Mikecr
Well-Known Member
I guess my perspectives are completely different.
I'm sorry if I offended you. That was not my intent.
I'm sorry if I offended you. That was not my intent.
FFP vs SFP
- Thread starter youngtrout
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
I am using a 5-25 S&B for awhile that has Holland's ART in it and 3 weeks ago I was able to go to Missoula, MT for one of their 1Kmatches (10 shots-PA club).
First time up using a rear grip 6.5-284 XP-100 & the S&B scope my first 5 shots were under 6.5 inches (horizontal group around 2 inches).
My 13 year old shot the next relay with the same rig (first time ever at a rifle match) and had 9 out of ten shots in 11.5 inches. 6th shot had a form break and it dropped 10" to turn the group into a 21 or 22 inch group overall. His vertical group on the 9 shots though was three inches-Conditions were moving the group from right to left, while during my relay it moved them up and into the right slightly.
At least with the S&B with Holland's reticle, I would say that the the FFP is plenty good enough to be precisely accurate @ least at 1K on 25 power.
Moved the scope to my center-grip XP chambered in 7mm Dakota and will go to a fun tactical style shoot this weekend in MT (distances from 350 to around 1K). It will be great that I can turn down the magnification if I want and not worry about subtensions changing on me--This scope is spoiling me.
First time up using a rear grip 6.5-284 XP-100 & the S&B scope my first 5 shots were under 6.5 inches (horizontal group around 2 inches).
My 13 year old shot the next relay with the same rig (first time ever at a rifle match) and had 9 out of ten shots in 11.5 inches. 6th shot had a form break and it dropped 10" to turn the group into a 21 or 22 inch group overall. His vertical group on the 9 shots though was three inches-Conditions were moving the group from right to left, while during my relay it moved them up and into the right slightly.
At least with the S&B with Holland's reticle, I would say that the the FFP is plenty good enough to be precisely accurate @ least at 1K on 25 power.
Moved the scope to my center-grip XP chambered in 7mm Dakota and will go to a fun tactical style shoot this weekend in MT (distances from 350 to around 1K). It will be great that I can turn down the magnification if I want and not worry about subtensions changing on me--This scope is spoiling me.
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
Be objective now, how many SFP scopes beat you dispite such an 'advantage'?
How many of the best competitors use FFP scopes?
How many of the best competitors use FFP scopes?
Depends on the type of compition as to which has the advantage. Some matches where targets are engaged at varing distances give the FFP scopes a definant advantage since the highest power of your optics is not always wanted and or needed, especialy on movers. A SFP scopes reticle will not be calibrated properly on the lower powers. Also with a lot of mirage top power may not be advisable and again a SFP scopes reticle will not be calibrated on lower power or on top power as with the NXS 8X32 and 12X42 scopes..
There are advantages and disadvantages in both FFP &SFP.. I thouhgt that JonA laid them out pretty well in an earlier post....
There are advantages and disadvantages in both FFP &SFP.. I thouhgt that JonA laid them out pretty well in an earlier post....
Mike,
First of all, I never said a FFP in 1K BR had an advantage over SFP.
The point I was making is that a FFP scope can be precise, even at a paper BR match. All the other times I shot I was using SFP scopes (center-grip XP's off of a bi-pod).
Did people beat me? You betcha
I'm sure I was the only one there using a FFP.
I would have been interesting to see the same scope on one of the Rifles that the regular 1K BR shooters use. If I could do that with a pistol and I had not been to a rifle 1K match in a couple of years & the first time for my son at a rifle match--How much better a seasoned BR shooter using a rifle?
That was my point.
Would it be my primary 1K BR scope if i regularly competed? No.
That is a set distance off of a bench.
A multi-stadia reticle in FFP has no advantage whatsoever in that environment-But it sure worked okay given the fact it was already on the XP.
I doubt if most guys would want to take a 45x Leupold BR scope with a fine dot and use it for regular hunting. It would work but it may not be the best though IMO.
I go and play @ 1K BR every now and then-Not a regular competitor. Then when I do, I am using one of my Specialty Pistol's anyway.
I don't mind being disadvantaged in that way at all. I am shooting against myself. If I happen to beat someone shooting a rifle now and then-It is just icing on the cake.
If I had my druthers I would use a FFP that subtended like the S&B I used for big game hunting or steel. For paper @ set distances (like 1K BR) and PD's I would choose SFP. That is my story & I am sticking to it
First of all, I never said a FFP in 1K BR had an advantage over SFP.
The point I was making is that a FFP scope can be precise, even at a paper BR match. All the other times I shot I was using SFP scopes (center-grip XP's off of a bi-pod).
Did people beat me? You betcha
I'm sure I was the only one there using a FFP.
I would have been interesting to see the same scope on one of the Rifles that the regular 1K BR shooters use. If I could do that with a pistol and I had not been to a rifle 1K match in a couple of years & the first time for my son at a rifle match--How much better a seasoned BR shooter using a rifle?
That was my point.
Would it be my primary 1K BR scope if i regularly competed? No.
That is a set distance off of a bench.
A multi-stadia reticle in FFP has no advantage whatsoever in that environment-But it sure worked okay given the fact it was already on the XP.
I doubt if most guys would want to take a 45x Leupold BR scope with a fine dot and use it for regular hunting. It would work but it may not be the best though IMO.
I go and play @ 1K BR every now and then-Not a regular competitor. Then when I do, I am using one of my Specialty Pistol's anyway.
I don't mind being disadvantaged in that way at all. I am shooting against myself. If I happen to beat someone shooting a rifle now and then-It is just icing on the cake.
If I had my druthers I would use a FFP that subtended like the S&B I used for big game hunting or steel. For paper @ set distances (like 1K BR) and PD's I would choose SFP. That is my story & I am sticking to it
Jon A
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Nobody has ever claimed that. Most who hold for wind are going to hold on the target, not by using reticle features. That doesn't work so well when you shoot different targets at different ranges. A tactical-style match is much closer to what I do hunting than 1K BR by a long way. But that's just me; I know for some it's the other way around.
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
The only competition I can imagine lending an advantage to FFP scopes would be those which exclude use of laser ranging.
But this is a LONG RANGE HUNTING site, and if you're not laser ranging, if you're using only a reticle instead, your shooting system lags what it could be.
Might as well fall back to open sights..
JMO
-There is the argument of time. Well stalking is part of hunting, and there is time to do so at long ranges regardless of scope. Once I choose a position, I can set my bipod, measure, calc, dial in, load, level, hold off, and inject lead. One minute.
-There is the implication that use in IBS competition makes FFP good enough(rather than advantaged -my bad). But quite the opposite implication is defined in equipment lists and standings. There is no denying that SFP scopes are good enough.
-There is the apparent problem of reticle cal at a certain power. Well anyone could go to that power to range and return, if it makes them feel good about not having laser ranging.
-There is the promotion of some FFP reticles that aren't too large. Well thats good enough, but it never was an issue with hi power SFP scopes.
There is also the apparent problem of cost with FFP scopes. Not my problem, but I can relate.
I also believe Mils are for ranging, and MOAs are for holdoff, and neither is accurate enough -optically.
They're for use when all else fails in my book.
I know, I'm bull-headed..
But this is a LONG RANGE HUNTING site, and if you're not laser ranging, if you're using only a reticle instead, your shooting system lags what it could be.
Might as well fall back to open sights..
JMO
-There is the argument of time. Well stalking is part of hunting, and there is time to do so at long ranges regardless of scope. Once I choose a position, I can set my bipod, measure, calc, dial in, load, level, hold off, and inject lead. One minute.
-There is the implication that use in IBS competition makes FFP good enough(rather than advantaged -my bad). But quite the opposite implication is defined in equipment lists and standings. There is no denying that SFP scopes are good enough.
-There is the apparent problem of reticle cal at a certain power. Well anyone could go to that power to range and return, if it makes them feel good about not having laser ranging.
-There is the promotion of some FFP reticles that aren't too large. Well thats good enough, but it never was an issue with hi power SFP scopes.
There is also the apparent problem of cost with FFP scopes. Not my problem, but I can relate.
I also believe Mils are for ranging, and MOAs are for holdoff, and neither is accurate enough -optically.
They're for use when all else fails in my book.
I know, I'm bull-headed..
Last edited:
"I also believe Mils are for ranging, and MOAs are for holdoff, and neither is accurate enough -optically."
Well I would say you can use both for ranging and/or holdoff ; it´s just two different ways of measuring angles.
You are however forgetting that FFP let´s< you holdoff/over without having to worry about the power setting. Of course you may have time to do all the math, but the FFP may give you an edge if you only have to range the target with your laser RF and shoot.
Well I would say you can use both for ranging and/or holdoff ; it´s just two different ways of measuring angles.
You are however forgetting that FFP let´s< you holdoff/over without having to worry about the power setting. Of course you may have time to do all the math, but the FFP may give you an edge if you only have to range the target with your laser RF and shoot.
yup, this is a hunting forum, but all the info here has been helpful for me. im goin FFP for my next scope, which will be on a 300wsm ill be using mainly for <GULP> groundhogs, and whitetails when the hunting season opens. my m1as my grabit gun now, w a fixed 10 i can shoot steel to 1k and groundhogs from 500 in. but groundhog huntin is where i believe the FFP will serve me well. we have a number of farms we hunt, we are pretty familiar w the ranges to various landmarks. ive got rangecards for some of our fav setup spots, but we get quite a few quick shots walkin in and out. we dont carry a LRF or a computer on these trips, no time to use them on the popups anyways. i thought id try a variable this time as some of the shots are real close. right now if i see a hog i can mil him quickly, dial it in(or holdover), and let it fly. if i go w a SFP scope ill never move the magnification, or i will miss holding off for wind/ele eventually. at least i know this, ill always want to look at the power ring before bringin up the gun to make sure i know where it is. thats time wasted.
do have a ? BTW....will the better LRFs currently available range a groundhog accurately to 500-600yds? im considering buying a new one, ive got an old tasco that works well enough to hit trees etc, but i use it to range landmarks, not game
great thread all
lear
do have a ? BTW....will the better LRFs currently available range a groundhog accurately to 500-600yds? im considering buying a new one, ive got an old tasco that works well enough to hit trees etc, but i use it to range landmarks, not game
great thread all
lear
Lear,
I think the Swaro will be as good as any LRF's for that purpose. I need to check on almost level ground to see, how good it works.
Jon A
Well-Known Member
All that shows is a lack of imagination...or experience. To take it another step the other way, at many of these types of competitions Horus reticles have a very good following. Have you ever seen one of those? What do you think all those lines and numbers are for? Ranging stuff?
As I think back to the biggest bucks and my most fondly remembered "trophys" I've gotten, if it had taken me a full minute to put a bullet through them most would still be alive today (or dead from old age by now). Really, if it takes you a minute to accurately take a 400-600 yd shot you're doing something wrong.
And I believe inches are only for measuring width while feet are only for measuring length. Makes exactly as much sense (zero).
No, maybe just a bit inexperienced, not quite understanding things completely yet. Believing one unit of angular measurement is only good for one thing, but another unit of angular measurement is good for something else shows a simple lack of understanding, not bull-headedness.
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
The system I described earlier is what I've been using for the last 15yrs of GH hunting. That's walking varmint hunting, and not shooting and shooting and shooting until walking shots into steel plates. Single cold bore shots with a very high kill% on a 3" kill zone. This is way beyond the capabilities of +90% of shooters out there.
In july, I was paid to eliminate a GH from a graveyard(nobody wants them there). He was old, smart, and left nothing but risk for any shot. I spotted him a couple days, and decided on an elevated position a little over 600yds. Day 3, after a couple hour wait, and then ~30mins of watching him through the scope(He never did stand up for me), I dropped him between two headstones without property damage. One shot, if I had missed, he'd live another day. That's a rule for me, and it's alot of fun.
Yes, there are shooters here who are way better than me, no doubt.
But I figure I'm qualified to express an argument for my system.
I say MOA is for holdoff cuz it's nothing but compromise for ranging, and MILs aren't nearly as precise for holdoff as MOA.
Mils are better for ranging, but no where near the precision of an LRF.
So if I were to accept these compromises in my shooting, I would range with a MIL reticle in a scope utilizing elevation clicks in 1/4MOA or less.
I use a Leica LRF1200, and NF NXS or Leupold MK4 M1 scopes. **** hard to beat the precision there.
I don't think laser ranging is a waste of time either. That's one reason why I shoot long range, to buy me time, and better position for a one shot kill.
To me, that's what this is all about
In july, I was paid to eliminate a GH from a graveyard(nobody wants them there). He was old, smart, and left nothing but risk for any shot. I spotted him a couple days, and decided on an elevated position a little over 600yds. Day 3, after a couple hour wait, and then ~30mins of watching him through the scope(He never did stand up for me), I dropped him between two headstones without property damage. One shot, if I had missed, he'd live another day. That's a rule for me, and it's alot of fun.
Yes, there are shooters here who are way better than me, no doubt.
But I figure I'm qualified to express an argument for my system.
I say MOA is for holdoff cuz it's nothing but compromise for ranging, and MILs aren't nearly as precise for holdoff as MOA.
Mils are better for ranging, but no where near the precision of an LRF.
So if I were to accept these compromises in my shooting, I would range with a MIL reticle in a scope utilizing elevation clicks in 1/4MOA or less.
I use a Leica LRF1200, and NF NXS or Leupold MK4 M1 scopes. **** hard to beat the precision there.
I don't think laser ranging is a waste of time either. That's one reason why I shoot long range, to buy me time, and better position for a one shot kill.
To me, that's what this is all about
Jon A
Well-Known Member
Not as "precise?" How exactly? It's a unit of measure. Nothing about the unit defines its inherent accuracy or lack thereof. It's like saying yards are more accurate than meters. It's stupid.
From a practical standpoint, the most popular MOA reticle out there is probably the R2. Any Mil reticle with 1/2 Mil marks has marks closer together for elevation. And WAY closer for windage marks as 5 MOA are laughably precise. There's the R1 you say. Well there's also the MPR from USO with even more "precise" Mil marks.
The design of the reticle determines how "precise" it is. The unit of measure chosen does not.
No ****? You do realize I spend 100% of my hunting hours walking around with a $1600 rangefinder hanging around my neck, right? Implying that because I know what a Mil is means I don't use a rangefinder is getting highly annoying.
See above. Plus, have you ever hunted with a buddy who does the ranging for you? He yells out the range and you can have the shot away in a fraction of a second with a good reticle and some skill. If you need a minute to prepare, not so much.
