FFP vs SFP question

[steelheadmike]

I'm in the process of trying to find a scope for mostly prairie dogs/squirrels/targets. I am looking at ffp and sfp models. I really like the added versatility of the FFP and that the holdover never changes. But, the apparent downside is that the reticle gets too large at magnification.

Here's my question: assuming I'm using a ffp and sfp at 20x for prairie dogs. The reticle sub tension thickness is 0.04 mil on both (the sfp is calibrated at 20x). Aren't they going to both cover the same amount of target? If I had to drop down to 16x, wouldn't the sfp cover more target than the ffp? Is the reticle size issue on the ffp really a "non-issue" in this situation because the reticle us tends at 0.04 at any mag?

Also, I'm not worried about having a small reticle on a ffp scope at low power. It will be cranked up as high as possible typically.

Thanks!!!

 

[FearNoWind]

It's all right here:

Front Focal Plane vs Second Focal Plane - Sniper's Hide - Scout

 

[BallisticsGuy]

FFP is generally contraindicated for extremely small targets at extended range. What I'd be looking for in your position is a 1/8 target dot on fine crosshair. Fancy and thick reticles suck for squirrels and pdogs.

All About Riflescope Reticles should help.

 

[Browninglover1]

You are correct in your example that the SFP reticle would actually cover more of the target on 16x than the FFP would. The major downfall to FFP reticles is that since they shrink in apparent size as magnification drops they can be difficult to see. On a prairie dog gun this is not a problem because you'll always be shooting at higher powers and the reticle will always be readily visible. If you take that same FFP scope into the dark timber after elk it make be difficult to see the reticle for quick shots on the lowest magnification; this problem is often overcome through the use of an illuminated reticle.

 

[gohring3006]

My personal opinion would be... Hunting, SFP with a standard crosshairs.
Tactical rifle comp, FFP with a mil hash or similar reticle that has hold over and wind marks, but not too busy to become confusing when in a hurry...

My reason for the SFP for hunting is. I mostly set up for MPBR and, and most of the time I have time to range for distance, and dial. So all the busy reticles are more of a hindrance than a benefit for my style of hunting..

 

[FEENIX]

I'm in the process of trying to find a scope for mostly prairie dogs/squirrels/targets. I am looking at ffp and sfp models. I really like the added versatility of the FFP and that the holdover never changes. But, the apparent downside is that the reticle gets too large at magnification.

Here's my question: assuming I'm using a ffp and sfp at 20x for prairie dogs. The reticle sub tension thickness is 0.04 mil on both (the sfp is calibrated at 20x). Aren't they going to both cover the same amount of target? If I had to drop down to 16x, wouldn't the sfp cover more target than the ffp? Is the reticle size issue on the ffp really a "non-issue" in this situation because the reticle us tends at 0.04 at any mag?

Also, I'm not worried about having a small reticle on a ffp scope at low power. It will be cranked up as high as possible typically.

Thanks!!!

Welcome to LRH and enjoy!

It boils down to personal preference and intended purpose. Not all FFP reticles are created equal; some are designed and performs better than others. Check out Burris Veracity FFP models with varmint reticle and SWFA HD FFP.

Good luck!

Ed

 

[Mikecr]

You mention subtending to .04mils.
Is this at 100yds?
I ask because 3.6"(100yd mil) x .04 = .144", which is relatively huge for a SFP scope at 20x.

My favorite varmint reticle is a NF med-fine cross hair(CH2) in SFP. This subtends at 100yds to ~.038" at 22x.
I hunt groundhogs with this, and get a precise easy to view cross hair at any power, any background.
I far prefer SFP over FFP for varmint hunting.

 

[steelheadmike]

Basically, I'm torn between a viper 6.5-20 and the new Athlon Argos BTR 6-24. I'm trying stay at $450 or under. The viper subtends at 20x 0.12 moa. The Argos in moa is 0.14 and the mil version is 0.02.

The reviews on the Athlon has been generally good but the only weak link seems to be the turrets. Since I plan on dialing, this is important to me. Other than that the stolons are very appealing at their price point.

I'm leaning towards the viper for a simpler reticle and the turrets feel much better. And, The viper has a pretty good track record.

I'm pretty much at the point that in gonna get one and shoot with it because in reality, most of my shots are 100-200 yds and even with a scope that subtends at 0.14 moa, it won't even cover a .30 cal hole at 200. I'm not sure I could see at 30 cal hole at that range.

Thanks for the help. I've learned a ton by lurking around in here.

 

[Rich Coyle]

tag