SFP vs FFP for hunting

[AkBirder300]

After passing on several moose that might have been legal width, I switched to ffp on all my hunting rifles. I can hit them with the range finder and then do the math backward to get the minimum mils/moa for a legal width and then see if they make it.

Reticles are small on low power, but if it's illuminated that doesn't matter

Same

 

[Rich Coyle]

I use my sfp reticle on all powers.

 

[FEENIX]

I have a good mix of SFP and FFP scopes. My last 5 scope purchases are all FFPs and did not have any problem in my transition. I now prefer the FFPs.

 

[AaronSkipDavidson]

I switched everything we do to ffp about 5 years ago. It took a couple years, we still have customers that will go buy a rifle elsewhere because we won't do spf.

It's like vegetables. Good for you, even if you don't like it.

We train lots of guy into the dial elevation hold for wind method. Running ffp just takes away one more thing that can screw you up.

I've found that a good reticle makes the difference. I design for hashmark use at half power and above, and a big thick post for use at the lowest power setting. The intermediate ranges just don't get used.

 

[Benman73]

Last three scopes I've purchased have been FFP, but they are not ideal in size and weight or for hunting in my area. Still waiting on a company to make a lightweight, correctly sized reticle for a FFP hunting scope, optimized for low end use for woods hunting.

 

[sp6x6]

Ill take any scope LanceK,is rolling

 

[Aussie Hunter Steve]

FFP all the way

 

[Hugnot]

I like fixed power scopes, 16X is about ideal for me, but impossible to find, so I use my 6-18X, RFP scope set on 18X with its MRAD reticle & adjustments.

 

[Greyfox]

I own and have used both for hunting, and use FFP/Mils exclusively for PRS/tactical sports. While I could easily live with either, for LRH I prefer SFP. The "reticle" benefit of the FFP is not so great with my usual reticle based windage adjustments being quite easy choosing full or half power magnification almost exclusively. Any lower the half magnification, the SFP is much better, IMO. I like the constant reticle/sight picture of the SFP for hunting game. From a cost standpoint, I'll opt to put the added cost of a FFP capability into better glass/quality with an SFP.

 

[Longrangers]

I believe that it comes down to what you are use to or what your needs are. I prefer SFP because I utilize my scopes for match as well hunting. In Match I have a fine point of aim and I don't want a fat reticle. I then transfer that to game hunting because I pick a fine point of aim on the animal and that is where I want my shot placement. I utilize a rangefinder along with kestrel and app to get my dope.

 

[misterc01]

Since most of my shooting is at longer ranges, the focal plane is a moot point for me. I have both, and use both

 

[Teri Anne]

Has the argument changed about SFP or FFP over time?? LINK

I found the linked thread with an interesting flare to it. People down on ffp scopes.

So, I ask myself why could SFP be better?

Are SFP users needing a precise aimpoint on like 3-5x? Perhaps shooting at a 600yd animal on 4.5x with a 4.5-30x scope?

If the issue is low power at 0-150 yd shots, doesn't the ffp reticle on 3-5x have a nice fat appearance, especially with illumination?

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.

 

[Aoudad shooter1975]

I like FFP for shooting and hunting now too…I took my first LR class now in 2009..and really started to get serious about shooting longer range and setting up my gear to do it consistently about 2013-2014…holding wind in your retical, and training LR seems easier with FFP.. I also try to use very few different reticles —hence stick with same brands—right now I'm shooting LRHSs and Maven optics RS1..(the G2 mil, and the MOA 1–wished they made a mil) still have a few SFP scopes—mostly Swarovski Z5 and X5s—and one Z8…but I've moved almost exclusively to FFP

 

[Ninering62]

Has the argument changed about SFP or FFP over time?? LINK

I found the linked thread with an interesting flare to it. People down on ffp scopes.

So, I ask myself why could SFP be better?

Are SFP users needing a precise aimpoint on like 3-5x? Perhaps shooting at a 600yd animal on 4.5x with a 4.5-30x scope?

If the issue is low power at 0-150 yd shots, doesn't the ffp reticle on 3-5x have a nice fat appearance, especially with illumination?

For an inside 200-300yd hunting gun with low power - 1.5-10 up to 3x12 I only use SFP scopes. For long-range hunting & bench shooting, then I only use FFP & higher power scopes.