Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
FFP VS SFP need a answer
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Barrelnut" data-source="post: 1289737" data-attributes="member: 74902"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Barrelnut, post: 1289737, member: 74902"] 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
FFP VS SFP need a answer
Top