SFP vs FFP for hunting

[Ckleeves]

If they are not ranging why is "the advantage is having a measuring tape plastered in front of your face that's accurate at any power,"?

Take a poll but I seriously doubt many FFP users are ranging frequently or at all with the reticle. There just isn't a need to with a rangefinder.

The measuring tape is pretty handy for lots of things. Wind it's real helpful. nobody, no matter how good they think they are knows what 42" looks like at 700 yards on a unknown sized target. Even known it's tough to hold 3.5 target widths accurately. It's pretty easy to hold 1.7 mil at any power.

Spotting misses it's a whole lot more accurate to tell your buddy he missed the prairie dog by exactly .8 rather then "about 4 prairie dogs low"
When the mirage is rolling and you can't even see at 25x so your stuck down around 14x.

You have probably heard it before but with ffp your speedometer reads right in every gear.
A few years ago I wasn't crazy about FFP because I hadn't been trying the right reticles. I still have some sfp scopes, I don't see the need for FFp on a 3-12x for example. So I'm not a sfp hater I just see the advantages FFP can provide especially in the higher power ranges.

A SFP 5-25 is a perfect example. Your more then likely going to be spending quite a bit of time in the 16x-20x range so unless your a math wiz the subtensions are all but worthless when time counts.

 

[Chas1]

It really depends on the intended purpose and individual.

 

[Stgraves260]

I bet you can't find many FFP users who are "ranging with the reticle". The advantage is having a measuring tape plastered in front of your face that's accurate at any power. I dial with a FFP all the time.

I use FFP about 99% of the time and I use my reticle quite often ( FFP or SFP ) for ranging and for sizing my target when I use my range finder. It helps a great deal knowing the size of your target before you squeeze the trigger.

 

[Ckleeves]

I use FFP about 99% of the time and I use my reticle quite often ( FFP or SFP ) for ranging and for sizing my target when I use my range finder. It helps a great deal knowing the size of your target before you squeeze the trigger.

I agree, I do that all the time. But you already know how far it is with your rangefinder if your able to scale it. Just like you can't tell the range unless you already know the size of the target. Your not using your reticle to range AND size your target without a known dimension of an object or a rangefinder.

I could take you out and show you a random sized piece of steel on a distance hillside and your not gonna be able to tell me how big it is or how far it is.

 

[motrapper]

I agree, I do that all the time. But you already know how far it is with your rangefinder if your able to scale it. Just like you can't tell the range unless you already know the size of the target. Your not using your reticle to range AND size your target without a known dimension of an object or a rangefinder.

I could take you out and show you a random sized piece of steel on a distance hillside and your not gonna be able to tell me how big it is or how far it is.

Can I say you you need to spend some time behind your scope and Learn!!!!
WOW this just keeps getting Dumber!!

 

[Stgraves260]

I agree, I do that all the time. But you already know how far it is with your rangefinder if your able to scale it. Just like you can't tell the range unless you already know the size of the target. Your not using your reticle to range AND size your target without a known dimension of an object or a rangefinder.

I could take you out and show you a random sized piece of steel on a distance hillside and your not gonna be able to tell me how big it is or how far it is.

Deer are 3.5' to the top of the back from the ground. Between 15"-18" from the bottom of the stomach to the top of the back. Do you not measure your harvest and study it to become a more success hunter? T post are 4' tall. Man the list goes on. When I was in the military I measured door ways truck body's, 55 gallon drums, 5 gallon buckets, average man is 5'8" how tall a high back chair is, the hight of a Duce and a half. A animal is usually standing by something. Did my recon in the. milItaly and gather all the info I could. Apply those skills to hunting. Rangefinders were all ways failing. Specially in a 130 degree heat. I used my log book and scope to range things more than I did my rangefinder. Do your homework and study the things around your area you hunt. Measure the body and the head of what you hunt and it will help you drastically. Ground hogs are about 9" tall. I'd have to go back and look through my log book and give you all my measurements I have. The most difficult thing to range with your scope is a hog. If you know your area and how big you average hogs are you can try that. in my area our hogs are normally around 50-60 lbs. I use the small hog to range because there is usually more of them in a group than there is piglets and large hogs.The hog in my profile pic was shot at 998 yards. Range finder not used. I missed the first shot but hit it the second And third shot. Used nothing but my radical . Shot yot just shy of 1200 yards with no rangefinder. Yots are around 10" from bottom of stomach to top of back. Do your homework and you'll be fine.

 

[Stgraves260]

I agree, I do that all the time. But you already know how far it is with your rangefinder if your able to scale it. Just like you can't tell the range unless you already know the size of the target. Your not using your reticle to range AND size your target without a known dimension of an object or a rangefinder.

I could take you out and show you a random sized piece of steel on a distance hillside and your not gonna be able to tell me how big it is or how far it is.

Don't know what's wrong with site. I'm trying to correct things but it will not let me. Sorry everyone.

 

[Ckleeves]

Check out the Precision rifle blog article "How much does accurate ranging matter"

Cal goes into pretty good depth on what margin of error is doable for a very practiced shooter when it comes to miling accuracy.

Then add in that no animal is actually known size, between 15" and 18" is a huge difference.

With my normal elk rifle at 1000 yards a 15 yard ranging error is 9.3" of impact error. That's a tiny bit less then a .01 error which the average experienced shooter can mil within .05 accuracy. So 9.3 inches of impact error would be 5 times better then the average Scout Sniper can do.

I'm not saying It's not a useful skill, but taking shots at living breathing animals with how much error is all but built in it's not something I'm going to do. On the range or battlefield is a totally different ballgame.

 

[Deleted member 48126]

Check out the Precision rifle blog article "How much does accurate ranging matter"

Cal goes into pretty good depth on what margin of error is doable for a very practiced shooter when it comes to miling accuracy.

Then add in that no animal is actually known size, between 15" and 18" is a huge difference.

With my normal elk rifle at 1000 yards a 15 yard ranging error is 9.3" of impact error. That's a tiny bit less then a .01 error which the average experienced shooter can mil within .05 accuracy. So 9.3 inches of impact error would be 5 times better then the average Scout Sniper can do.

I'm not saying It's not a useful skill, but taking shots at living breathing animals with how much error is all but built in it's not something I'm going to do. On the range or battlefield is a totally different ballgame.

Genuine question. What about scopes with the measuring ruler in them? I think certain NF and Kahles scopes have them. Would that make reticle ranging better? I used my FFP scopes to range targets successfully, but that was a known target size, prone, off bipod or sitting with tripod.

 

[Ckleeves]

Genuine question. What about scopes with the measuring ruler in them? I think certain NF and Kahles scopes have them. Would that make reticle ranging better? I used my FFP scopes to range targets successfully, but that was a known target size, prone, off bipod or sitting with tripod.

Oh for sure. But I think you reach a point of what the human eye can discern and how much info you can squeeze into a reticle before it's like looking thru a window screen.

On the TreMor 2 reticle in the article it goes down to .02 miling resolution, which is going to be way more accurate then other coarser reticles. But that .02 still adds up, if you look at the chart it's +- 36 yards of error at 1000 yards.

Which doesn't sound like a ton but that's 20" of impact difference with a fairly fast high BC bullet if your on the edges of that .02 error.

 

[Deleted member 48126]

Oh for sure. But I think you reach a point of what the human eye can discern and how much info you can squeeze into a reticle before it's like looking thru a window screen.

On the TreMor 2 reticle in the article it goes down to .02 miling resolution, which is going to be way more accurate then other coarser reticles. But that .02 still adds up, if you look at the chart it's +- 36 yards of error at 1000 yards.

Which doesn't sound like a ton but that's 20" of impact difference with a fairly fast high BC bullet if your on the edges of that .02 error.

Awesome thank you. Known target size makes ranging with a reticle pretty straight forward. I can see how it can get messy quick in real field conditions.

Edited: due to poor grammar.

 

[CoSniper66]

Awesome thank you. Known target size makes ranging with a reticle pretty straight forward. I can how it can get messy quick in real field conditions.

At 300 yrds and out, I prefer ffp ,primarily for wind holds. Also very nice to call shots or confirm dope at all magnifications. Under 300 it's point and shoot on big game. On varmint scopes with a fine dot reticle I dial, so sfp is ok. All calibrated reticle are much more useful in FFP.

 

[Ckleeves]

Can I say you you need to spend some time behind your scope and Learn!!!!
WOW this just keeps getting Dumber!!

So can you range a animal with let's say even a 5% variance in known body size to within what margin of error at what distance? And 5% is unrealistic let's be honest, depending on what direction I drive from my house to elk hunt a mature bulls chest height varies by about 4".

 

[misterc01]

My take - I don't care what the range is, or the animal size - if I am not SURE of the shot , I just don't shoot. But that;s just me.