FFP VS SFP need a answer

[DartonJager]

I need a simple answer concerning FFP reticles VS SFP reticles. I am planning on buying a SWFA SS 3-15x42 and need a question answered. I have heard that a FFP scopes reticle can be to big at lower magnifications and to small at higher magnifications and as such pose problems making shots on game under commonly encounter shooting conditions.
I am concerned because I have read this repeatedly and all I have ever owned or used is SFP scopes.

Thanks,
DJ.

BTW, I did do a SFP VS FFP search here and came up with nothing.

 

[DartonJager]

Did a second search and came up with more than enough information to NOT help me in choosing.

I really only have one question:
Bottom line is this will a SWFA FFP scope's MIL-QUAD reticle obscure a deer/elk's vital area enough to possibly prevent shots in low light conditions at it's lower magnifications between 3-5x and be to small to see in low light or other conditions at magnifications above 10x.

I did read an excellent article from here that strongly advises FFP for hunters and gives excellent reasons as to why, but I would like some first had experiences to help in my decision making. I will not be able to do a evaluation of FFP or SFP prior to buying, so I need experienced input. Please bear in mind this scope will be used ONLY for hunting deer/antelope and elk not small game or varmints ever.

Lastly I will limiting my range to 600 yards due to a host of reasons chief among them is bullet performance at 600 yards.

 

[MallardAddict]

I have a 3-15 SS mil quad on an AR10 and it's great for the cost. For my uses I do not find the reticle too small at 3 x to make a shot at early light. I also would have no problem using it at 15x for 600 yds. The issue really comes in on making hits on small target say prairie dogs and ground hogs at long ranges closer to 1k yds while using high X scopes such as the 5-20 version.

For the uses stated the 3-15 SS should be great for you.

 

[Barrelnut]

Darton, you have the concept backwards. With FFP, the reticle is smaller than SFP at low magnification and the reticle is typically larger than a SFP reticle at high magnification.

That said. This question is like asking someone who they liked for president last year! Peoples devotions to one type or the other run deep.

Which is best for you would depend on the type of shooting you do. I you like to use the reticle for holdover on long shots that are often quicker shots, and don't use the scope much for close range in low light conditions, a FFP would probably be kinda nice. A lot of the "Precision Rifle" shooters like them because they have time constraints.

SFP works great at low magnification in low light because the reticle is often easier to see. The reticle also doesn't cover as much of the target a high magnification due the fact that the reticle is not usually as thick at higher magnifications. Though neither would obscure the vitals at 600 yards or whatever. The SFP would allow for more precise aiming though. Like they say: aim small miss small.

I prefer SFP. It is easier on my eyes and my eyes can find it quicker thru the scope. Lots of FFP proponents say that the reticle MOA substitutions are only accurate at highest magnification on SFP scopes. This is hog wash. I have a 6-24 Vortex PST

 

[DartonJager]

M/A
Thanks for the reply. My only concern is this. I killed my biggest bull elk a beautiful near perfectly symectrical 340" class 6x6 by stalking him in VERY VERY heavy dark timber in the early morning less than an hour after first light and I had to make a very quick shot once I got a clear shot on him while he was moving at max 60 yards. My concern is if I find myself in a similar situation again with a bull or big buck in heavy low light heavy timber I might not be able to find and line up the cross hairs on the animal quick enough.

Per your experience I now know my fears are unwarranted.

Thanks,
DJ.

 

[DartonJager]

Darton, you have the concept backwards. With FFP, the reticle is smaller than SFP at low magnification and the reticle is typically larger than a SFP reticle at high magnification.

That said. This question is like asking someone who they liked for president last year! Peoples devotions to one type or the other run deep.

Which is best for you would depend on the type of shooting you do. I you like to use the reticle for holdover on long shots that are often quicker shots, and don't use the scope much for close range in low light conditions, a FFP would probably be kinda nice. A lot of the "Precision Rifle" shooters like them because they have time constraints.

SFP works great at low magnification in low light because the reticle is often easier to see. The reticle also doesn't cover as much of the target a high magnification due the fact that the reticle is not usually as thick at higher magnifications. Though neither would obscure the vitals at 600 yards or whatever. The SFP would allow for more precise aiming though. Like they say: aim small miss small.

I prefer SFP. It is easier on my eyes and my eyes can find it quicker thru the scope. Lots of FFP proponents say that the reticle MOA substitutions are only accurate at highest magnification on SFP scopes. This is hog wash. I have a 6-24 Vortex PST

Thanks for the reply Barrelnut,
I planned on using the substitutions on the SFWA's vertical cross hair as POI at what ever range they happen to correspond with. Now I know that with a SFP scope this is at least somewhat affected by what ever power setting the scope is at other than maximum or what ever power setting the scope's subs are calibrated for. I'm guessing that at lower then max power the values in MOA, MIL Dot, Mil Quad or what ever that the subs are change in proportion to the reduction of power.

If this is as indeed a true statement, doesn't this add another set of computations you would have to figure out for and have a cheat sheet available to use the scope effectively at other than the dedicated power that the subs of SFP scope are set for, there by adding at least some additional complication in using the SFP scopes substitutions aiming points? or am I over complicating/thinking things.

 

[MallardAddict]

If you decide to go SFP, most ballistic apps will compute the drops at various powers. If I did such on say a 3-15 I would have small laminated drop charts for say 3, 8 and 15x. I make laminated range cards for all of my guns and keep them in the binocular harness on my chest. I leave the scope on low power while hunting and if I had a SFP, I would memorize that chart sir probably 3x as if I need to crank it up I likely have time to consult my charts and make the adjustment.

 

[Mikecr]

SFP will work for anything. FFP will not.

 

[DartonJager]

[
Which is best for you would depend on the type of shooting you do. I you like to use the reticle for holdover on long shots that are often quicker shots, and don't use the scope much for close range in low light conditions, a FFP would probably be kinda nice. A lot of the "Precision Rifle" shooters like them because they have time constraints.

SFP works great at low magnification in low light because the reticle is often easier to see. The reticle also doesn't cover as much of the target a high magnification due the fact that the reticle is not usually as thick at higher magnifications. Though neither would obscure the vitals at 600 yards or whatever. The SFP would allow for more precise aiming though. Like they say: aim small miss small.

I would without doubt be using the rifle as much maybe more at distances of 100-400 VS 400-600 yards. Shots beyond 300 yards would be made on white tails or elk ONLY if I couldn't get closer. My experience has taught me elk hunting will likely be where I will most likely encounter longer range shot situations.

Basically I am trying to pick the best all around reticle system for hunting deer and elk from 50-600 yards and still be able to make quick shots in low light or heavy timber conditions at close range.

Typically I leave my scope set on it's lowest power setting and don't change it unless conditions warrant it like a shot at or over 250-300 yards. I am going to also invest in a SIG KILO 2000 LRF as my 15yr old Bushnell is finally fritzing and it at best was only good to 400yrds under ideal conditions.

I place 99% of my stands so as to hunt the woods as well as open fields, and I still hunt wooded areas almost daily while deer hunting, and while elk hunting I go where the elk are and my best bull a beautiful 6x6, I shot at 60 yards or less in the wee hours of the morning in low light heavy dark timber while he was moving in mid bugle no less.

So one can understand why my hunting style mandates a scope that is as applicable and capable at short range as it is at long range, hence the preference for 2-10x or 3-15x scopes and no use for even a 5x or above minimum power scope.

Lastly I would only take shots from 400-600 yards under near ideal conditions those conditions being enough time to find and use a solid rest, LRF the exact DTT and wind is mild to slight. I have made NO BS offhand shots on deer with a sling out to 168 LRF confirmed yards, and I have proven to myself I can hot objects as small as a Coalman fuel can at 400 yards while shooting off my pack or my shooting sticks pretty much at will, so I have some idea what I'm doing. I just need a better scope to enable me to take my shooting to a slightly higher level.

Never thought picking out a scope would be this involved.

 

[DartonJager]

SFP will work for anything. FFP will not.[/QUO

Would you please take the time to explain this and educate me as to why you think this is so?

 

[gohring3006]

SFP will work for anything. FFP will not.

Mike is right, when in doubt, default to SFP. It works for everything.

 

[DartonJager]

Mike is right, when in doubt, default to SFP. It works for everything.

May I ask you to please explain why this is so? and in the process increase my limited wealth of LRS knowledge.

 

[gohring3006]

SFP will work for anything. FFP will not.[/QUO

Would you please take the time to explain this and educate me as to why you think this is so?

I'll give you my take on it. I have both SFP and FFP. When light is fading, two things happen for me. One is I turn my scopes power down because it's brighter on lower power and shots have to be closer because I can't see as well so I need a wider field of view. With a FFP the crosshairs shrink in relation to the lenses I'm looking thru and it is very hard to see when it's dim.
Plus, when I want precision at long range and I have a FFP dialed to 24 power, my cross hair is blocking most of my bullseye.
SFP does not do that, the crosshairs fill up the scope lense at all power, and usually have a pretty fine crosshair.

 

[MallardAddict]

For hunting shots to 600 yds then a SFP with virtually any basic reticle such as leupold b&c, Zeiss z600 etc should get you there in the glass. That still leaves turrets for dialing for long range play