FFP or SFP Thinking about a change

[Struckat]

Yes, been stewing on those for a while. Looks nice and small.

 

[JaceSpace1369]

Your story is mine. I heard the hubub about FFP and decided to try a couple or three.

It's the same but different. The only real advantage to FFP that I see is recovering from a miss. If you can spot your miss the reticle will tell you exactly how much elevation without calculating. That translates directly to clicks. You can only do that on SFP at one magnification. With FFP you can do it at any setting. So correcting for a miss is simple.

I like adjusting my crosshair to the target size and having holdover remain constant. I use the zoom all the time with FFP. I hardly ever use the zoom with SFP (set it and forget it).

I like my FFP scopes and I do see some advantages in certain circumstances. I'm not sure I like them any better for hitting tiny targets under 100 yards. It is cool to have a reticle you can measure with at any magnification. I'm undecided if the extra cost was worth it to me. As I learn how to use the reticle I might feel it was a value.

In low light or against dark backgrounds illumination is nice. The markings on the FFP are fine at low power. You aren't going to follow game in low light without illumination. The same can be said for some SFP scopes but FFP is even worse.

I tried an Arken scope. It was so heavy it was ridiculous. It greatly limited the usefulness of the rifle. I liked it but it just wasn't what I wanted. Then an Athlon which was much better suited to the task. I'm shooting an Element on my rimfire now and it is wonderful. Still they are all a bit heavier than the SFP.

The SFP scopes have always suited me. I just decided to try something new. I'm not sure I've gained much from the FFP except some experience. Hopefully in a few more months I can use them to greater advantage.

Did you by chance get the SH4 or EPL4? I asked because, as of last year it made a newer model for hunter called the LH series and it weigh a whole 10-12oz less coming around the 23-24oz market instead of the 35-38oz mark.

I jave found myself getting into SFP mostly due to the weight savings of it, although I have been making sure to only do it with vector. I love how clear their glass is, whether that's in FFP or SFP. I will say that the first one was a 2-8x32, and although I loved that it was only 15oz with the scope rings, I didn't like only being limited to one zoom and no parallax adjustment. The one I have now, vector 10x44SFP is magnificent! Parallax to 9yds, and up, I can see super clearly out to distance, and it's still very light around 16oz and under 10" long.

But I still prefer the FFP over it. The size of my quarry can range from 6 feet long, to 6 inches long. So there are plenty of time where if I don't zoom in, I may miss an iguana. Specially in the thick bushes or when they try to hide in the trees. They like to play peek a boo and sometimes all they show is their eyebrow and half an eyeball. I gotta zoom in real nice and close to make sure my holds are correct for said shots. So atleats in my particular scenario, FFP is a winner for both long and shorter distances.

 

[JaceSpace1369]

Yes, been stewing on those for a while. Looks nice and small.

It now sits on my U2 compact, but I did have it on my Vulcan 3 .30 and Vulcan 3 .177

 

[markT]

Did you by chance get the SH4 or EPL4? I asked because, as of last year it made a newer model for hunter called the LH series and it weigh a whole 10-12oz less coming around the 23-24oz market instead of the 35-38oz mark.

I jave found myself getting into SFP mostly due to the weight savings of it, although I have been making sure to only do it with vector. I love how clear their glass is, whether that's in FFP or SFP. I will say that the first one was a 2-8x32, and although I loved that it was only 15oz with the scope rings, I didn't like only being limited to one zoom and no parallax adjustment. The one I have now, vector 10x44SFP is magnificent! Parallax to 9yds, and up, I can see super clearly out to distance, and it's still very light around 16oz and under 10" long.

But I still prefer the FFP over it. The size of my quarry can range from 6 feet long, to 6 inches long. So there are plenty of time where if I don't zoom in, I may miss an iguana. Specially in the thick bushes or when they try to hide in the trees. They like to play peek a boo and sometimes all they show is their eyebrow and half an eyeball. I gotta zoom in real nice and close to make sure my holds are correct for said shots. So atleats in my particular scenario, FFP is a winner for both long and shorter distances.

Good write up! My targets are about the size on my thumb nail... Kill all those iguanas..

 

[JaceSpace1369]

Good write up! My targets are about the size on my thumb nail... Kill all those iguanas..

Thank you! I do what I can to remove them all!

 

[Mike_Lenardon]

I wanted to try a ffp scope so I bought a 2-12x24 Discovery. Very nice scope but I liked my other scopes better. All of which are sfp. I'll probably buy another ffp but with a larger objective lens and a different reticle. I would recommend trying a ffp scope out. Next time I'll get it from Amazon or PA that way I can send it back if I don't care for it.

 

[Coinwa]

That’s a good point Mike.

Resolution, and “glass” quality are probably more important in an FFP optic than they are in a SFP.

With FFP, the reticle appears “smaller/thinner” as magnification is decreased. If the optic has mediocre glass/coatings, and is not assembled perfectly, then the reticle can be even harder to discern.

With SFP resolving the reticle is not typically an issue, even if the optic fishbowls like looking through a Coke bottle.

 

[markT]

This just arrived. Waiting for pcp..