KPB71
Well-Known Member
What do you all prefer for hunting Varmints, Im looking at the Steiner GS3 4-20x50 plex s7 reticle SFP for my 22-250
FFP or SFP
- Thread starter KPB71
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Fin-addictions
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2014
- Messages
- 33
As a general rule, second focal plane. I only see two reasons to own a FFP scope (and I do own a couple...) is if you are using the reticle to range, or if you're shooting with hold off. Otherwise there is no reason to pay the extra dollars for a FFP.
FFP scopes let the sub-tensions work correctly regardless of power, while second focal only work at max power. If shooting where there's time and light at long range you'll most likely be at max power, so again, second focal plane.
FFP scopes let the sub-tensions work correctly regardless of power, while second focal only work at max power. If shooting where there's time and light at long range you'll most likely be at max power, so again, second focal plane.
Most of my scopes are SFPs except for my last two (Burris Veracity 4-20x50 FFP and SWFA 5-20x50 HD FFP). It boils down to personal preference but I am having fun transitioning to FFP.
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
I agree completely with Fin-addictions
Also SFP reticles subtend finer than FFP with increasing power, so that smaller targets are not overly concealed by the reticle.
As far as ranging and hold overs, FFP comes no where close to the accuracy of laser ranging, and dialing of elevation. Especially when the actual size/aspect of the target can vary significantly. I think of this in terms of groundhogs walking -vs- standing in various grass heights.
Also SFP reticles subtend finer than FFP with increasing power, so that smaller targets are not overly concealed by the reticle.
As far as ranging and hold overs, FFP comes no where close to the accuracy of laser ranging, and dialing of elevation. Especially when the actual size/aspect of the target can vary significantly. I think of this in terms of groundhogs walking -vs- standing in various grass heights.
LPRoad
Active Member
I feel like I have read every post on the www regarding ffp vs sfp. Seems like I hear "personal preference" and "best suited to your use" a lot. Will I need to range at all magnifications? Will I lose the reticle at lower magnifications? Is the greater cost justified? I feel like I can't answer these questions without having the scope in the field for a while. Since I want an illuminated reticle it further limits my options. I wish I had the money to buy half a dozen scopes to really decide what works best for me.
Barrelnut
Well-Known Member
If you plan on shooting at running vermin, get FFP as you will most likely be using holdover at that point. Otherwise SFP would serve you best for more stationary targets.
And yes, the reticle can almost disappear on some FFP scopes with low magnification. The Sightron FFP is an example. Also, when the magnification gets too low, the FFP reticle looks more like a standard reticle than a ranging reticle.
And yes, the reticle can almost disappear on some FFP scopes with low magnification. The Sightron FFP is an example. Also, when the magnification gets too low, the FFP reticle looks more like a standard reticle than a ranging reticle.
I'm moving towards FFP's and mil/mil as my shooting style evolves. I find that I do best in the field dialing elevation and holding wind. Holding windage in mils is much more accurate than trying to hold say, 12 inches or 27 inches... And I also find myself using more of the power range on a scope these days (and a cat-tail on the magnification ring). Sometimes in low light, close quarters, or on running shots less magnification is more. I typically carry my rifle in the field with the magnification at 8X - 10X, and zoom up for longer shots when time permits.
joeycoates
Well-Known Member
I have started to move towards ffp mainly due to the fact that the subtensions can be used at any magnifications. For me this has been especially useful in those fading last light shots where I have dialed for elevation but hold for wind. I can reduce magnification to increase exit pupil size and use reticle without having to do any math in my head under pressure to figure out how the magnification has changed what the subtensions are telling me.
engineer40
Well-Known Member
I think you'll be happy with that scope for your intended varminting use. I believe SFP is more popular for varmints. Those critters can sure be small. We've all heard the cliche "Aim small miss small". Well it would be hard to aim small when the reticle covers the entire animal.
I wouldnt rule a FFP scope out for a future purchase for a rifle with a different intended use though.
My http://www.longrangehunting.com/for...w-ballistic-e1-ffp-reticle-130833/index6.html has a varmint reticle and paid <$630 a year and a half ago.
true you can hold off for wind more "accurately" in a low light situation with the scope backed off a few X, but its not that different. next time you are out, look at what say a 25x scope looks like at 25x at a tgt, then at 22x at the same tgt. it will be off some, but not lots of mils. you could just mentally add antoher .1 or so wind.
I say all of that because for hunting I would buy the best glass available for the amount I had to spend. so if money is of no obj, buy the Kahles for $2900 or the S&B for $3000-4000+ and then you have the best glass and FFP, but if money is more of an object, I wouldn't buy say a bushnell dmr or vortex gen I over a Nightforce ATACR or NXS which can be had for $1800-2000 or $1200-1400. for the money, SFP will more often than not give you better glass, which will be more important in a hunting situation, even holding for wind at just less than max power. and guess what, if you have better glass you might not need to go less than max power!!
I say all of that because for hunting I would buy the best glass available for the amount I had to spend. so if money is of no obj, buy the Kahles for $2900 or the S&B for $3000-4000+ and then you have the best glass and FFP, but if money is more of an object, I wouldn't buy say a bushnell dmr or vortex gen I over a Nightforce ATACR or NXS which can be had for $1800-2000 or $1200-1400. for the money, SFP will more often than not give you better glass, which will be more important in a hunting situation, even holding for wind at just less than max power. and guess what, if you have better glass you might not need to go less than max power!!
engineer40
Well-Known Member
My http://www.longrangehunting.com/for...w-ballistic-e1-ffp-reticle-130833/index6.html has a varmint reticle and paid <$630 a year and a half ago.
That looks like a sweet scope FEENIX.
That looks like a sweet scope FEENIX.
Aye Sir!
ColoYooper
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2013
- Messages
- 53
I do a lot of Tactical competitions where we are not allowed a spotter. So for me, I NEED to see the dust kick up for shots that I missed. (it happens ) This means I need to back off the power on my 8-25x scope for shots less than 1000 yards. I can see the impacts at 300yards at 8x. 500yards at 15x, 800yards at 20x, and 1000yards and beyond at 25x. I also use the crosshairs to hold off at my calculated MIL value for wind (and sometimes elevation) at that distance. So a FFP for me is a requirement.
) This means I need to back off the power on my 8-25x scope for shots less than 1000 yards. I can see the impacts at 300yards at 8x. 500yards at 15x, 800yards at 20x, and 1000yards and beyond at 25x. I also use the crosshairs to hold off at my calculated MIL value for wind (and sometimes elevation) at that distance. So a FFP for me is a requirement.
