SFP or FFP

[dfanonymous]

I dont see how a sfp scope can work as good as a ffp or fixed. Would the sub tensions be off..even maybe by a hair if not properly aligned with whatever power it suppose to be true to?

 

[Greyfox]

I use SFP for hunting and FFP for tactical shooting.. For Tactical sports the power ring is in constant use for multiple target acquisition at different ranges under time restraints. There are some stages that require retical holds, no dialing. IMO, it would be difficult to compete with a SFP. For hunting I very much prefer the SFP. My power settings are used at 5,10, or 20x. The retical is always constant and more easily seen. At low power the cluttered FFP retical can get lost in shadowed areas and low light hunting conditions. While I generslly the dial for hunting shots, using the retical for holds at half, or quarter, power with s SFP poses no issue.

 

[lancetkenyon]

I only use FFP for all of my rifle shooting. Hunting spot and stalk where shots vary between 20 and 500 yards or more, glassing and shooting long range when needed, long range steel, paper at 100/200/400, etc.

I want my glass to all be the same focal plane for ease of use. I still hunt and spot and stalk with the reticle turned down to minimum power, in the event of a close shot for a wider FOV and quick target acquisition. If the game is moving at distance, it makes getting in in the scope easy too. I can then power up to where I feel comfortable. If time does not allow at reasonable distances, I have held subtensions numerous times. On a 3-20x50, if I crank magnification up to 12X on a 350 yard shot, with a FFP scope, holdovers on subtensions are always consistent. 1.5 MIL is 1.5MIL on 3x, 7.5x, 14.34x, 19.6x. But if I have time to dial, I dial. But knowing my subtensions will be the same throughout mag range is one less thing I have to worry about. Range and hold, not range, check magnification ring and adjust to ensure I am either full/half/quarter, do the math, and hold. My scopes and reticles, for the most part, are very usable from minimum magnification with most having either a thicker outer stadia to either draw your eye or act as an "open center" for close shots, or the fine portion of the reticle is visible at min mag. Also, if all else fails, illumination to bring it out is available. I have never had an issue with this however. Even at close fast moving targets or quick shots at minimum mag at ranges out to 350+ when time is not a luxury I have to get a shot off.

On the other hand, none of my reticles seem too heavy at max magnification as to obscure a target, unless I am shooting at dimes at 400 yards.

 

[Fin-addictions]

SFP for hunting for me, FFP for targets.

In hunting situations, if I'm taking a long shot I have time. I'm never going to shoot on anything but high power on game, so my Subtensions are going to work perfectly on either FFP or SFP. I don't regularly hunt with the same rifles I target shoot with. I like to get away from the roads and I'm not carrying my heavy target rifles in the back country. This means lighter rifles that will do everything from close range timber to long range canyon shots. With the SFP, I can still see my reticle easily even at low power under the dark canopy of trees. If taking a long range shot, I'm dialing my elevation. I use TMOA reticles so I can hold wind, but at max power everything subtends.

When target shooting I'm often shooting in warmer weather were mirage can become an issue, so I like the ability to back off my power to reduce the mirage. With FFP, my subtensions still work. I still dial elevation, but hold wind. Works for me.

 

[Crews]

I choose FFP for everything.... I enjoy the reticle subtensions being correct no matter what magnification I am using.

My one caveat is that it must be an ILLUMINATED FFP. Low light shots with a FFP can be a real problem without it.

 

[WildRose]

Read the options carefully and pick the one that fits you best and maybe explain why. Sharing actual experiences would be helpful.

You needed one more option, "I have SFP and depending on the circumstances I will either dial or use reticle subtensions".

 

[FlGunner]

I have both and find that each has their own set of pros and cons. My only experience is with the vortex vipers pst. (4-16 ffp, 6-24 sfp). I was more accurate in varying wind conditions with ffp because I can rely on the subtensions and visualize where my bullet would be and be very close more times than not ( wind is hard for me if it's to much shifting or varying in speed/direction lol). The only drawback I found was the amount of target the reticle covered at further distance. The sfp covered less target down range but the reticle isn't accurate on every magnification. I'm in no way an expert but have learned a lot from being on here and then shooting as much as I can. If I had the I would own a higher power ffp with a reticle that's a lil thinner than my pst viper ffp. Good luck and good shooting .

 

[Canhunter35]

I have both, I prefer sfp. Besides low light problems with a non illuminated scope, I find that the hash marks become unusable much off full power.
I always figure, if I have time to set up, range, dial, I have time to spin my reticle to max power. And when I'm hunting coyotes, I leave it on half of max which is close enough to make holdovers out to distances I'm comfortable holding, because if I'm really reaching I'm dialing

 

[Epee]

So what ballistic software takes into account the different subtensions at different magnifications for a SFP scope?

Do SFP scopes from different companies all have different subtensions at different magnifications?

Forgive me my lack of knowledge on this subject and I hope I asked the right question?

 

[orkan]

Besides low light problems with a non illuminated scope, I find that the hash marks become unusable much off full power.

Comments like this make me question the posters experience. There are a great many optics with FFP reticles where this is not true. I coyote hunt almost exclusively with a Tangent Theta 315M with GenIIXR reticle. It is one of the thinner FFP designs offered, yet I typically leave my scope on 6X magnification and have killed many dozen coyotes with this setup in all manner of lighting and weather condition and varying terrain.

Just a moment ago I went outside with a TT525P which is a 5-25x56 optic with the GenIIXR reticle. I snapped this picture at 8X magnification while targeting my 300yd berm. In the foreground you can see the 100yd berm. The image looks 10x better in person on this dark overcast day than my camera is able to capture.

To put it plainly, the concept that you can not use FFP optics at low magnifications is a myth. The 8X magnification this picture was shot at is not anywhere near max magnification as your post would indicate, but rather very slightly over minimum magnification. It is plain to see that the reticle is still quite useful.

The fish eye effect, blury reticle as well as image, and the out of focus 100yd berm are all effects generated by my camera. None are present during actual use of the rifle scope. I can not over-state just how poor the image above looks compared to the actual experience when behind the rifle scope. Yet despite this fact, it is plain to see that even on a very dark overcast day, against a very cluttered background, the reticle is still very functional at low magnification.

Click here to view that image in greater detail: http://i.imgur.com/G6BPJtB.jpg

 

[Canhunter35]

Comments like this make me question the posters experience. There are a great many optics with FFP reticles where this is not true. I coyote hunt almost exclusively with a Tangent Theta 315M with GenIIXR reticle. It is one of the thinner FFP designs offered, yet I typically leave my scope on 6X magnification and have killed many dozen coyotes with this setup in all manner of lighting and weather condition and varying terrain.

Just a moment ago I went outside with a TT525P which is a 5-25x56 optic with the GenIIXR reticle. I snapped this picture at 8X magnification while targeting my 300yd berm. In the foreground you can see the 100yd berm. The image looks 10x better in person on this dark overcast day than my camera is able to capture.

To put it plainly, the concept that you can not use FFP optics at low magnifications is a myth. The 8X magnification this picture was shot at is not anywhere near max magnification as your post would indicate, but rather very slightly over minimum magnification. It is plain to see that the reticle is still quite useful.

The fish eye effect, blury reticle as well as image, and the out of focus 100yd berm are all effects generated by my camera. None are present during actual use of the rifle scope. I can not over-state just how poor the image above looks compared to the actual experience when behind the rifle scope. Yet despite this fact, it is plain to see that even on a very dark overcast day, against a very cluttered background, the reticle is still very functional at low magnification.

Click here to view that image in greater detail: http://i.imgur.com/G6BPJtB.jpg

I'm not taking about over cast days. Dawn to dusk situations. I have a Burris veracity, non illuminated and have run into difficulty seeing cross hairs and at low power, I cannot make out hash marks and reticle subtensions...but it's no where near the quality of a tangent theta. Sfp vs ffp is more of an opinion debate, and I'm giving my opinion. Having the $ to spend on better scopes has nothing to do experience. I prefer my sfp scopes

 

[Canhunter35]

So what ballistic software takes into account the different subtensions at different magnifications for a SFP scope?

Do SFP scopes from different companies all have different subtensions at different magnifications?

Forgive me my lack of knowledge on this subject and I hope I asked the right question?

Yes all reticles have different subtension, all companies have a chart. Then to use it on different power, say an Moa scope at 20x(full power) has 1moa hash marks, those hash marks become 2moa at 10x, 4moa at 5x and 5moa at 4x for example

 

[orkan]

Correct, opinion indeed. Yet those opinions lead inexperienced people to spend money based on what they read. When they read enough people perpetuate the same myth over and over, they believe it, then end up not trying FFP, and then they parrot the same myth.

Suffice it to say in the vast majority of conditions, the image above would look significantly better and the use of the reticle would even be enhanced. Combine that with the fact that any optic worth its salt has illumination and you quickly realize that FFP optics can be used in nearly any situation that SFP can be used.

 

[FlGunner]

To clarify my post about being more accurate with the ffp in windy conditions, what I would do is look at my wind meter and get the speed. From there using my app Ballistics AE, I'd input the wind speed and let it tell me the MOA correction. So for example if I had a 2 MOA wind correction at x distance, I can look at my point of aim and see what it looks like through my reticle of how much the wind is pushing my bullet off of a straight line (wind pushes my bullet toward target) this gave me confidence in seeing that if I was off some on my wind call and still hit the plate I could teach myself in making better wind calls by looking at everything between me and the target. As I said before I'm very green into long range shooting but the ffp has helped me a lot. I do use my sfp more now because I am taking the time to read/dial/shoot. But it's just preference on what you like more. A lot of good knowledge on this site so take full advantage of it and shoot a bunch and in a bunch of different conditions if you can.