SFP vs FFP for hunting

Ninering62

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2020
Messages
88
Location
Orig from southern Md. In North Central Florida
There is no need to argue about which is best since it all comes down to personal preference...and we all have one. The difference between first and second focal planes can be seen in the photo below (Thank you American Rifleman) The only difference is what the size of the reticle does when changing magnification. Personally I much prefer first focal plane because the reticle does not change size other than become more pronounced as you increase magnification. To each their own on this one. View attachment 304598
No, thats not the only difference between them either. For those of us that use the holdovers instead of the dial, theres a huge difference in what the subtention values are at diff power settings vs them being constant thru all power settings.
 

JMGamesniper19

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
498
Location
USA
Shot them both in target and in hunting situations. I think there is a weighted argument for FFP preference with precision shooters due to the need to using the subtentions to aid in timed comps - especially with Mils.

Now that everyone is spinning turrets and using shooting apps with Kestrels, in hunting I think SFP scopes are just fine. Bottom line, pick a style you love and shoot it. Then if you have more rifles and more scopes, stay with it

To me this is a similar argument to whether you wanna shoot minutes or mils. Up to you
 

Mikecr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2003
Messages
5,821
Location
NC, oceanfront
FFP holds functional use for ranging. I use LRF, which is more accurate.
SFP provides better aiming resolution. Aim small, miss small. Many FFP reticles would completely conceal groundhogs I currently take headshots on. Then there is weight and cost. SFP wins there.

The image appears better/brighter with FFP. I'll give it that until SFP catches up.
But I'll never purchase FFP, as to me this would be supporting manual transmissions when efforts need to continue for an automatic world.
 

jgs8163

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
2,059
Location
Southern Arizona
I don’t see why there would be a argument about it. It’s pretty simple. FFP has a unique function to it, plus it is usually more expensive. If one doesn’t plan on using the reticle for long range shots then it really doesn’t matter, unless the reticle of choice is not available in SFP.
 

jgs8163

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
2,059
Location
Southern Arizona
FFP holds functional use for ranging. I use LRF, which is more accurate.
SFP provides better aiming resolution. Aim small, miss small. Many FFP reticles would completely conceal groundhogs I currently take headshots on. Then there is weight and cost. SFP wins there.

The image appears better/brighter with FFP. I'll give it that until SFP catches up.
But I'll never purchase FFP, as to me this would be supporting manual transmissions when efforts need to continue for an automatic world.
I have exact scope models by Nightforce and one is FFP and the other is SFP. There is no benefit in glass clarity, brightness, etc….. to me anyways.
 

DeadmansPoint

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
61
I like the weight benefit of the SFP. I find I don't need to range with my reticle when hunting as hunting partners and I both have rangefinders handy. With the longer distance shots, I have plenty of time to range and dial for elevation. My wind holds could be categorized as WAGs anyways.
 

Jeremy R Snyder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
Messages
179
Location
Upstate NY
Took me awhile to get my answer to this. SFP used to be my favorite until I got into coyote hunting. Because they move so fast and never sit still I found the FFP has the advantage for hold over and quick shots. But…. When at a lower power and lower light they blow because you can not see the reticle most the time. So I found the absolute best for me is an illuminated FFP, no more issues either way now!! Just my 2 cents
 

Gone Ballistic

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
672
Location
Orofino, Idaho
My first FFP scope was a Nightforce NXS 5.5 X 22 X 50 and immediately I found close target acquisition difficult due to the tight cross hair setting at the 5.5 power setting. The second NXS I purchased was a 3.5 X 15 X 56 FFP which I have since found this to work extremely easy, and have used this power setting for my subsequent hunting scopes for Elk and Mule Deer. Whitetail I still use my old 3X9 Leupold on my 270. I found that by using the lower power FFP turned up to 5 power gives me great cross hair acquisition.
 

SteveBurton

Formerly 'Jackmonkey'
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
333
Location
Mesa, AZ
There really isn't any argument as it boils down to use case and personal preference. Comparing FFP to SFP in a few popular scopes will show you that there is no difference in size or weight so that point is moot. Buy scopes in both flavors, go shoot them and decide for yourself. I own both and use them for different purposes.
My PRS rifle has a FFP in MILs. My magnification is dialed up higher so I can see the sustentions easily. Most people shoot MILs so that is what the spotters are calling out. This keeps me from having to do math in my head.
All of my hunting scopes are SFP in MOA. I grew up using this type of scope so it's more natural to me. I hunt in thick timber and brush back East and also wide open areas in the West. Shots range from 20 yards to my current farthest of 635 yards. I keep my magnification dialed low so I want a scope with a fixed reticle in case I have a quick shot up close. Shots back East can happen in a matter of seconds where as out West you have several minutes to hours to prepare.
If all of your hunting was only at long ranges and you had time to setup for the shot, I can see the justification for a FFP.
 

Teri Anne

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
May 24, 2021
Messages
193
Location
Wisconsin
No, thats not the only difference between them either. For those of us that use the holdovers instead of the dial, theres a huge difference in what the subtention values are at diff power settings vs them being constant thru all power settings.
As mentioned above. It all comes down to personal preference and if you like one or the other you should be familiar with the owners manual that comes with it and use it as you like and it's intended. Personally I use tactical scopes and have the rifle/scope sighted in at the ranges I shoot at and simply dial the distance and hold dead on. But then again, that is my personal preference.
 

Holycity73

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
684
Location
Charleston SC
Lemme surmise… personal preference. Archives below for your consideration. 😂
FB4A62A4-0BF5-43DC-A0F3-D054CAA2E49B.jpeg
 

Raudy707

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
377
Location
Mendo
I like SFP for hunting because my scope lives on 4.5-5 on the norm. My FFP scopes start there and the reticle isnt really visible. At about 8x I can see it well but that's not great in timber and brush. I think if all I hunted was open prairies and sage I'd just use my FFP scopes but I'm always in mixed terrain and vegetation. SFP for me.
 

Recent Posts

Top