FFP Scopes and all the hype

L.Leon said:

Use what you like, this subject has been overblown by those who insist that SFP is somehow better, in practical, tactical shooting scenarios? Not so for many shooters. My personal preference is FFPs with IRs, if I am using the scope at its lowest magnification the centerpoint of the crosshair is more than enough for me. @steve123, already stated the advantages of using an FFP at lower magnification to gain an increased FOV, which he proved through competition to be an advantage. Why? Because the holdovers, and more importantly the hold offs are the same and do provide an advantage…


You are throwing a lot of apples…and doing a lot of miscommunicating. Why not simply enjoy you SFP scopes with your SWAG for hold offs and hold overs and call it a day. Others have found a different way that they like and use effectively…

‘Shoot ‘somewhere’? along the horizontal crosshair…?!!! Lots of “I should have saids” on your part… My personal experiences with FFPs and SFP scopes comes from thousands of pellets downrange, I prefer FFPs and don’t really care what others might prefer atop their guns.

Click to expand...

No one on this thread has insisted SFP is better. It's obviously a personal choice and I think everyone is in complete agreement with that. Some prefer it and some don't. Whatever butters your noodles.

If the phone would quit ringing I would quit answering it....

Vetmx said:

It’s great we have the choice. I just don’t like how lopsided it’s starting to become when I see scopes I’d like to buy but they only come in FFP.

Click to expand...

I wasn't going to comment on this topic, not this time.

Well, Frank, your comment made me look up my Scope Specs Tables.

And you are unfortunately right that there are now more FFP than SFP scopes — at least among scopes that have:
▪10y side parallax
▪exposed turrets
▪a holdoff reticle
▪and cost between $200 and $500 with a few for $1000+


Of the 200+ scopes I surveyed, about 40% are SFP and 60% are FFP.

However, between the magnification ranges there are large differences:
In lower magnification ranges (3-12x / 3-9x) there are twice as many SFP.

In the higher ranges (6-24x) it's the other way around.

In the middle magnification range (4-16x / 3-18x / 4-20x) it's 40% SFP, 60% FFP.

Matthias

I agree with the "to each his own" logic but doesn't it defeat the versatility of a 6-24 if the maker specs a thin reticle in a FFP? I understand about illumination and even used it (in an Athlon SFP) to take my first squirrel of squirrel season. For me illumination is not enough to let me see the reticle clearly in my EPL-4 6-24 when it's at 6X. The scope is really a 8-32 scope for me. My diopters are all carefully adjusted. I used my EPL-4 to shoot my one 200 on the 30 yard challenge this year. Hard if not impossible to hit a 1/8th inch 10 ring consistently with a mis adjusted scope (or a bad scope). I think FFP is OK but I think they should at least be offered with a reticle visible at minimum power.

Matthias!

You never cease to amaze, excellent information that is easy to understand and see with your sheet. All of that work that you have done in the past seems to become relevant time after time.
Well done buddy!

mike

JimD said:

I also don't understand messing with magnification hunting. I miss judged a squirrels position on a limb this week by not turning up the magnification but usually taking the time to change it would cost me the shot. I almost always use 6X. More and I'm too slow to acquire the shot. Lower and I worry about placement. But regardless of what magnification you like if you don't mess with it you should know the value of your reticle marks. I find SFP scopes with a reticle I can see a lot more useful than a FFP scope with an invisible reticle at the magnification I want to use.

Click to expand...

If I were tree squirrel hunting, having the typical PBR shots 15-20 yards up in a tree, I could be plenty satisfied with a modern SFP at whatever magnification I felt provided the best combination of FOV and magnification. I think most here would too. You don't have to hold off or over. Just aim and shoot.

It's not until you get farther that more advanced reticles and features start to make a difference.

Most FFP scopes, especially higher magnification ones, have "thin reticles', and these are mostly meant for mid to high magnification. It's a trade off for having correct holds where the scope will be used most often. Nope these are not great on low magnification.

Now lets take LPVO FFP scopes in 1-?x24, which have thicker reticles designed to be useful even at 1x. Now you've got a FFP that is more versatile than many SFP scopes but can be used up close. Most people don't use 1x, I don't that's for sure, mine is on my AR for QCB, God forbid I should need it. What I don't like about many of these is they don't have a side focus and the IQ gets more wonky up close as the image increases. But at 6x these have retained much of the IQ. Thusly I sold all but one.

Take that a step further and now consider the aforementioned Helos G2 2-12. It also has a thick reticle which you can see at 2x and pretty much every other attribute one could want for a wide array of shooting scenarios.

So no I'm not going to use my FFP 5-25's for tree squirrel hunting for a few reasons, no plans for say using a 3-9 SFP with duplex because I've been there before, nor a FFP LPVO although it's getting closer to what I want(well maybe would use my March shorty DFP with side focus), instead I'd much rather use that 2-12 because it'll excel in any situtation I would find myself in. If I see a squirrel 120 yards away, no problem, if I want to head shoot one at 10Y, no problem, one in a dark shaded area then turn on illume, no problem.

Edit - Athlon Helos G2 2-12x42 DMR = Versatility........, holdover or holdoff, dial elevation or windage, combos of these, short range, long range, ELR, speed shooting on steel, paper shooting, plinking, hunting. Almost a do all scope, at least if there ever was one.

Vetmx said:

I see there is some serious back and forth going on here and I’m one of the dummies that returned to SFP so I better clarify. Squirrel hunting in the woods is a very important part of my airgunning. I am locked on 6X for all shots out to 75 yards. I will bump it up for a long bomb once in a while. I have time to dial. Plain and simple. I’m not being charged by a lion or rhino. It’s a squirrel. But I simply have to see my reticle at all magnifications from dawn to dusk. I have illuminated reticle scopes and I don’t illuminate. I don’t like it.

I still have and use two FFP scopes. The one that I absolutely won’t part with has a reticle that gets giant on 24x so I never go there. But it’s fine at 20x and usable on 7x. But I still am not taking full advantage of all the tiny aiming points in low light or critter on the move situations. I just know how to hold almost instinctively. Now if I’m going to compete where I can’t dial and will be using a mag that I can quickly and clearly see everything going on with my reticle, FFP all the way.

Click to expand...

I understand! I'm just pointing to some reasons pro and con for many varied shooting scenarios between FFP and SFP as far as I've encountered.

Bedrock Bob said:

Maybe it's just my impressions of FFP. I've never shot one. I've looked through a few and browsed them on the internet.

Click to expand...

So…. You wrote 10 posts containing over 50 paragraphs… on a subject that you have zero actual experience with…..

This… is why Internet forums are a dangerous place to seek actual information.

Coinwa said:

So…. You wrote 10 posts containing over 50 paragraphs… on a subject that you have zero actual experience with…..

This… is why Internet forums are a dangerous place to seek actual information.

Click to expand...

If you disagree with something I've posted I'm happy to discuss it like an adult. So far you've done nothing but troll and offer conflict.

If you don't like my posts don't read them. Don't count them. Don't count the paragraphs. Stop obsessing over them. They really shouldnt bother you that much.

I’ve offered actual real world experiences gained over decades of actual use of both FFP and SFP scopes.

I’ve offered actual insight into why both systems may be preferable based on actual field use on both Airguns and PBs.

I’ve offered actual examples of how use of FFPs can be of tremendous value based on actual use on critters from pest birds to elks.

You’ve offered opinion based on speculation, internet searches, and looking through one once.

You can BS the fans, but you can’t BS the players.

Coinwa said:

I’ve offered actual real world experiences gained over decades of actual use of both FFP and SFP scopes.

I’ve offered actual insight into why both systems may be preferable based on actual field use on both Airguns and PBs.

I’ve offered actual examples of how use of FFPs can be of tremendous value based on actual use on critters from pest birds to elks.

You’ve offered opinion based on speculation, internet searches, and looking through one once.

You can BS the fans, but you can’t BS the players.

Click to expand...

So you are saying you don't value my input on this thread?

Your opinion seems to be that I simply don't have the experience with FFP scopes as you do and therefore my comments are childlike and worthless by comparison. They are simply the ramblings of an internet dummy and should be disregarded.

That is understood and noted.

Now please piss off.

You don’t just have “less” experience…. You have exactly ZERO experience with FFP scopes.

So yes, your comments are worthless and should be completely disregarded.

Spyguy said:

I am amazed at how many shooters of airguns are going for first focal plane scopes. The reticle gets very small on low magnification and I am guessing most will use the higher magnification rather than look at a small reticle. This may make sense if you are shooting a powder burning rifle at extreme distances but an air rifle at 100 yards or less? Also find it interesting that many want big fat 34mm tube scopes. Large tube diameter indeed gives more cross hair adjustment but do air gunners need that many clicks of adjustment? Then how about magnification? Does it make much sense to have 24x magnification under 100 yards? I shoot prairie dogs at 300 plus yards at about 16x BTW. Lastly, so many seem to want a 50mm or even 56mm objective lens. True you gather more light but from a practical point it matters very little. Also true you get a wider field of view but the best way to get that is to zoom out a little. My take is many shooters are caught up in marketing hype. I am an expert in human vision and practice optometry as well as enjoy shooting. Comments?

Click to expand...

Hype? I did a YouTube search for "ffp vs sfp" and watched the videos in order until I got tired of it. They all explain the difference between FFP and SFP, the pros and cons, the use cases, and the difference in cost. No hype -- just FACTS.

The only hype I'm finding is YOU saying there is hype.

I doubt that you will respond with examples of the mythical hype you speak of.

stovepipe

People _reduce_ magnification?

Spyguy said:

Haven't seen anyone mention how small the the exit pupil can become on high magnification. A general rule of thumb is magnification is objective lens size divided by exit pupil size. So if you have 24x magnification with a 50 mm objective the exit pupil your eye must align with is only about 2 mm.

Stovepipe, loosen up and enjoy the banter. It's all supposed to be fun.

Click to expand...

Is there a difference in exit pupil size between the FFP and the SFP?

Will a smaller exit pupil have more sensitivity to parallax error?

Bedrock Bob said:

Is there a difference in exit pupil size between the FFP and the SFP?

Will a smaller exit pupil have more sensitivity to parallax error?

Click to expand...

These are actually good questions Bob….

Exit pupil has nothing to do with FFP vs SFP. It is simply the objective size decided by the optical zoom setting. Your average 3-9x40 riflescope has an exit pupil between 13mm (3x) and 4.5mm (9x). Once you drop below about 6mm(ish) you’re starting to give your eyes less light and image quality than they need to fully process the image, so you get some very slight degradation/dimming.

Things like phase coatings, glass quality, personal eyesight, etc can mitigate these effects.

Regarding parallax… I’ve not seen exit pupil have any effect on parallax… but eye relief can have an effect.

The debate rages on: )
For my airguns I rarely use anything above !2x and generally 10x, and mostly fixed power, so no ffp needed. I had an Athlon ffp scope and the crosshair was unuseable below 8-10x, so it's not for low power for sure.
On a sfp variable, if i wanna know, i simply crank the power to the reticle power pIt's calibrated for, make my adjustment and crank it back to where i want to shoot.
It's cool to be able to look at a ffp reticle and not need to be at any certain power, but for me, not necessary. I normally use the reticle dots for holdover and judge off a previous shot, so it doesn't matter what scope i'm using.

I'm not feeling the value.

I understand the reticle stays relative to the target on an FFP and that's simply groovy. I'm not sure I see any other advantages for me. Certainly not enough to run out and buy one.

Most guys don't "compete", shoot long range matches, hunt at extreme distances, worry about precision, do tactical drills or get emotional and combative over a scope on a silly pellet gun.

Others do.

Guys love to show off their fancy gear and "specialize" their hobby to the point it's no fun anymore. They want to "compete" with their toys instead of simply enjoying them.

Their equipment must impress others, and their knowledge of their specialty must be superior to those around them. They need this to feel adequate. They put others beneath them if they feel their superiority is challenged. They get abusive and nasty to compensate for their inadequacy.

A miss once in a while really bothers them. It shakes their hyper inflated perception of self-worth. These guys need FFP scopes for reasons other than hitting their target.

That is the very definition of "hype". Many scopes offer as much hype as you can afford. For some guys it's the only thing that keeps their odd chromosome from growing another leg.

Bedrock Bob said:

I'm not feeling the value.

I understand the reticle stays relative to the target on an FFP and that's simply groovy. I'm not sure I see any other advantages for me. Certainly not enough to run out and buy one.

Most guys don't "compete", shoot long range matches, hunt at extreme distances, worry about precision, do tactical drills or get emotional and combative over a scope on a silly pellet gun.

Others do.

Guys love to show off their fancy gear and "specialize" their hobby to the point it's no fun anymore. They want to "compete" with their toys instead of simply enjoying them.

Their equipment must impress others, and their knowledge of their specialty must be superior to those around them. They need this to feel adequate. They put others beneath them if they feel their superiority is challenged. They get abusive and nasty to compensate for their inadequacy.

A miss once in a while really bothers them. It shakes their hyper inflated perception of self-worth. These guys need FFP scopes for reasons other than hitting their target.

That is the very definition of "hype". Many scopes offer as much hype as you can afford. For some guys it's the only thing that keeps their odd chromosome from growing another leg.

Click to expand...

You can't leave it. You contradict yourself with every other post. Sorry you can't see the advantage. "Extreme range". So you only need precision at Long distances. Coinwa is absolutely correct. So stuck in your own old ways, so sure of your superiority. You remind me of a certain groups calling the idea of heliocentrism "heresy" and "witchcraft". Well . The earth does circle the sun.

The old Calvary generals of the very late 19th century dismissing the machine gun and the value of vehicles. "Hype" is sensationalism that isn't warranted. FFP scopes do exactly what they're designed for. Allow you to precisely range, and more precisely aim for the atmospheric and ballistic variables without having to guess. There is a formula that comports with the laws of physics and it works. .
The 2nd to last paragraph is insane projection.

Bedrock Bob said:

I'm not feeling the value.

I understand the reticle stays relative to the target on an FFP and that's simply groovy. I'm not sure I see any other advantages for me. Certainly not enough to run out and buy one.

Most guys don't "compete", shoot long range matches, hunt at extreme distances, worry about precision, do tactical drills or get emotional and combative over a scope on a silly pellet gun.

Others do.

Guys love to show off their fancy gear and "specialize" their hobby to the point it's no fun anymore. They want to "compete" with their toys instead of simply enjoying them.

Their equipment must impress others, and their knowledge of their specialty must be superior to those around them. They need this to feel adequate. They put others beneath them if they feel their superiority is challenged. They get abusive and nasty to compensate for their inadequacy.

A miss once in a while really bothers them. It shakes their hyper inflated perception of self-worth. These guys need FFP scopes for reasons other than hitting their target.

That is the very definition of "hype". Many scopes offer as much hype as you can afford. For some guys it's the only thing that keeps their odd chromosome from growing another leg.

Click to expand...

You have lost the plot now, if you even ever had it

Here are a few thoughts…

You said earlier you have no experience with FFP - it shows.
You said you do not feel the value and will not buy one - great, it is called choice.
The rest of you post I quoted, just

Oh, I own SFP and FFP and use both, more SFP than FFP, but where I use the FFP it works exactly as I want and need it to.

This thread has some informative content, please stop trying to derail it further.