midwesthunter
Well-Known Member
Is FFP worth an extra $150? I would mainly use for wind hold off. Looking at Vortex viper pst 6-24x50
FFP worth extra cost?
- Thread starter midwesthunter
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Ernie
SPONSOR
IT all depends if you will remember to take the scope to the calibrated point each time when you shoot.
For field shooting, tactical matches and hunting I prefer FFP because it makes my system more idiot proof.
So for me-Yes. FFP is worth it.
For BR matches, and pd'ing I would rather have SFP.
For field shooting, tactical matches and hunting I prefer FFP because it makes my system more idiot proof.
So for me-Yes. FFP is worth it.
For BR matches, and pd'ing I would rather have SFP.
midwesthunter
Well-Known Member
Thanks thats what I was thinking. I just keep reading and reading reviews on scopes. I am really torn between one mentioned in original post huskeman and zeiss conquest.
davewilson
Well-Known Member
i gotta tell you, i just don't see what the big deal is with FFP scopes. for a hunting scope, a SFP is the winner hands down. the only thing, and i repeat, the ONLY thing a FFP scope can do better than a SFP is range on any power.with that said, a ranging reticle is a BACKUP system in case your rangefinder isn't working. most SFP scopes are set up to range on the highest power. now in my experience, it doesn't take very long to put a scope on the highest power, and wahlah, you can range. in my limited experience with ranging using the reticle, i like it on the highest magnification.the closer the view, the more accurate the estimating is.
the disadvantages are huge. in low light situations, when you turn the power to it's lower/lowest setting, the reticle becomes very thin. not what you need for low light. a very bold/heavy crosshair is what you need.
now let's shoot something at long range where you put it on it's highest power. DANG, the reticle is now very heavy. sure would be nice to have that fine crosshair for that long shot, but no, a FFP reticle is very thick on it's highest setting.
in my mind, i'll take a SFP scope every time, for a hunting gun, especially when we're shooting a little farther than most. the disadvantages far outweigh the one advantage that a FFP scope has.
the disadvantages are huge. in low light situations, when you turn the power to it's lower/lowest setting, the reticle becomes very thin. not what you need for low light. a very bold/heavy crosshair is what you need.
now let's shoot something at long range where you put it on it's highest power. DANG, the reticle is now very heavy. sure would be nice to have that fine crosshair for that long shot, but no, a FFP reticle is very thick on it's highest setting.
in my mind, i'll take a SFP scope every time, for a hunting gun, especially when we're shooting a little farther than most. the disadvantages far outweigh the one advantage that a FFP scope has.
Jon A
Well-Known Member
Why is it people who dislike FFP reticles (and usually have zero experience with them) seem to believe, without fail, that the absolutely only thing a reticle can be used for is "ranging?" Virtually none of us use our reticles for that in the field. But we do use them for other things. Like hitting the target.
It's like they have not found much use for their SFP reticles in the field so they don't use them for much of anything...so they never learn the advantages of using a reticle and it becomes self-fulfilling. Since they don't use their reticles for anything, being able to use the reticle adds no value. Of course if you can use the reticle on more than one power it suddenly becomes much more useful in the field.
So yes, if you don't ever plan on using the reticle for anyting--holdovers, wind holds, etc,--SFP works great. If you do plan on using the reticle for things, FFP is well worth it.
The "disadvantages" people with little experience list are easily negated by selecting the correct reticle for your application in a high quality scope.
Once you actually extensively use a good one (assuming you "use the reticle" for anything) the choice becomes a no-brainer.
It's like they have not found much use for their SFP reticles in the field so they don't use them for much of anything...so they never learn the advantages of using a reticle and it becomes self-fulfilling. Since they don't use their reticles for anything, being able to use the reticle adds no value. Of course if you can use the reticle on more than one power it suddenly becomes much more useful in the field.
So yes, if you don't ever plan on using the reticle for anyting--holdovers, wind holds, etc,--SFP works great. If you do plan on using the reticle for things, FFP is well worth it.
The "disadvantages" people with little experience list are easily negated by selecting the correct reticle for your application in a high quality scope.
Once you actually extensively use a good one (assuming you "use the reticle" for anything) the choice becomes a no-brainer.
midwesthunter
Well-Known Member
Thanks I was planning for using it for hold over for my windage.
royinidaho
Well-Known Member
Answer to the question: YOU BETCHA!!!
davewilson
Well-Known Member
what's scarry to me is these posts i've just read. you guys act like you can't use a SFP for holdovers and wind corrections. that's exactly what i do.use the reticle.i'm gonna have to let some of the best long range hunters know they use the wrong focal plane. how long does it take to put the scope on the highest power? i use the center out to 350-400 yards. if the shot is farther than that, i'm taking a few seconds to set up, or are we snap shooting at 500 and above? how do you shoot at small targets at 1000 with that FFP. i remember shooting at crows and we couldn't even use the gun that had that big ole Swaro on it. YOU COULDN'T SEE THE CROW cause the reticle covered it up!
I agree that it's a no-brainer. most "educated " long range hunters use a SFP scope.
I agree that it's a no-brainer. most "educated " long range hunters use a SFP scope.
I agree with ya except for the last sentence. I can see the crows very well out my horus vision raptor scope at all ranges. As a matter of fact nearly all of my practice shots are at ~3" rocks on sandy banks up to 1340 yards(far as the leica crf 1200 will go).
I have heard of some ffp scope with real thick reticle, from what you just said how in the hack can I hit even a soda can with those???? By all means stay from those thick reticle scopes.
For the most part I hear ya.gun)
I have to say that I very much like my reticles in the FFP.
I can range on any power.
I can hold for elevation/wind/movers, on any power, and the hold directly relates to a mil value, which holds true at any power.
I can spot for my partner, and speak in accurate "mil" language which he can use to make an immediate and accurate adjustment, on any power.
When I switched to FFP, I don't even look at my power ring anymore. I simply dial it to wherever it is best while I'm making the shot.
That kind of freedom and versatility is definitely worth it in my book... and the costs are coming down quite a lot.
I can range on any power.
I can hold for elevation/wind/movers, on any power, and the hold directly relates to a mil value, which holds true at any power.
I can spot for my partner, and speak in accurate "mil" language which he can use to make an immediate and accurate adjustment, on any power.
When I switched to FFP, I don't even look at my power ring anymore. I simply dial it to wherever it is best while I'm making the shot.
That kind of freedom and versatility is definitely worth it in my book... and the costs are coming down quite a lot.
Last edited:
royinidaho
Well-Known Member
Dave,
OK if I argue a bit?
I've only had and still have 1 FFP scope. An old model Weaver Tactical.
The optics turn out to be very good. Its biggest problems are the Mil Dot reticle and 1/8" clicks and calibration @ 10X. The 4.5-14 power range is excellent! Its mounted on a 338 RUM.
I'm anal enough that "where Exactly where is 10X?" If the cal was at full power it would be a different thing.
From experience in the woods dry firing on deer out to 1000 yrds (it was elk season). Taking the imaginary head shot was no problem. Ravens looked like a good possibility also.
I feel I could make a 1K shot on 4.5 power on anything from a crow size bird to an elk IF the reticle would get me that far.
I have no idea of where a NightForce reticle is calibrated. I own one but haven't touched it yet. I wouldn't mind if it were a FFP.
Just jawin'......
OK if I argue a bit?
I've only had and still have 1 FFP scope. An old model Weaver Tactical.
The optics turn out to be very good. Its biggest problems are the Mil Dot reticle and 1/8" clicks and calibration @ 10X. The 4.5-14 power range is excellent! Its mounted on a 338 RUM.
I'm anal enough that "where Exactly where is 10X?" If the cal was at full power it would be a different thing.
From experience in the woods dry firing on deer out to 1000 yrds (it was elk season). Taking the imaginary head shot was no problem. Ravens looked like a good possibility also.
I feel I could make a 1K shot on 4.5 power on anything from a crow size bird to an elk IF the reticle would get me that far.
I have no idea of where a NightForce reticle is calibrated. I own one but haven't touched it yet.
I wouldn't mind if it were a FFP.Just jawin'......
In the below picture, the target is 18" wide by 30" tall and at a distance of just over 1100yds. As you can see, it wouldn't be too difficult to center on the head which is 6"x6". So while some ffp scopes will have a "large" reticle, I have not seen many that would obscure the target. Doesn't mean I would use one for benchrest competition, but in the case of hunting/tactical shooting they do not obscure the target as some would claim. ... or maybe I just don't shoot well enough for it to be a problem.
The scope here is a premier 5-25 with the gen2XR reticle.
The scope here is a premier 5-25 with the gen2XR reticle.
Last edited:
davewilson
Well-Known Member
i'm sure reticles, just like everything else, have been improved greatly and my limited experience with FFP is a few years old. if you can line up on 3" targets at 1300 yds, that would be something i've never seen on a FFP, and my main objective against it. conversely it always seemed that when the hair was small enough to do this, then it couldn't be seen at lower powers. i'm sure illumination/etched reticles has helped with this. i understand the advantages of FFP, but still consider the ability to range at any power a week argument.plus, as i've stated, i just hate that big thick hair when trying to shoot long range.guess they're not as thick as they used to be.the scopes with these capabilities are out of my price range. i have a PST on order. has a very nice reticle, slashes every 2 MOA. and yes, in SFP !
