SFP vs FFP for hunting

[Teri Anne]

Sorry to correct you. I adjusted it all over the place and the results were the same.

OK, I can stand to be corrected however that practice seems to work for everyone else that I've worked with. It works best if you are in a bench rest position with the firearm supported and aiming at a white background or even a clear blue sky and adjust the focus very slowly. There should be a point where the reticle comes into clear and darker focus than at any other point. It is a very fine adjustment so take it easy and don't stare through the scope when doing it or the image will get burnt into your retina. Adjust, look away for a bit, then adjust and look away until you find the sweet spot.

 

[Blkrflguy]

I own both FF & SF. To me the ONLY difference is, FF has a small reticle at low power, and with a SF if you miss your target and you're not at full magnification, you can't adjust off the reticle. Anything under full magnification and you have to dial. THAT'S ALL.

 

[jarnold37]

I prefer SFP. I dial for elevation and like fine crosshair. It leaves a clear sight picture and holding over doesnt seem as accurate as does dialing for specific yardage. I have both, but with lighted reticle, it makes fine crosshair with dot, most preferrable. I can use up to 42 power and can put crosshair on a precise spot, even at longer ranges.

 

[gpo1956]

I do similar with a SFP on low power. If I miss and spot the shot. I reference where the shot hit in the scope and move that position in the scope to the target, and send it. using the hash marks for reference. Doesn't matter if they are calibrated to the correct MIL or MOA. They are really just reference marks at that point.

But with ffp you can do it on any power. You don't have to remember to change power setting to get correct information.

 

[gpo1956]

I use my sfp reticle on all powers.

I'm not sure I understand. you Use your sfp reticle for what on all powers?

 

[JuddL]

If they could just figure out how to make a FFP scope reticle thick at low power and thin at high powder' that would be the cats meow.

^^^^ this is my issue and why I all my hunting scopes are sfp and I typically use 3-15x scopes. If I need to take a longer shot I'll be at 15x and my substentions will be correct for holding wind…if I'm on lower power I am typically shooting close enough I don't need to use the reticle to hold wind.

Good luck, it really is best to try both and see which one your eyes will tolerate…low light will be the key on the lower powers with a ffp.

 

[MontanaJack]

Personal preference governs this subject. My personal preference is SFP in a 4ish to low 20ish variable scope. I carry at low power for quick shots in the timber and only use the maximum power for long range shots with data from rangefinder & Kestrel to set custom turret with yardage marks. I don't care for the 1/3 minute adjustments on the Huskemaw scopes but their method for wind adjustment is very effective. Quick & efficient with lots of one shot long range kills to back up this preference. Bench shooting is a different game and i don't have experience to comment. Do your own thing. Just don't wound animals in the process!

 

[Mikecr]

I don't understand a supposed FFP benefit of being able to define your misses.
Well, I understand walking shots to target for military situations, but not hunting.

For hunting, you're not supposed to be missing, but shooting inside your real capabilities.
If you need a spotter and reticle measure of POI, expecting followup shots,, then you're shooting outside of your capability.

 

[Stgraves260]

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?

Well as always there is pros and cons on each scope. I use both. The pro for FFP is well you can use it on any power setting and all the data etched in the glass is corrected. The cons is all the etching gets bigger and can possibly block your target as you zoom in on the higher power. On a SFP the etching always stays the same no matter what power your on and gives you a clear view of the target. A con is you have to use the power that is required to keep all the etching in the glass correct. IMO if you choose a SFP scope wisely it can out perform a FFP scope fairly quickly but not as user friendly. For instance, if you use a SFP and it's a, let's say 4-14x50. The etched glass is calculated at 14 power. Then you can use it at 7 power as well. Let's use MOA for reference. Your mil-dots or hash marks, Christmas tree are 1 MOA apart when the scope is set at 14 power. If you turn your scope down to 7 power now your markings are at 2 MOAs apart. Some higher power scopes will let you use this method and Divide it by 3. On a 3-15 power scope you can use 5 power 10 power and 15 power. So a pro to this is if your SFP scope has minimum internal elevation adjustments you can turn the power down and use your etching in your glass to get more range. So if your etching is 1 MOA apart on a 5-15x50 scope, they will be 2 MOAs apart at 10 power and 3 MOAs apart at 5 power. This can increase your range a good deal if you know how to use it properly. I have used a scope that was a 5-25x50 scope in the SFP and the marks were corrected on 20 power. So I had to remember at 20 power the marks were 1 MOA apart 15 power they were 2 MOAs and 5 power they 3 MOAs. Now on the 25 power they were 1/2 MOAs apart. If I remember right this was a US Optics scope. I prefer the FFP scope do to the simple fact of the simplicity of it to use out in the field. I am not much of a fan trying to remember what power I'm on to do my wind and hold over calculations quickly.

 

[orkan]

I don't understand a supposed FFP benefit of being able to define your misses.
Well, I understand walking shots to target for military situations, but not hunting.

For hunting, you're not supposed to be missing, but shooting inside your real capabilities.
If you need a spotter and reticle measure of POI, expecting followup shots,, then you're shooting outside of your capability.

I don't think the benefit of FFP is spotting misses.

I think the benefit of FFP is landing your first round desirably.

 

[rdsii64]

If you use a rangefinder and dial your correction, FFP doesn't do anything for you. If you have to estimate range with the retile and then hold for your correction, SFP is the wrong choice. This isn't a right vs wrong issue. Use the correct tool for your use case.

 

[Ckleeves]

If you use a rangefinder and dial your correction, FFP doesn't do anything for you. If you have to estimate range with the retile and then hold for your correction, SFP is the wrong choice. This isn't a right vs wrong issue. Use the correct tool for your use case.

So what about wind holds?

 

[Mikecr]

So what about wind holds?

Simple INCHES of hold into wind is more accurate than bracketing.
A LRF is gonna get you within +/- a yard, which is more accurate than bracketing for range.
And dialing either IPHY or MOA is more accurate than stadia hold offs.
Add to that improved targeting resolution(lower subtension) at ever higher powers with SFP.

If you're building a truly accurate system, then these things contribute in the right direction.

 

[Philward]

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'll disagree with you on both your points.