Printable View
Does it really matter which focal plane you use when you will be using a range finder? The scope I'm looking at buying is SFP. Vortex Viper HS T 4-16x44. This is a new step for me after using a 4.5-14x40 for a long time and I'm a little confused. I understand that the scope is calibrated at different magnification to match the hash marks but if you are not going to use hash marks does it really matter?
Sorry if it seems like a dumb question but if you don't know you don't know.
Cheers Dan
Great for making corrections when you see the splash, just measure with the reticle and dial it in.
FFP is good if you need to make shots at different magnifications at different distance quickly without adjusting. Good for military/police and certain types of competition. I found that the changing width of the cross hairs a bit disconcerting on mine (magnified along with the target). Probably not necessary for most people but has the "tacticool appeal".Quote:
Originally Posted by 300wsm for life
Depends on what you intend using it for...
At close range a lot of the FFP reticles become quite difficult to use, the lines are simply too big.
If you are going to use a range finder, I would say stick to SFP.
If you are going to use the reticle for ranging, then go with FFP.
SFP with hash marks allows a relatively easy way of holding off if you can see where the impact was.
Only a hunting rifle. Target shooting to play but not competition. Have a range finder already been using one for 10yrs now. So changing the magnification whilst only using main reticle won't impact anything if you have set up scope.
I like the reticle to stay the same size/thickness throughout the magnification range so I like SFP. It is just a matter of a quick look at the magnification ring to work out any scaling necessary to work out any adjustment. SFP is a lot more versatile to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
If you aren't using the hash marks then SFP/FFP doesn't make a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by 300wsm for life
What does make a difference, especially in a hunting scope is the reticle changing size.
When set to the lowest magnification setting the reticle can be very small on a FFP scope which is not what you want in a hunting scope.
For a strictly hunting scope SFP is the better option, FFP is great for many things but not the better option in a hunting scope.
One day you will miss, having a first plane you can quickly without taking eye off or changing shit or checking range finder or any other shit, make a measurement and second shot fast hopefully securing your game
Have been there trying to get a sfp shooter on to target and it is painful
I prefer ffp but like rest have said each has their pros and cons, only you can decide what you truly prefer by trying both for your style of shooting
Dan,
You won't be disadvantaged either way, FFP or SFP.
If you don't intend to use the reticle for any corrections then it is a moot point.
If you eventually do, then just be aware how the magnification affects the subtension measurements on a SFP reticle.
SFP will normally be a cheaper scope to manufacture, so price is often the biggest point of difference.
I have a slight preference for FFP, but happily own and use SFP scopes too. They both have their pros and cons.
Sounds like you intend to dial to laser varified distances, rather than use hold over. So correcting follow up shots is where you could consider benefiting by employing either reticle type. Don't get too hung up on it though.
Cheers moutere you have answered my question. Thanks all for the input. Has clarified my understanding a whole lot more.
Appreciate my SFP more now.
I have the scope you are looking at bar the target turrets in SFP. In the book of words that comes with the scope it tells you what the MOA is for each of the hash marks, from memory on 16x the first hash is 1.5 MOA, second 4.5, third 7.5, and the post is 11 MOA. I have checked my drop chart and found the closet MOA on that and now have ranges for each of those hash marks. Now I can range a target and if it comes in very close to those ranges on the hash marks I could use them instead of dialing.
Haven't used them yet as I use dial up instead but the option is there if you want it.
Vortex HS-T MRAD and MOA reticles
Attachment 74141
Attachment 74142
Don't fuck around with FFP on a hunting rifle, they are just a pain in the arse
Why do you say that Philipo? I would have thought that there is more benefits to ffp than negatives. Don't have to use full power to get subtensions to work seems like a big bonus to me. The reticle is smaller at low mag is that the only issue?
When you dial up the magnification the reticle becomes huge. At low magnification the reticle is often very hard to see, particularly when in low light. The manufacturer has to try and find a reasonable compromise on size somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by 300wsm for life
I have a diallable FFP scope and its easier to use than my SFP ones. That's for hunting too.
FFP gives the choice of dialling or holdover interchangeably. You won't dial every long shot. I find it hard to holdover in inches or cm but mils are great which means a FFP Scope.
The fine reticle at low power is a nuisance . So dont go past 4X Zoom range on a hunting scope.
Most of my scopes are SFP, but have got s couple of FFP. All for hunting. One way to get around the too thin or too thick reticle which are a draw back on FFP is to get one with illum reticle. This solves the too thin at 3x or 4x problem - especially for bush hunting. I'm not a fan of the illum Xmas tree style reticles but a fire dot or illum x at centre is superb.
If you have the right reticle FFP is the way to go for a rifle you'll use for hunting and banging steel at varying distances.
While pest shooting there has been many times I've missed with the first, spotted my shot placement and taken a very quick second shot that has connected using the FFP reticle.
This of course is possible with a SFP scope but usually with anything under max power your follow up shot will be off especially if it is at some distance.
Some reticle subtensions are simply too big in FFP, from my reading and some experience, eg early Weaver FFP scopes.
With some manufacturers a claimed FFP reticle was a way for lower to medium class/type/manufactured tolerance levels/ to jump on the "Tactical" band wagon, a lot of these scopes don't track correctly or the reticles are shite for precise placement and are found out very quickly and don't last too long or simply aren't bought
I'm not really bashing weaver, I think their original Grand Slam hunting scopes were the equal of or better than many brands[ Leupy] in an upper price bracket at the time.
The advantages of FFP have already been clearly documented in above posts in a better way than I could , however I stress if you wish a dual purpose you have to make sure the reticle on the FFP your looking at is suitable.
If you are simply shooting constantly at known distances a SFP scope will save money and will not be a disadvantage.
If your a Bush hobbit get a cheap SFP. I recommend Weaver.:)
Cheers for all the info it has helped a lot. Not a bush hobbit. However I do hunt bush, river clearings and tops all with the one rifle. So my shooting is from 15-400 mtrs and with the new scope want to comfortably shoot to 500. Am thinking the vx5 hd with windplex reticle suits my needs. Going to inspect one on the weekend plus some others.
We all hunt bush that's how we all got children :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by 300wsm for life
For targets & gongs, yes they have a place but for average Joe doing average Joe Deer hunting FFP is a pain in the arse, firstly yes the reticle will be small & hard to see at low power & most FFP reticles are tactical fine things anyway. Second, If your'e using a lightweight cannon with decent grunt ( even with a brake ) you'll not going to spot your own shots under 400yards. Funny people go on about adjusting shot's ( especially bunny shooting ) shit if I see the shot go 4" to the right I don't need to get all over complicated, just hold off to the left. Farken bang flop :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by 300wsm for life
SPF- Get something with a decent reticle like leupy windplex or Swarvo's 4W ( both excellent by the way ) and you can use their hash line on max power anyway.
Personally all the scopes I use are MOA & SFP, I don't care what people use as long as they humanly kill, but what ever you chose just make sure all your scopes are the same "KISS"
I'm doing homework on a good scope for my 300 win mag custom and so far this one is at the top of the list:XTR II.
Having used only SFP I've never had a issue but for the tops stuff which said scope will be for I definitely can see more merits for FFP than a SFP. Yeah I'll admit there's a bit of; new way to spin it.
Do FFP scopes have an optical advantage over SFP? Thought I read that somewhere. My 'big' scopes are FFP but SFP are a lot nicer to use with a consistent reticle size.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
My understanding of the optical advantage for me of FFP is that there is no reticle movement when changing the power of the scope vs SFP where there is usually some sort of variation of reticle position when changing power. This is also what I have observed when checking scope tracking with a collimator. Pecar made a FFP hunting reticle (#16) which had tapered cross hairs: there was no particular sense of reticle size change when changing the power of the scope (1.5-6x) which is an off-putting aspect of FFP scopes.
About 5 years ago I was at a friend's place when he showed me his Vortex FFP scope. I was intrigued and for the next few years have been looking at FFP scopes and always considered to buy one if the opportunity presents itself. About a year ago the moderator of this forum had a new but opened Vortex FFP up for sell at a very good price of 900. I seriously considered it but in the end decided to give it a miss. Here is my thought process which I thought I would share. Take whatever you may consider useful from it.
1. My understanding is that the point of FFP is that you can use the reticle to range at any magnification. With SFP, you can still use reticle to range, except it will only work consistently at one particular magnification. for example a 4-16 x 50 SFP with markings on its reticles may be designed to range only at 16 magnification and does not work at 10 magnification. So all that FFP saves you is the need to turn the magnification to 16 to range (and maybe turn it back to 10 to shoot, if you so inclined).
2. FFP is probably not useful for target shooting, unless in some specific discipline where real life sniping is mimicked. in most target shooting disciplines you want more magnification and better clarity over ranging functions. you would either already know the distance or free to use a range finder to measure the distance correctly.
3. FFP is probably not useful for hunting either. The idea of FFP is to use a object of known size to work out distance. That object is usually a enemy male soldier, with average height of 175 cm. Male soldier with height 5% outside this average is uncommon (shorter than 166 cm and taller than 183 cm), and 10% outside is very rare ( shorter than 157 cm and taller than 193 cm). So your ranging will be 90% within 5% margin of error and 99.5% within 10% margin of error. However, For hunting, you can easily come across animals of sizes varying 50% or more. Most people cannot tell, through a scope, whether they are looking at a young animal or mature animal, therefore will not be able to estimate the size of the animal they are looking at. I am a novice when it comes to hunting anything bigger than a goat but I have shot thousands of possums. I still cannot tell if I am looking at a young possum or a mature one unless I have killed it and looking at it up close.
4. There is probably no need to range that quickly in hunting anyway. When you hunt, you are not dealing with an enemy who is also actively looking to shoot you back. Therefore if the shot is far enough that you need to range it, you will probably be unseen anyway. You will almost always have enough time to at least turn the magnification of your SFP scope to the range-accurate magnification and range the target (assuming you know the target's size). Better yet, pull out the range finder and do it properly. In other words, the risk of losing the shot by not using FFP in hunting is very low.
If FFP scopes are the same price as SFP and are just as available, I would probably buy FFP, because the cool factor. But as things stand now, FFP are more expensive for the same model and your choices are quite limited. So for me, unless a bargain comes across, I would not buy one.
Not really. Most SFP scopes have subtentions that equate to easy sizes at multiple magnifications. For my S3 6-24 with LRMOA reticle, at min magnification the hash mark gap is 8 MOA, at max magnification it is 2 MOA. Some quick mental arithmetic will give you the subtension sizes at other magnifications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimitsu
Both are excellent not sure what all the fuss is about you can't really go wrong either way. I find ffp excellent if you've done your homework e.g 450 yard target is 6moa - ok third hash mark down (rather thank dialling it in) also generally ffp scope are higher zoom high end scopes where so on which I seldom use it's lowest setting ( say 5 power ) so the smaller crosshair isn't an issue.
Sfp are excellent too, and if you know your scope well enough you can still use the hash marks at lower settings e.g the 2 Moa mark at 22 power will be 4 Moa at 11 power and so forth :)
Many scopes don't appear to be able to optimise the reticle size change from low to high power in FFP. One that I have been looking at for a long time is the March FML reticle. On the 3-24 it appears to very usable at 3 power with the shrinking of the centre cross down to a focal point and with illumination would be even more so. The outside posts are tapered to that centre point so lead the eyes well. At 24x the detail of the central X is very obvious and allows precision measurement and aiming at small long range targets...
Now I have not yet had the opportunity to see one in the flesh, and am going off the reticle pics, but it appears at face value that this design should work well. I think I would prefer the FML which is a symetrical design rther that the FML-1 which has longer below X hair markings and numbers - at least for a multi-purpose scope...
So it appears that the only FFP disadvantage could be minimised with good reticle design - but perhaps someone who has one could comment...?
I can send you my one to have a look at if you like?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
Also, ignore all this rubbish about using a reticle to range a target. Its a complete and utter fuck around of an idea and you are a retard if you even consider using it as the sole justification for purchasing an FFP scope. Simply means you've been spending to much time surfing around ridiculous American mil sites if you're drinking the ranging cool-aid.
Use both, choose your preference based on your requirements. Buy scope.
And for fuck sake, buy a godamn range finder and stop listening to 'snipers'.
I have a Burris veracity ffp and the reticle is designed so it looks nice and fine when at the highest mag, and it becomes a big bold cross air when power is turned down for close stuff or when the light fades away and you still want to see your reticle.
The ffp on a scope like a sightron with Moa reticle could be useful in f class as the targets are in Moa as well. So what ever is the magnification, you can still sustain the reticle the same amount on the target with out having to click and without having to calculate stuff in your brain.
One main point that has been missed is to use the reticle for holdover and wind correction and also re adjusting your turrets for zeroing. You never have to worry about which magnification you are on, the correction value is always the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proudkiwi
do ya like it...?
It's a well executed reticle design and the overall package is pretty good.
If they dropped the mag range from 3-24 to a 2-18 I think it would be much better as its pretty finicky for eye relief.
Also they are now WAY too expensive for what they are so I wouldn't buy one new. Same could be said about a lot of hunting/shooting products these days though.
Or you could just aim at the rings. They are all a known dimension and that does not change whatever magnification you use .... :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Friwi
Except for the x-ring, every ring moving out from the centre is close-enough to 1/2 moa out.
