MontanaRifleman
Well-Known Member
My thoughts on FFP vs SFP. The advantages of the FFP have been spelled out. One of the biggest disadvantages is the cost.
I use a NF 5.5-22 with an NP-R2 reticle, SFP and it works fine for me. On 22x the reticle subtension is 2 MOA, on 5.5x, the subtention is 8 MOA. When I am in the field, it is always set on low power until it's time to shoot, and then adjust power to what I like for the range and conditions. My scope is zeroed @ 300 yds so basically, any shot from point blank to 400 yds is a dead on hold or slightly high @ 400. No need to use any of the subtentions inside 400 yds. Outside 400 yds, I can go to 22x for ranging if I want to. Ranging past 400 yds with a reticle is not a precise method so the ranging argument dimishes, and I can adjust the math anyway.
I dont understand the following from Boss Hoss' post?
The size and thickness of the reticle does not change. If the statement is saying that less of the target is being obscured than with a FFP reticle. I assume that's true because I would think the FFP reticle "grows" with increase in power setting, which is not something I like. Correct me if I'm wrong. One reason I like NF scopes is their fine reticles. I do no like thick reticles, but that's just me.
I am speaking from a bit of ignorance here... but wouldn't the NP-R2 and many other reticles look tiny and very busy on low power?
I know there are a lot of folks who like FFP, but I just don't see a big practical benefit in them. If you are taking a LR shot, your scope will very likely be set on high power (unless you want to power down for mirage) and if you are on high power with an FFP, the reticle is thicker, if I understand correctly, which I do not care for. If your zoom is a factor of 4, then I'm guessing that the reticle will be 4 times thicker?
Anyway, I hunt with a SFP NF and I do not feel disadvantaged in any way.
JM $.02
I use a NF 5.5-22 with an NP-R2 reticle, SFP and it works fine for me. On 22x the reticle subtension is 2 MOA, on 5.5x, the subtention is 8 MOA. When I am in the field, it is always set on low power until it's time to shoot, and then adjust power to what I like for the range and conditions. My scope is zeroed @ 300 yds so basically, any shot from point blank to 400 yds is a dead on hold or slightly high @ 400. No need to use any of the subtentions inside 400 yds. Outside 400 yds, I can go to 22x for ranging if I want to. Ranging past 400 yds with a reticle is not a precise method so the ranging argument dimishes, and I can adjust the math anyway.
I dont understand the following from Boss Hoss' post?
Second plane scopes also have a smaller appearing reticle on the target at high power than low power, which is extremely important for precise shot placement.
The size and thickness of the reticle does not change. If the statement is saying that less of the target is being obscured than with a FFP reticle. I assume that's true because I would think the FFP reticle "grows" with increase in power setting, which is not something I like. Correct me if I'm wrong. One reason I like NF scopes is their fine reticles. I do no like thick reticles, but that's just me.
I am speaking from a bit of ignorance here... but wouldn't the NP-R2 and many other reticles look tiny and very busy on low power?
I know there are a lot of folks who like FFP, but I just don't see a big practical benefit in them. If you are taking a LR shot, your scope will very likely be set on high power (unless you want to power down for mirage) and if you are on high power with an FFP, the reticle is thicker, if I understand correctly, which I do not care for. If your zoom is a factor of 4, then I'm guessing that the reticle will be 4 times thicker?
Anyway, I hunt with a SFP NF and I do not feel disadvantaged in any way.
JM $.02
Last edited: