes all of 2 seconds.

    That said I have no problem with either so long as the said scope works being that most FFP 9/10 scopes are very high end. example if some one put a S&B PM II and a leupold MK IV on a table and said pick one your damm skippy i would pick the S&B.
    for the vortex PST I would save myself a little cash and get the SFP version
     
  6. MontanaRifleman

    MontanaRifleman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,068
    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    I don't even see this thread :cool::)
     
  7. Ian B

    Ian B Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    75
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Haha its been done a thousand times.
     
  8. shortpants

    shortpants Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    602
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    One thing I noticed about the PST FFP that I don't like is the hash marks on the windage crosshair are in 2moa but the PST SFP offers 1moa on the windage crosshair. I know that on the FFP if they were 1moa you would not be able to see them at low power but I usually shoot near max power and always do on long range shots. Almost all scopes in FFP are this way but 2moa is useless if you ask me.
     
  9. WildRose

    WildRose Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,210
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    I agree, but I'd throw in the Zeiss conqest as well. I have both and I think the zeiss has a little better glass and their service is just as good and at least as rarely needed.

    The Rapid Z 600 would really be the cat's meow.. .
     
  10. mtngun

    mtngun Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    46
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    You bring up a good point and it's something each individual needs to take a look at. I call it target clutter. At long distance and high magnification how much info does one want to sort through?
    My experience is while walking or close range stalking low to mid magnification is set. Ranging is seldom used on quick target acquisition on fleeting game.
    High magnification at longer distances would be used after one has glassed and determined distance to target and has compensated for atmospheric conditions.
    The op made a point to mention that his scope would be used for hunting up to 600 yards. I agree with the Leupold w/bdc, or any other high quality scope with custom turrents would be adequate.
    I'm of the opinion one should buy a high quality scope once as in the future rifles can be switched out under good glass. Too many times we see owners switching up glass (check the f/s forums of this site, snipershide or optics talk and one can find all sorts of recent mid to mid-high glass being swaped out or being offed.
    Remember, with continued development of warfare and high-end sporting glass there is a steady stream of last years latest-greatest available. Much of this glass is little used, high quality and can be purchased for a fair price if one is patient.
     
  11. jeffersonv

    jeffersonv Active Member

    Messages:
    40
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    I see no need for FFP for ranging. Without knowing exactly how big your target is you will not be able to range accurately. Besides, we use rangefinders for ranging these days. The ranging argument for FFP always sounds silly to me.

    FFP is most useful for rapid follow up corrections on any power. SFP cannot compete in this aspect.

    FFP is also good for leading moving targets on any power if that's what you are into.

    The simplicity and ease of use under stress is also a biggie.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2011