Sfp vs ffp which one do you use?

I agree with the other comments that have been made. I have FFP scopes I like but I prefer SFP but if a FFP has a thick reticle, it works fine. My Primary Arms 4-14 FFP is very legible at 4X. But it doesn't work well for target shooting. My Arken 6-24 is great for shooting targets but illegible at 6X and tough to see at 8X. 10X works but makes it hard to locate a target quickly. Illumination helps a little but it does not make 6X usable. I think Arkens are a great buy for a lower priced scope that you can depend on the adjustments and also have decent glass. But they only come ffp. I might order a 4-16X just so I can use it for hunting at 6X (hopefully). But it won't work well for target work. Wish they had a SFP.

JimD said:

I agree with the other comments that have been made. I have FFP scopes I like but I prefer SFP but if a FFP has a thick reticle, it works fine. My Primary Arms 4-14 FFP is very legible at 4X. But it doesn't work well for target shooting. My Arken 6-24 is great for shooting targets but illegible at 6X and tough to see at 8X. 10X works but makes it hard to locate a target quickly. Illumination helps a little but it does not make 6X usable. I think Arkens are a great buy for a lower priced scope that you can depend on the adjustments and also have decent glass. But they only come ffp. I might order a 4-16X just so I can use it for hunting at 6X (hopefully). But it won't work well for target work. Wish they had a SFP.

Click to expand...

I said that years ago when I had to try a bloated Arken. I think they lost weight since then. Mine is a 4-16 and the glass isn’t bad but it’s on one of my guns that I don’t go below 12x for all my shooting. If they ever make a SFP, I won’t hesitate to buy one.

FFP for me. Thought I would hate it but never having your holds change is awesome.

Trucker3573 said:

FFP for me. Thought I would hate it but never having your holds change is awesome.

Click to expand...

My first experience with FFP was awful. I had picked up a surplus Soviet military 3-9x scope and that thing was the worst POS ever. It had a tiny barely visible reticle at 3x and a huge one at 9x and it increased its elevation setting as you zoomed in, so 3x was supposed to correspond to 300m and 9x to 900m.

That thing put me off FFPs for over 2 decades. I've got a Vortex Strike Eagle now on one of my rifles and it's reticle is infinitely better than that old communist piece of junk. It still gets small at low power, but these days they've figured out how to scale the crosshairs so that they're still functional at either extreme.

I'm ok with SFP scopes, as I simply dial them to the power that the reticle is calibrated at and make adjustments, then shoot at whatever mag I need. I have probably 10-15 scopes, only one is FFP. It's an Athlon Midas Tac, 4-16 and it is one fine scope for sure.

bchannell said:

I'm ok with SFP scopes, as I simply dial them to the power that the reticle is calibrated at and make adjustments, then shoot at whatever mag I need. I have probably 10-15 scopes, only one is FFP. It's an Athlon Midas Tac, 4-16 and it is one fine scope for sure.

Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of hype currently around FFP scopes. A lot of people are convinced they are the be all and end all. I remember seeing a review of a 10-40x target scope on YouTube and seeing people in the comments complaining about it being SFP. They didn't even understand that it was made to have a fine reticle at high power for target shooting and had it been FFP that that reticle would have been barely visible at 10x.

Sawney Bean said:

I think there's a lot of hype currently around FFP scopes. A lot of people are convinced they are the be all and end all. I remember seeing a review of a 10-40x target scope on YouTube and seeing people in the comments complaining about it being SFP. They didn't even understand that it was made to have a fine reticle at high power for target shooting and had it been FFP that that reticle would have been barely visible at 10x.

Click to expand...

I’m not sure I’d call it “hype.” The benefits are very real and tangible, in the use for which it was intended. Benchrest is not one of them. Just a different tool for a different use, really.

Yall just need some better eyes or something lol just kidding of course but yeah I'm FFP all the way. I rarely use above 10x unless I'm sighting in. Then again I tend to buy lower power FFPs. Have a 2-12, 3-12, 4-16 and 4-20. Normally use lower powers when pesting. Not having to worry about holds at different magnification is big to me. I planned on dialing but comes down to it just too much time so I dont.

I have both ffp and sfp riflescopes. I prefer ffp scopes especially on my long range weapons. I have moa scopes as well as mrad.
Both of my pcp scopes are ffp scopes.

delooper said:

I selected FFP but technically I use DFP, Dual Focal Plane reticle. My only zoomable scope is a March. Everything else is fixed magnification.

Click to expand...

What magnification did you select on the fixed power scopes? Brand?

My FFP scopes bought for the airguns came to rest on PB's meant for shooting small critters at longer ranges.

I've gone primarily digital on the air power using a SFP reticle and PIP. Digital allows 3x FOV for quick target acquisition with higher magnification window at the top of the screen (PIP) for shooting. Using a consistent higher magnification to shoot makes for repeatable holdovers/holdunders.

I use both. I mostly dial for distance on both. Learn the pros and cons of each and happy shooting.

Once I went FFP, I never looked back. But like most things, you do need to tailor it to the shooting you are doing. If you try to use a 25x or 50x FFP scope to shoot at 15yds while on lowest zoom, then yeah, the reticle will be too fine. It’s not meant for that. 9x, 12x or similar FFP for that purpose.

Shinyknight said:

Hey, just want to gather what everyone is using or prefer. If you could, pls pick 1 and explain why in the comments.

Click to expand...

I use both

I use ffp for bench sfp for pesting and field target on 25 x I can still focus down to 9 yds and a simple 1 / 1.5/2/2.5/3 on the upper and lower end of wheel for hold over I don’t mark yardage on wheel just holdovers much easier unless your constantly switching pellets

I would say it depends what and how you shoot . I shoot mostly Bench Rest and FFP scopes just cover the target dot . and if hunting at 100 yards full power FFP covers the kill zone (head shot ) of a squirrel . My experience with a 6x24 FFP , sold it .

beerthief said:

I would say it depends what and how you shoot . I shoot mostly Bench Rest and FFP scopes just cover the target dot . and if hunting at 100 yards full power FFP covers the kill zone (head shot ) of a squirrel . My experience with a 6x24 FFP , sold it .

Click to expand...

I don’t know what reticle you are talking about, but my favorite FFP reticle is the Athlon APLR5. It has a 0.2moa center dot. That’s smaller than a .22 pellet at 100yds. It can’t even come close to covering a squirrel’s head.

beerthief said:

Hunting at 100 yards full power FFP covers the kill zone (head shot ) of a squirrel.
My experience with a 6-24x FFP, sold it .

Click to expand...

I'm sorry you had a bad experience with that particular FFP 6-24x scope.

Looking at the 6-24x (5-25x, 4-24x) scopes in my Scope Specs Tables I see the following main reticle line thicknessess:
(if they have a center dot, and many do these days, that would be significantly smaller yet, like Scott pointed out):

[each ● represents 1 scope in my Table]

0.07moa ●● ➔ 0.073" (1.8mm) @100y
0.08moa ●
0.10moa ●●●●●
0.11moa ●●
0.12moa ●●●●●●●
0.15moa ●●
0.14moa ●●●●●●●●
0.17moa ●●●●●● ➔ 0.178" (4.5mm) @100y


You see thickness ranging from 0.07moa to 0.17moa.
Which covers the space of 0.073" to 0.178" at 100y.

So, the tickest reticle main lines would about cover a squirrel eye at 100y (and really, since it's FFP, at any distance).



There was one outlier in the list , that I didn't include above — it's reticle lines are twice as thick as the tickest in the list:
0.34moa!
The offender was a Sun Optics 6-24x50 FFP.

➠ Maybe your FFP was also one of those out-of-the-ordinary scopes.


I wish you better luck. Don't give up on FFP just yet....

Matthias

JungleShooter said:

I'm sorry you had a bad experience with that particular FFP 6-24x scope.

Looking at the 6-24x (5-25x, 4-24x) scopes in my Scope Specs Tables I see the following main reticle line thicknessess:
(if they have a center dot, and many do these days, that would be significantly smaller yet, like Scott pointed out):

[each ● represents 1 scope in my Table]

0.07moa ●● ➔ 0.073" (1.8mm) @100y
0.08moa ●
0.10moa ●●●●●
0.11moa ●●
0.12moa ●●●●●●●
0.15moa ●●
0.14moa ●●●●●●●●
0.17moa ●●●●●● ➔ 0.178" (4.5mm) @100y


You see thickness ranging from 0.07moa to 0.17moa.
Which covers the space of 0.073" to 0.178" at 100y.

So, the tickest reticle main lines would about cover a squirrel eye at 100y (and really, since it's FFP, at any distance).



There was one outlier in the list , that I didn't include above — it's reticle lines are twice as thick as the tickest in the list:
0.34moa!
The offender was a Sun Optics 6-24x50 FFP.

➠ Maybe your FFP was also one of those out-of-the-ordinary scopes.


I wish you better luck. Don't give up on FFP just yet....

Matthias

Click to expand...

thankyou , maybe i was thinking of a different FP scope ? long time ago , thanks for the correction .

SFP because I hunt small game in the woods. I almost never use more than 6x when hunting. It might be because I'm a two eyes open scope user. It's too hard for me to follow a squirrel with just the scope.
I'd love to try an FFP but my eyes are not the 20/10 vision they were as a younger man. I used to be the guy that read the bottom line of the eye chart from 20 feet away. My previously excellent vision is probably why I used peep sights until my late 20's. I could see for miles once upon a time...