FFP VS 2nd FP scope

[Clem Bronkoski]

I envy you FFP folks who are savvy with math. Like Greyfox. Wish I could do it. Tried. Also tried to find a local mentor. Unsuccessful. A $ costly misadventure. As my "hunting" is typically inside 400 yards, I just set my MOA scope 3.5" high @ 100. Good to go!

GO EAGLES!!

Why? (a couple times). First why would you set your MOA scope 3.5" high @ 100 when all you need to do is add some clicks to shoot 400 yds and beyond? You might as well just use a standard scope without MOA indicators on the turret. And if your scope has stadia bars or dots in MOA increments you can just use them!
Second why - Why Eagles...Go Chiefs....3peat!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Luckyshot7]

Yes. FFP is simply better. Reticle design could and should be better to help low power visibility, but that "drawback" is largely overblown by those that

1. Don't need FFP--either because they don't hold wind, or because they NEVER shoot over 300 yards or
2. Have never used a FFP scope

 

[AZShooter]

If there is a drawback to FFP it is the typical scope's elevation and windage clicks move the POI at 100 yds .36". I often have a scope that will not center on the target. Oh, it is close but if I move one click then it puts the POI on the other side of center. MOA is a bit more precise with .25" per click.

I realize this is not a big deal especially if the FFP scope is used for hunting. I often say it is a good thing our big game animals have large bodies.