FFP scope?

[GAHunterJim]

I recently bought my first FFP scope, a Leupold Mark 4 HD, 2.5-10x42, PR1 MOA, I really like it, especially at the range, not sure what to think about it while hunting, don't see any advantage or disadvantage so far. The FFP is great for ranging but if you have a rangefinder and are dialing then I'm not sue that it really matters with FFP v SFP. I do like it enough that I plan to buy another for a new build, at 1000k it's a pretty good value.

 

[Jeff Heeg osoh]

I recently bought my first FFP scope, a Leupold Mark 4 HD, 2.5-10x42, PR1 MOA, I really like it, especially at the range, not sure what to think about it while hunting, don't see any advantage or disadvantage so far. The FFP is great for ranging but if you have a rangefinder and are dialing then I'm not sue that it really matters with FFP v SFP. I do like it enough that I plan to buy another for a new build, at 1000k it's a pretty good value.

Honestly most, in fact the majority of folks don't buy FFP to range things. They like the fact that no matter what magnification you're at when dealing with mirage that the reticle hash marks are true to holding for wind per se or hold overs. You start flopping around on a SFP with the magnification and the value of holding for wind changes with what ever power you are using unless you use a certain level in which is true to the scope configuration. FFP I don't care what magnification when it looks good I hold and shoot

Osoh

 

[GAHunterJim]

Honestly most, in fact the majority of folks don't buy FFP to range things. They like the fact that no matter what magnification you're at when dealing with mirage that the reticle hash marks are true to holding for wind per se or hold overs. You start flopping around on a SFP with the magnification and the value of holding for wind changes with what ever power you are using unless you use a certain level in which is true to the scope configuration. FFP I don't care what magnification when it looks good I hold and shoot

Osoh

As I said, this scope (and FFP) are new to me and I like it, just trying to determine if there is any downside in a hunting application, haven't found one yet. ?, before readily available rangefinders, were FFP scopes used at all for "ranging"?

 

[comfisherman]

I'm not old enough to remember "before readily available rangefinders" but have magazine articles and I think everybody was using whatever they could for range finding. There were good dialing and ffp scopes 20 years ago but they weren't common as splurging for big money optics wasn't as big a thing.

Downsides of ffp scopes usually are a slightly darker image from the requisite extra lenses for ffp, and many times on the wider zoom ranges scope companies have not adapted reticles to work across the whole range. I've had several that did not practically function on the lower end. Extra lenses usually adds some weight as well from the added lenses.

For me having bang on holds no matter what the power it's worth it.

 

[akmtnhnt]

I'm not old enough to remember "before readily available rangefinders" but have magazine articles and I think everybody was using whatever they could for range finding. There were good dialing and ffp scopes 20 years ago but they weren't common as splurging for big money optics wasn't as big a thing.

Downsides of ffp scopes usually are a slightly darker image from the requisite extra lenses for ffp, and many times on the wider zoom ranges scope companies have not adapted reticles to work across the whole range. I've had several that did not practically function on the lower end. Extra lenses usually adds some weight as well from the added lenses.

For me having bang on holds no matter what the power it's worth it.

I'm not an expert on rifle scope construction, but I was unaware it required an extra lens to put the reticle on the FFP. That doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[comfisherman]

Information from a podcast on optics thoughts talking about some of the engineering difficulties around ffp vs sfp. Don't understand the engineering myself it's just passed along info.

I'm away from my laptop where it should be tabbed, but some one was complaining that ffp scopes were so much heavier. It was pointed out that they usually also have heavier internals as well as additional lenses.

 

[Teri Anne]

Information from a podcast on optics thoughts talking about some of the engineering difficulties around ffp vs sfp. Don't understand the engineering myself it's just passed along info.

I'm away from my laptop where it should be tabbed, but some one was complaining that ffp scopes were so much heavier. It was pointed out that they usually also have heavier internals as well as additional lenses.

Maybe dating myself, but ya all know I'm an old lady anyway. Once upon a time I had a Redfield, Accurange/Accutrack 3 - 9 x 42 scope that had a built in range finder. It was a FFP, had range markings within the scope and two stadia wires. The idea was you would zoom the scope, watching the stadia wires until they bracketed a deer from the top of the back to the bottom of the belly. When you had the bracket, you checked the range markings within the reticle and where the line crossed the distance that was the approximate range. Worked somewhat like a split image camera. It was cumbersome to use but there was a turret that you could turn to the range shown and it would supposedly adjust the elevation to the distance shown. The turret dials could be calibrated to your load and rifle. Send the info to Redfield and they would send you a dial supposedly calibrated to your rifle and load. Did it work? It got you close enough to put a bullet pretty close to where you were aiming, providing the animal was of normal size, whatever that was and stood still long enough for you to go through all the complications. As I remember, it cost about $250 bucks when a really good 3 x 9 would go for around $100. Was it worth it? There was more than one deer that it seemed to work relatively well on, In the grand scheme of things at the distances I normally shoot just zero the 308 at 200 yards and hold dead on out to 300, and would have been a lot cheaper and most likely worked as well.

 

[Old Rooster]

I recently bought my first FFP scope, a Leupold Mark 4 HD, 2.5-10x42, PR1 MOA, I really like it, especially at the range, not sure what to think about it while hunting, don't see any advantage or disadvantage so far. The FFP is great for ranging but if you have a rangefinder and are dialing then I'm not sue that it really matters with FFP v SFP. I do like it enough that I plan to buy another for a new build, at 1000k it's a pretty good value.

I have that scope but a higher magnification , Mark 4HD 4.5-18x52 PR-1 reticle and LOVE it. I don't try to use it to range as I have a Leupold rangefinder for that.
On most FFP scopes the reticle is small on low settings but the PR-1 is full size from low to high setting. REALLY!
Have a Night force NX-8 FFP2.5-20x50 FFP and the reticle is very easy to see on low setting when the illumination dial is pushed.
I will keep all my SFP scopes but will buy FFP scopes from now on.
Just my opinion