FFP or SFP Please vote

[Wile E Coyote]

SFP for me. I'm not convinced the viewed reticle size will EXACTLY follow the power. That would be another thing to keep in check... and one would get to pay more for the priviledge.

 

[Mikecr]

I agree with Broz, and will only use SFP for distance shooting.

It was said earlier that that precision is the same with a FFP, hi power or low. Well for varmint hunting it is not precise enough at high power. That's for sure.
I could not even see a groundhog beyond a FFP reticle at powers I use. The reticle would completely obscure it.

SFP reticles are MORE PRECISE at higher powers.

 

[Scot E]

It was said earlier that that precision is the same with a FFP, hi power or low.

I mentioned that and was assuming that the OP was talking about big game. I guess I should have clarified that with him but I did mention my biggest use for FFP is for big game use in my post.

Well for varmint hunting it is not precise enough at high power. That's for sure. I could not even see a groundhog beyond a FFP reticle at powers I use. The reticle would completely obscure it.

With an FFP scope the power you have the scope set on has nothing to do with how much of your target the reticle covers. The only thing that affects this is the reticle line thickness and the distance you are shooting. You may indeed have a reticle that is too thick but the power has nothing to do with it and doesn't make it better or worse as the power increases/decreases.

SFP reticles are MORE PRECISE at higher powers.

This is true no doubt but a modern FFP reticle is still pretty usable even for tiny critters nowadays. Vortex's nicest FFP reticle has line thickness of .15 MOA. So at 500 yards that reticle would cover .75 of an inch. However this reticle has an open center on the crosshair that subtends .25 MOA which gives a 1.25 inch opening at 500 yards to perfectly center the smallest of critters. Very few varmints that couldn't be handily taken with that setup and you would still have all the advantages of FFP.


Scot E.

 

[bigngreen]

I apologize to the OP for kinda high jacking this thread but he may find this stuff of interest also.

OK had a email conversation with Vortex about the thickness of the cross hair used in the HS-LR FFP XTR reticle and how thick it would be on 16 power and how much of the target it would cover at a 1000 yards.

The cross hair is .15 MOA at 100 yards so at 1000 yards it would cover 1.5708 inches of a target. These are Vortex's numbers. On deer and elk size targets I can't see a problem. If you were shooting paper and wanted a consistent hold it would be too heavy.

bigngreen in your opinion as you have the HS and have looked through the FFP scope is the cross hair to "thin" on the low powers? It would be somewhere between a 1/8" and 3/16" at 100 yards. Or is it just hard to see?

I was fully intending on giving a newer FFP a try and was going to go with a Vortex PST but giving one a try I found I just could not get the cross hair to show on all back grounds as it was to fine, much like shooting a target dot reticle which I have done for years with a Weaver V16 it is great 80% of the time but when you really really need it it's MIA. I understand that they design most of the FFP reticles to be fast and basically put the cross on the spot and shoot when in low magnification but I still want to see my cross hatches clearly not have them turn into one cross. They just don't fit what I want from a hunting optic, I still find them interesting but just not useful to my hunting! My SFP cross hair is almost to thick for me to shoot with at times at 1000 yards, on an antelope I'm basically trying to push my bullet through a quarter size spot in the corner of the white not the 8 in area I can hit and usually hit, when I start generalizing my aim point I start holding high and missing so I have to keep my aim point very precise!

I have a buddy that does fine with a FFP scope but he uses his as his range estimator and keeps his shots inside 600 yards or so and in his case it's a valuable tool but I have zero need or intention of using it to range so the SFP lets me have more options to use the reticle.

 

[Clark]

SFP, so the reticule does not disappear on low power, just when I want to make fast shots.

 

[Broz]

at 1000 yards, on an antelope I'm basically trying to push my bullet through a quarter size spot in the corner of the white not the 8 in area I can hit and usually hit, when I start generalizing my aim point I start holding high and missing so I have to keep my aim point very precise!.

This is how I feel too. Antelope are tough to anchor, the vital area is small and the window between the diaphragm and shoulder is narrow. Hit them back too far and they will run off. This is why I insist on shooting at a golf ball size aim point too, not a pie plate. We took two goats this year past 1000 yds. I guess you just have to see through the scope past 800 or 1000 to see what we are talking about and understand. It is not only group shooting at paper that requires a small precise aim point and a fine crosshair. I like it on every animal I shoot and that's where the SFP's shine for me.

Jeff

 

[Scot E]

Come on guys, 8 inch aim points and pie plates? You make it sound like an FFP reticle will blot out the entire vitals of a deer or antelope and makes precise aiming impossible. Are you sure you guys have used FFP reticles sometime in the 21st century!

I missed kcecbj's post but he is right on.

The Vortex FFP reticle subtends .15 MOA at 100 yards which equates to covering 1.5 inches at 1000 yards.

The Night force SFP NPR1 subtends .06 at 100 yards which equates to covering .63 inches at 100 yards.

So yes, the SFP reticle is more precise but the FFP reticle is far from unusable even on antelope out to 1000 yards. I have a hard time believing that both of you couldn't perfectly center the crosshairs, that only cover 1.5 inches at 1000 yards, on any tasty pronghorn.

Again, I understand you are more precise with your SFP reticle, which the NF NPR1 is just about the thinnest reticle out there otherwise the comparison gets much closer, but let's not go overboard with the FFP dissing!

Scot E.

 

[Broz]

Scott I just think you need to shoot a little farther.

Really though, it all boils down to this, and we all have heard it before.

"Aim Small Miss Small"


Bigngreen did bring up a good point I had never though about before. For a hunting scope the FFP's are backwards for me. I would prefer a thicker larger reticle at low powers. For use when you are in dark timber or thick stuff and you turn power down. This would assist in seeing the reticle easier and the larger reticle then would not matter as the shot would be closer and the target larger. But for the long shots have the reticle get smaller as the target gets bigger when you crank up the power. Quick acquisition of the reticle is less important at longer distance as they are seldom fast shots. So yeah, backwards to me too.

Jeff

 

[Scot E]

Scott I just think you need to shoot a little farther.

Really though, it all boils down to this, and we all have heard it before.

"Aim Small Miss Small"




.

So can I consider that an invite to come shoot your LRKM when Shawn gets it done?

Ya, you are probably right! If I was shooting big game over 1200 yards all the time then I probably would have an SFP scope. But it would be on a dedicated LR rig like the LRKM or a heavy canyon rifle like Shawn builds.

But 95%+ of LR shots are under 1/2 mile and today's FFP scopes are perfectly suited for those ranges IMO.

Yes, I know I am the weirdo and in the minority on this site!

Scot E.

 

[emn83]

So can I consider that an invite to come shoot your LRKM when Shawn gets it done?

Ya, you are probably right! If I was shooting big game over 1200 yards all the time then I probably would have an SFP scope. But it would be on a dedicated LR rig like the LRKM or a heavy canyon rifle like Shawn builds.

But 95%+ of LR shots are under 1/2 mile and today's FFP scopes are perfectly suited for those ranges IMO.

Yes, I know I am the weirdo and in the minority on this site!

Scot E.

you're no weirdo

I'd shoot an FFP, but most of them don't have a reticle I really like...for the price anyway, I almost went the FFP route with my Viper PST, but decided against it, though it was a close decision. I like the Viper EBR-1 MOA reticle. For me, because the reticle changes size, to stay the same in relation to everything else, being me, and having very little experience, the worry was having too thick at the top end, or too thin at the bottom end (I like being able to "adjust" the reticle size by changing power settings) Then again I'm a newbie to all of this, and don't actually know that much, and have always used SFP reticles, so when I save for my Nightforce ( about 3 years down the line) I might opt for an F1, we'll see.

 

[Scot E]

Bigngreen did bring up a good point I had never though about before. For a hunting scope the FFP's are backwards for me.
Jeff

But that is why an FFP reticle has the thick outer lines. Just like the german 4a reticle, they act as an eye catching bracketing system that centers the target for those dark timbered, low light, or close range shots.

I can't imagine how you would ever take that kind of shot with your NPR1 reticle. It is way too thin to ever find it in those conditions. I guess the illuminated reticle helps with this but what about all those thin reticle scopes that don't have illumination?

Scot E.

 

[Broz]

So can I consider that an invite to come shoot your LRKM when Shawn gets it done?

Ya, you are probably right! If I was shooting big game over 1200 yards all the time then I probably would have an SFP scope. But it would be on a dedicated LR rig like the LRKM or a heavy canyon rifle like Shawn builds.

But 95%+ of LR shots are under 1/2 mile and today's FFP scopes are perfectly suited for those ranges IMO.
Scot E.

You are more than welcome to come shoot with me anytime. But be warned the scope that may be on my LRKM could be a surprise. You will probably hate it, so bring along a FFP and we will do some field testing.

The fact is the SFP will work equally well at close and far shots. The things that are important to you like having to be on max power or the chance of a mistake I do not feel are really that valid of an issue. I am almost always on max power. If I come off 22x it would be for a close chip shot and even then why would I? If I am spotting for someone and need to call a correction using my reticle I would only be on max power where the reticle is just as or even more efficient than a FFP. Also, my SFP has the advantage to hold 20 MOA in the reticle, if I need more I have the option to back down to 11 X and that 20 now becomes 40 moa. Can't do that with a FFP.

As for your quote that "95% of LR shots are under 1/2 mile" That's 850 yards or so. I think with gaining technology and the love of this LR sport that is becoming less true. Especially for practice purposes. Many are now taking factory rifle to 1000 on a regular basis. Also many , as I, believe in practicing well past where you intent to hunt. This makes the actual shot at a shorter distance easier when you need to do it. This is something Shawn teaches too. So, you jest about us being not being in the 21st century??

I believe in buying as good of equipment as your budget will support. I like this equipment to last and I don't want to out grow it. So if I buy a scope that is better suited for closer distances like you state 1/2 mile, then I could end up wishing I had the better choice down the road as I work my way out to the longer shots. Like I said, the SFP will do both with ease for me, and I prefer it.


I hope this discussion is bringing out some points of operation for both so the OP can decide which is good for him.

Jeff

 

[Broz]

I can't imagine how you would ever take that kind of shot with your NPR1 reticle. It is way too thin to ever find it in those conditions. I guess the illuminated reticle helps with this but what about all those thin reticle scopes that don't have illumination?

Scot E.

Oh, but you are wrong here my friend. I have done it many times. I hunt dark timber for elk too. Plus shot many coyotes while on stand. If I can find and get on a yote, a deer or elk is only easier. Never a problem with the RP-R1. Maybe you should try one and see for yourself? Plus I have never taken a shot at game with the ILL reticle either. To me it is more of a novelty than a necessity.

Jeff

 

[Pdvdh]

Good discussion of the pros and cons going on here. Thanks to all for sharing their experiences and opinions. I'm surprised there aren't more FFP guys describing their preference for holding off for wind and elevation at all power levels with their FFP reticles.

I use SFP, and have never owned or used a FFP. Only read up on the various pros and cons on Forums. So I enjoy learning from the experiences of other members here. Broz has really thrown his interest, equipment, and efforts into extended long range shooting, practice, and hunting, so really appreciate it that he continues to actively post his findings and experiences. My experience and opinions with SFP scopes more or less mirror his and bigngreen's explanations on the benefits of SFP.

Mikecr's comments on the benefits of SFP for varmints is clear to me, which also explains why many like SFP for larger game also, as the ranges get really extended.