FFP worth extra cost?

[davewilson]

What disadvantages of FFP are you speaking of?

the reticle thickness. it's always the opposite of what you need.if you can see it.

 

[orkan]

What disadvantages of FFP are you speaking of?

the reticle thickness. it's always the opposite of what you need.if you can see it.

What scopes have you used where this was an issue?

 

[davewilson]

orkan, i hope the originator of this post learned a little about the difference between the to systems. i like SFP, you like FFP. Amen.

 

[orkan]

orkan, i hope the originator of this post learned a little about the difference between the to systems. i like SFP, you like FFP. Amen.

I do hope that everyone can take a little something away from threads like this as well.

Some guns I want SFP on. My short range stuff such as the AR's for example. My long range stuff I like FFP with matching reticle/turrets. Mil is my chosen pattern, but moa works the same, just with bigger numbers. Please don't mistake my questions for a way of being clever or trying to sway an opinion. I say people should use what they can afford, are confident with, and are pleased with. However, a lot of "myths" were sent my way before I tried a FFP optic for myself that had discouraged me from dropping the cash. I wish that I had been presented with a more balanced and truthful account by people that had actually used them versus people that had never looked through one or used one in their life. It is an important distinction.

My continuing participation in the thread is two-fold:
1) Share my own experiences that are directly opposite from what some people claim. (some of which its glaringly apparent do not own a ffp optic)
2) Understand the hatred some people have toward other people that use different gear than they do.

Now, on to some substance. I agree that some ffp optics suffer from either giant reticles, or too small of reticle. However, it has not been my experience with the units that I've used. I only own 2 currently. A vortex razor 5-20, and a premier 5-25.

Here is a doe at approx. 219yds through the vortex, which has a thicker reticle. I believe the vortex was on max power, or close to it.

Here is the vortex on 5x, looking at a house a mile away. The dirt berm in the foreground is about 175yds. The image looks much better in person, as the reticle doesn't have that "tunnel" effect going on. Its quite hard to get a camera in the right spot sometimes.

Here is a doe at about 180yds, through the premier which I believe to be around 15x.

And here is the premier on 5x looking at my 300yd berm. There is a 6" plate hanging there. The plywood is 4ftx6ft. (if memory serves)

I have looked at deer walking out there by that berm on 5x with both scopes, and both were usable in low light. As light faded, I clicked on the illumination and was able to effectively target the deer well beyond legal shooting light on 5x with both scopes. The reticle did not hinder me in the slightest, mainly due to a characteristic of ffp reticles. Reticle designs which are a bit busier at high magnification tend to look like a thicker, albeit jagged crosshair at low magnification. That being said, if I were in a hunting situation where I was shooting relaxed deer that were just walking about, it is likely that I would increase magnification to something more comfortable which gave me a bigger image, and bigger reticle in kind. The reticle stays the same size on the target regardless of power.

Now I will concede that there are some FFP scopes out there that would not perform as well as the two aforementioned models. However, I can also make the argument that there are many more crappy SFP scopes around than there are crappy FFP. I will judge each model individually.

So, in summation, my experience with these two optics, as well as a S&B 4-16 that I have had the opportunity to use for a few weeks does not support the argument that ffp scopes are useless on low powers due to the reticle being too thin. It also doesn't support the argument that the reticle is too thick to be usable for long range precision shots on small targets.

If you want to refute my claims and discount my experiences... then please lets have a specific conversation about it, rather than vague topics of discussion. I do very much enjoy talking about it with people whom can remain objective.

 

[Pdvdh]

I do hope that everyone can take a little something away from threads like this as well.

I wish that I had been presented with a more balanced and truthful account by people that had actually used them versus people that had never looked through one or used one in their life. It is an important distinction.

My continuing participation in the thread is two-fold:
1) Share my own experiences that are directly opposite from what some people claim. (some of which its glaringly apparent do not own a ffp optic)
2) Understand the hatred some people have toward other people that use different gear than they do.

I do very much enjoy talking about it with people whom can remain objective.

You've presented some nice photos. I don't feel like I'm missing anything. The two FFP scopes you own and present for consideration are pretty costy units. If a FFP scope cross hair could ever be designed and manufactured to function reasonably well at both low and high powers, it should be possible with a $2000 - $3000 scope.

You're probably not going to encourage a lot of participation by issuing a judgment that when others' posts don't concur with your position, that their posts are deficient of balance and truth, and that those members have obviously never owned or looked through a FFP rifle scope.

Your explanations for continued participation:

Item 1) had the beginnings of a plausible and positive reason - until you again inserted the text 'glaringly apparent some other participating members don't own a FFP'.

Your item 2) would be best deleted. I had to catch my breath and make sure I'd read that correctly. You've claimed no less than other members participating in this thread hate you or other posters because of a preference for, and use of, different equipment. Talk about an over dramatization... Good luck trying to understand the evoking of the hatred emotion - because I'm confident it only exists within your imagination.

Perhaps you should have stated "I do very much enjoy talking about it with people whom can remain objective while agreeing with me."

Consider lightening up on the negative claims and allegations, if you really want to encourage participation on the FFP versus the SFP.

 

[midwesthunter]

Thanks guys I have been sitting back just taking it all in. I think the arguments are pretty eaqual. Since I was just going to use for windage hold over and dial up or down for elevation. I thought FFP would be very usefull. But for a quick follow up shot I can see where it would help with elivation. I also see where one can have disavantages with retical thickness.

 

[orkan]

Phorwath,

You've taken my text and read a bit much into it. Not at all what I was trying to convey or saying. I encourage you to take it at face value, rather than assuming my animosity. I'm not the greatest wordsmith there has ever been, but what I said could be shed in a more positive light than what your post would indicate.

I plainly said I do not care if people agree, as I'm not trying to sway an opinion, but rather present some of my own experiences for others to make their OWN opinion on.

If you read the thread, you will also plainly see people that do not own, nor have ever owned a FFP optic are commenting on it. Its not a "negative claim" but rather a fact. Don't read it in a negative light, its simply the way it is, and they likely would not deny it. They can do as they please but I generally want first hand accounts rather than something someone read one time. That is all I'm trying to provide... my first hand account.

I will definitely agree with you on the point that both models I've listed cost over $2000. Not exactly desirable. The vortex viper PST's are due out any day now in volume and should alleviate some cost burden to those wanting a similar feature set without the high price of admission. Cost is definitely an issue with ffp optics currently. However, some very good candidates are here and upcoming in the under $1000 category. Puts them right in line with quality SFP optics. I paid $1850 for my last nightforce. Not exactly cheap either. So while cost a factor, I wouldn't consider it an inhibiting one due to the fact that quality costs, while lesser models might not get the job done. Same as SFP.

Please, don't think that just because my posts are lengthy that I'm trying to get people to "see the light" or something, as that is not the case. I simply want to talk about the specifics rather than the vague points that have already been brought up. I'm in the position to have a couple of the nicer FFP units out there, and can take pictures in different settings on different powers for anyone that would want it. I've got a full size IPSC that I can place as close or as far as is needed. I simply see it as an opportunity to share some data on ffp stuff that I wish someone would have shared with me when I was researching them.

 

[shimoda]

1) Share my own experiences that are directly opposite from what some people claim. (some of which its glaringly apparent do not own a ffp optic)
2) Understand the hatred some people have toward other people that use different gear than they do.

Why is it people who dislike FFP reticles (and usually have zero experience with them) seem to believe, without fail, that the absolutely only thing a reticle can be used for is "ranging?" Virtually none of us use our reticles for that in the field. But we do use them for other things. Like hitting the target.

It's like they have not found much use for their SFP reticles in the field so they don't use them for much of anything...so they never learn the advantages of using a reticle and it becomes self-fulfilling. Since they don't use their reticles for anything, being able to use the reticle adds no value. Of course if you can use the reticle on more than one power it suddenly becomes much more useful in the field.

I have a list of people with condescending, elitist, accusatory attitudes such as those you've displayed in your posts who will not be invited into my home, business, camp or government a second time.


Sadly, you probably have a wealth of knowledge and experience that I crave to aquire, but you've lost me as a student. People who assume they are smarter than others are innefective teachers.

 

[orkan]

Or maybe its simply difficult for some people to convey into text what they are thinking, like myself for example, apparently. I beg for a conversation about specifics, and I keep getting attacked instead.

I've TRIED to spell it out and tell you that I'm not trying to be condescending... but since people keep telling me that I am condescending... I'll just stop trying. I'm frustrated at this point, and apparently nobody wants talk about ffp... but rather how I type.

Sorry for the trouble.

 

[Pdvdh]

Phorwath,

You've taken my text and read a bit much into it. Not at all what I was trying to convey or saying. I encourage you to take it at face value, rather than assuming my animosity. I'm not the greatest wordsmith there has ever been, but what I said could be shed in a more positive light than what your post would indicate.

I plainly said I do not care if people agree, as I'm not trying to sway an opinion, but rather present some of my own experiences for others to make their OWN opinion on.

If you read the thread, you will also plainly see people that do not own, nor have ever owned a FFP optic are commenting on it. Its not a "negative claim" but rather a fact. Don't read it in a negative light, its simply the way it is, and they likely would not deny it. They can do as they please but I generally want first hand accounts rather than something someone read one time. That is all I'm trying to provide... my first hand account.

I will definitely agree with you on the point that both models I've listed cost over $2000. Not exactly desirable. The vortex viper PST's are due out any day now in volume and should alleviate some cost burden to those wanting a similar feature set without the high price of admission. Cost is definitely an issue with ffp optics currently. However, some very good candidates are here and upcoming in the under $1000 category. Puts them right in line with quality SFP optics. I paid $1850 for my last nightforce. Not exactly cheap either. So while cost a factor, I wouldn't consider it an inhibiting one due to the fact that quality costs, while lesser models might not get the job done. Same as SFP.

Please, don't think that just because my posts are lengthy that I'm trying to get people to "see the light" or something, as that is not the case. I simply want to talk about the specifics rather than the vague points that have already been brought up. I'm in the position to have a couple of the nicer FFP units out there, and can take pictures in different settings on different powers for anyone that would want it. I've got a full size IPSC that I can place as close or as far as is needed. I simply see it as an opportunity to share some data on ffp stuff that I wish someone would have shared with me when I was researching them.

Better. I see you've got some equipment that provides really nice photos through your scopes, and there's nothing that speaks as informatively as some good photos.

When I used to holdover on my IOR reticle, I could understand some advantages to FFP. So if a guy wants to do that, there is the advantage that holdovers can be done on any power setting with FFP optics. But I started dialing turrets once I came to trust my turrets, and now prefer that approach. To my way of thinking, that's really the only advantage of FFP, since I use a Swaro LRF for distance. It's a far superior method of nailing down the range compared to guestimating with a reticle. I currently own two SFP Sightron SIII 6-24x50mm LRMD scopes. They can be purchased for about $750-800. I'm about to purchase a third. The glass (resolution) in one of mine is as good as my $1500 IOR scope for resolution, and it transmits light better than the IOR. In all honestly, the glass in my second SIII isn't as good, but I'm still using it - so it must be good enough for me. So for $2200, I can own three SIIIs in SFP and outfit three rifles, and be completely content with the quality of the glass. And since I prefer twisting turrets, I experience no handicap compared to the FFP scope.

Another big consideration for me is my rifles are kept light because all of my hunting is backpack hunting, walking miles and miles in the mountains with my camp on my back. The SIIIs weigh 21.7 oz compared to more than ~30 oz for the Vortex and Heritage models you've chosen.

Just a few points mentioned here to explain why some, including me, may prefer to go a different route. Doesn't mean I have strong negative feelings toward you or any other member. I'd still edit and delete your item 2), but it's your choice. It's possible to express the pros and cons without sniping at others in the process. All the pertinent information gets conveyed, without near the negative overtones.

 

[orkan]

Discussion on the specifics. Thank you Phorwath.

And since I prefer twisting turrets, I experience no handicap compared to the FFP scope.

What do you do for wind. I understand and agree that on elevation, you run the turrets (as do I) but how do you take care of your windage adjustments.

Personally, I hold for wind, using my reticle rather that dial unless my hold is over 2 mils. Then I'll dial to the nearest whole mil and then hold based on what I'm seeing/feeling the wind do. The wind still gets the best of me a lot.

Do you dial the wind, and then immediately make the shot? Do you dial the wind, and then favor based on estimation of your hold? What process do you go through when making a long range shot in the wind, if you don't mind taking the time to share with me. When I'm shooting in the wind, (always) I'm making adjustments to my hold every second it seems like. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

This is what I consider to be the major benefit of having ffp. I can dial, or hold using the reticle, on any power. I don't have to be on full power, half power or what have you. I literally don't have to care about the power ring at all, and my holds are still accurate while using the mil reticle precisely. No calculations, and I don't have to care about my power ring being in the exact same spot for the holds to be 50% or what have you.

As for weight, they make lighter ffp's too.

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt by the way.

 

[Pdvdh]

Wind conditions are evidently quite different between your shooting and hunting conditions and mine. The majority of my long range shots have not involved any significant wind. That's fortunate, because truth is, I don't get much practice shooting long distances in windy conditions. Therefore I refrain from shooting long range at game if there's very much cross wind blowing. I simply don't get enough practice in the wind to feel very good about it. I can be exposed to tremendous winds at times in my mountain hunting, but for the most part I seem to be blessed with very little wind at the times I've taken game at long range, or had the opportunity for long range shots.

If the conditions were very windy and I was shooting 800 yds or farther, I'd need to be able to take some sighter shots off to the side of the animal where I could see bullet impacts, before I'd feel good about shooting at the animal.

If I am going to shoot in a mild wind at longer ranges, I do dial the dope for the wind too. With my Dell 51V pocket computer and ballistics software, once I input the environmental conditions, Latitude, direction of shot, wind speed and direction, etc., - both elevation and windage dope is provided on the same screen. The windage (horizontal) dope for Coriolis drift and bullet spin drift is also factored into the corrective dope. Therefore when I dial for windage, I'm also dialing for horizontal bullet deflection/drift caused by Coriolis drift and bullet spin drift too.

If the wind isn't blowing very much and the range is less than 500 yds, I may just hold left or right of the sweet spot to allow for wind drift without even dialing my windage turret - because the other sources of bullet drift - Coriolis and spin drift aren't that substantial at 500 yd and closer ranges.

But past ~500 yds I would dial for the wind drift/Coriolis drift/spin drift all combined with my windage turret, if I were to take the shot. There's just not much open, tree-free country where I live where I can go out in windy conditions and get much practice doping for the wind. Not like the guys I see in the video's and read about in Montana, Wyoming, etc., that practice on rocks in the wide open terrain and rolling hills. And when I am in the open mountainous terrain, I'm hunting and not practicing on rocks - for the most part.

 

[orkan]

Lucky you! Here in South Dakota I can count the number of calm days with my two hands every year.

If I'm not tuned directly in with the wind on any particular day for whatever reason, it really plays havoc with me at anything past 800yds with the 308. This was one of the "holy crap why didn't anyone tell me about this" moments I had when switching to FFP from SFP. The ability to set the magnification wherever I needed it, and still maintain my wind holds was absolutely amazing to me, and I would estimate that it improved my long range proficiency more so than any other piece of equipment has. ... well other than a kestrel maybe.

If I shot some higher powered rifles like some of you guys have on here, it probably wouldn't be as huge of an issue, but a 1-2mph wind difference at 1000yds can lead to a big time miss with the 308. Maybe ffp wouldn't help others as much, but it helped me exponentially.

 

[Jon A]

YOU COULDN'T SEE THE CROW cause the reticle covered it up!

The FFP reticle in the PST 6-24, which the OP is asking about, is less than 1.5" thick at 1000 yds. Thin enough even for crows—though note the OP did not ask about crow or P-dog hunting. The best choices for that, or benchrest, etc, aren't necessarily the best choices for big game hunting.

but still consider the ability to range at any power a week argument.

I agree with you. It is a terribly weak argument. Please take note that you are the only guy making it. "Ranging stuff" amounts to around 1% or less of my use of the reticle. I'm much more concerned about the other 99%, a large portion of which was included in the OP's original question.

Does this mean I can only hunt with buddies that have the same scope FFP/SFP, that I do? Or that I have to pressure them to purchase a scope identical to mine?

By far and away, most scopes are SFP in the USA. Seems like a swim against the tide to expect everyone else to purchase FFP.

FFP/SFP has nothing to do with this. If you or your buddy has a SFP he'll need to be on a specific power or do math to use the corrections you call or you'll need to be on a specific power or do math when calling corrections for him. But there is no need for you to match—either one could be FFP or SFP and it will not matter if you do it right. Except for the fact the guy with the FFP may be less likely to make a mistake.

What you need to "match" with your buddies is Mil or MOA. When you don't match your spotter in this respect, it does add difficulty—but again, that has nothing to do with FFP/SFP. Since there are many, many times as many rifle scopes and spotting scopes out there with Mil-based reticles than MOA reticles, one might say that choosing MOA is "swimming against the tide" though with the addition of Vortex offering MOA at a reasonable price this should be less of an issue. It really doesn't matter which as long as you and your buddies match. But again, that's a completely separate subject from FFP vs. SFP.

The size of the cross hair is best controlled in SFP. Covers less target at long range, and more at close range. SFP has that advantage over FFP. This is something I like in SFP scopes when taking long shots.

This is true and it is one definite advantage of SFP for hunting crows or P-dogs. I don't do much of that so it doesn't interest me much—1.5-2" thick at 1000 yds is more than thin enough for anything I'd ever want to do with a big game rifle.

And now that I dial turrets for corrective dope, the FFP really offers me no advantage. Most LRH will agree that dialing turrets is advantageous for the really long shots.

But if a fella wants to use the cross-hair for hold-offs and hold-overs out to 800 yds, I can see where the FFP offers some advantages. I wasn't a turret twister until about 1 1/2 years ago, and used mil-dot or IOR MP-8 reticles for holdovers. Did OK that way. But I now prefer adjusting the turrets for the corrective dope. I see only disadvantages to FFP for the turret twisters.

I am a turret twister. When I feel like twisting the turret. Mainly, elevation for longer ranges or for medium ranges when I have the time.

It's really nice to be capable of shots without though. When something steps out at 400 yds-600 yds, if you can't just point and shoot you're really handicapping yourself. When I'm watching a large opening or edge of a treeline, etc, I usually take many ranges of landmarks beforehand. So if something steps out somewhere in the mid-range there's a good chance I'll know how far it is (or if you have a buddy who will be spotting, he'll probably be doing the ranging as well) so any time spent not getting behind the rifle and getting the animal in the crosshairs is wasted.

I do like to make custom BDC's for the turrets for each specific hunt which increases the speed of dialing greatly, but there's still nothing faster than simply pointing and shooting. Being able to do that quickly on a mid-range shot with the scope set to a reasonable power so you can find the animal in it quickly is an added capability that can really make the difference on a hunt. If there is zero chance that added capability could ever be useful in the way you hunt, then that's fine. But just because you wouldn't use a capability doesn't mean it has no value for everybody else.

Wind conditions are evidently quite different between your shooting and hunting conditions and mine. The majority of my long range shots have not involved any significant wind.

Here is the biggie. All the above about holding over is probably only 9% of the 99%. The other 90% is this. I can't remember the last time I took a long range shot that needed no wind correction. And like the OP, I much prefer to hold it with the reticle.

It just changes so fast. Not only changing magnitude but often completely changing direction from the time I get behind the rifle to the time I pull the trigger. I've tried chasing such conditions with the windage dial but find it extremely frustrating. I simply do much better holding with the reticle.

And even when it doesn't change, I do my final "wind call" while looking through the scope. I'll measure it where I'm at and take my best guess, but when I get in the scope I can see mirage movement and foliage, etc, on the way to the target much better. I'll make my final call, adjust hold and fire. That just works much better for me than trying to dial, then rushing to get back on the target and shoot quickly before something changes. To give you an idea of typical conditions in which I practice, here's a video I just shot a few days ago:

YouTube - 300 Ultra Mag First Round Hits from 800 and 1100 YDS

Benchrest shooters who shoot at the same target from the same range over and over again can learn where to hold on the target for what wind conditions. When you shoot different sized targets and different ranges, you're much better off correcting in MOA or Mils instead of holding off in "estimated inches" just as you are for elevation. For this a good reticle can be an extremely good tool.

I would never say my way is the only way, or even the best way. It's just the best way I have personally found so far for me. That's why every time these threads come up I ask "How do you do it?"—I'm always hoping to find an easier way to do something.

And of course most importantly, the OP specifically said he wants to hold wind. I guarantee you, when he cranks the PST up to 24X in conditions like the above, he'll be greeted with a pretty crappy view of the target. Dialing down will be a good idea if for no other reason than to keep from giving himself a headache. The first time he does that and realizes he now has to do mental gymnastics in order to hold for wind he will want to scream at the people who told him to get the scope in SFP. Been there, done that.

Also on a hunt, able to hold the wind quickly on a shot with the scope set to a reasonable power so you can find the animal in it quickly is helpful. Not only getting on quickly but having a little situational awareness after the shot. They all don't do a backflip and drop on the spot at the shot like they do on TV. If the animal isn't extremely far away and decides to take off after the shot, trying to find him again while being stuck on 24X might not be the best idea.

And then there are low light conditions.... Yet another reason a fixed 24X scope may not be quite as useful as it could be....

When a guy is planning to use the reticle for such things, turning the scope into a fixed power any time he would like to do so for fear of largely imagined "disadvantages" just makes no sense. And for some of us who have learned the hard way seems downright idiotic.

I have a list of people with condescending, elitist, accusatory attitudes such as those you've displayed in your posts who will not be invited into my home, business, camp or government a second time.


Sadly, you probably have a wealth of knowledge and experience that I crave to aquire, but you've lost me as a student. People who assume they are smarter than others are innefective teachers.

It's odd that it doesn't bother you for a person (YOU) to make a snap judgment based upon very little information, jump to a conclusion about a guy's character, proceed into name calling before showing himself to be the ultimate condescending elitist with the "I'm too good for you. You're not invited…." bit. Maybe you should start a list of those people with your name at the top.

For somebody so concerned with manors, you should learn good ones might be displayed by spending a whopping 10 seconds with the search function to obtain yourself a clue before launching a personal attack at somebody. Had you done so in this case, you would realize a plethora of "teaching" on this subject has already taken place. You might have put forth the effort to get yourself caught up on the conversation before sticking your foot in your mouth.

You may have discovered I have spent many hours of my valuable time "teaching" on this subject (and others) right here on this board already. You would also see a large portion of the time that could have been used for "teaching" was spent instead arguing over false statements/generalizations made by those who readily admit they have precious little or absolutely no experience with the subject matter.

Specifically regarding the dead-horse matter of FFP reticles only use being for "ranging stuff," which has taken on a "nails on the chalkboard"-like sound, you would have seen that just a tiny bit of frustration on my part was more than justified had you done your due diligence to discover the context.

So if I have "lost you as a student," that is unfortunate. But it is your loss. I feel my time is best spent sticking to facts, data and explaining techniques to the best of my ability based upon experience rather than worrying about the delicate sensibilities of some. If that's not "good enough" for you, that is your choice. It's up to you do decide what's more important to you.