FFP or SFP Thinking about a change

[markT]

Every scope I own is SFP... I only shoot usually a known distance ( 35 yds) and will do a hold over for long distances. I only shoot invasive birds doing crop damage. Seems as though so many guys run FFP's on the YT videos I enjoy... I am thinking about trying a FFP but all these years why change?

 

[Struckat]

I picked up my first FFP last year. I seldom shoot past 50 yards and generally leave it in the upper range of the magnification.
When turned down the reticle gets smaller. It’s a non issue for me.
The bottom line for me, being a pretty casual shooter, is I don’t see much difference.

Now I have 2 FFP, both purchased for reasons other than what focal plane they are. I love them both, but not because they are FFP.

The difference is a bigger deal for those that compete.

 

[Rodney Maynot]

I picked up my first FFP last year. I seldom shoot past 50 yards and generally leave it in the upper range of the magnification.
When turned down the reticle gets smaller. It’s a non issue for me.
The bottom line for me, being a pretty casual shooter, is I don’t see much difference.

Now I have 2 FFP, both purchased for reasons other than what focal plane they are. I love them both, but not because they are FFP.

The difference is a bigger deal for those that compete.

I've used second Focal plane scopes for years mostly because I couldn't see spending the money that the first Focal plane scopes. That was because I didn't understand the difference and truth be told I'm not to certain that I understand 100% now. The only thing that I really understand is when you zoom in with a second focal plane scope the point of aim changes and you need to compensate for that. However with a first focal no matter how much you zoom in the point of aim stays the same. I'm actually going to be getting a 5×30×50 Discovery first focal plane soon at a decent value brand new at just over four hundred. It'll be the nicest scope I've ever owned and I will put that on my Umarex Gauntlet Gen SL 30 cal for long range shooting. I actually kinda challenged Shooter 1721 to a long range shooting match between him and I so that's really my biggest reason for even investing into a Discovery first focal plane scope. Shooter 1721 to my knowledge is the record holder of the longest shot taken with the Umarex gauntlet gen 2 - 30 cal at 404 yards and I'm going for 500+ . I keep waiting for good calum weather which seems like it's not going to happen until it's hot at heck outside in my state and county of Virginia.

 

[Rodney Maynot]

I picked up my first FFP last year. I seldom shoot past 50 yards and generally leave it in the upper range of the magnification.
When turned down the reticle gets smaller. It’s a non issue for me.
The bottom line for me, being a pretty casual shooter, is I don’t see much difference.

Now I have 2 FFP, both purchased for reasons other than what focal plane they are. I love them both, but not because they are FFP.

The difference is a bigger deal for those that compete.

Anyway here is this cheap second focal plain UUQ 4×16×44 1 inch tube tactical scope that's on my gauntlet gen 2 SL 30 now. I'm certain that I can make that shot with it. However I'd like a bit more powerful scope and much better quality.

 

[Struckat]

I bought an Athlon Helos 4-12 basically for the reticle. It was on sale so I bit. I love that scope, but the fact that it is FFP is lost on me.

Your description of the difference is correct. But because I seldom go below 8x, it doesn’t matter which. I should just have a fixed 10x.

I also bought the Discovery 2-12-24 FFP. Inexpensive but awesom.

 

[Rodney Maynot]

I bought an Athlon Helos 4-12 basically for the reticle. It was on sale so I bit. I love that scope, but the fact that it is FFP is lost on me.

Your description of the difference is correct. But because I seldom go below 8x, it doesn’t matter which. I should just have a fixed 10x.

I also bought the Discovery 2-12-24 FFP. Inexpensive but awesom.

From everything that I've seen the Discovery line of ffp scopes are worth every cent. The UUQ has kinda a Christmas tree reticle but nothing like the Discovery long range scopes. Truth be told a scope like the UUQ 4×16×44 tactical scope would have cost a close if not a grand back 20+ years ago. Now for such quality it seems you get WAY more for your $ than back then. I can't wait to see what a hour hundred buck scope is like. Heck by today's standards with scopes costing as much as three grand a four hundred buck scopes kinda like a dollar store scope. !

 

[rangur1]

Every scope I own is SFP... I only shoot usually a known distance ( 35 yds) and will do a hold over for long distances. I only shoot invasive birds doing crop damage. Seems as though so many guys run FFP's on the YT videos I enjoy... I am thinking about trying a FFP but all these years why change?

I agree, now I did go the FFP route, but switched back to SFP and stayed there. When pesting I adjust for the average of the distances I'm shooting to minimize holdover/holdunder. Also love not having the reticle shrink so small at low end of magnification range.

 

[ChefSparrowRagazzi]

Personally, I've used both. One of the scopes I use is a very expensive IOR Recon FFP with a 40mm tube.
For an airgun I prefer a Second focal plane scope with a floating dot reticle. A nice reticle. Where only the dot lights up red, and not the entire reticle.
Vector fit that bill perfectly and to my surprise , has excellent glass.

 

[Dairyboy]

Interesting. Lots of SFP love here. I for one am FFP all the way. Not having to worry about my holdovers changing when I switch to different magnification is a game changer for my pesting.

 

[SpindleB]

Depends which gun. Short range shooters I use SFP. Longer range i use, mostly, Spina FFP. Some Fire Wolf and now a CVLife Bearswift 5-25x56.

Not shooting more than 50-60 yards with a pellet gun so the most expensive scope is the CVLife Bearswift at $160 (tax & shipping included).

 

[steve123]

Since I'm more used to using FFP and putting the magnification where I want, so when I use SFP I sometimes forget and put the magnification where I want also, which means if holding over and/or off using the reticle I miss right away, lol, grrr!

So FFP to me is less thinking and reticle values being consistent at all magnifications means more versatility. X distance, Y windage, holdover and holdoff, = easier, vs SFP on one magnification. Only on a few of my FFP scopes with thicker reticles do I use low magnification.

 

[JimD]

The point of aim should never change when you change magnification regardless of whether the reticle is in the first or second focal plane. In a first focal plane the reticle moves when you change power and the value of the tick marks is the same regardless of the magnification. That is good. The bad thing about first focal plane is if the reticle is thin you cannot see it at low magnification. My Arken EPL 4 6-24 is that way. But my Primary Air 4-14 is fine. It has a thicker reticle that remains visible.

The reticle does not move in a second focal plane which makes the scope simpler inside and they are often cheaper. And less subject to damage. The reticle looks the same at all magnifications but that means the tick marks are only right at one magnification. If you know you need 4 mils holdover you use that mark on a FFP. On a SFP you have to know what the marks mean at the magnification you are using. I put sticky labels inside the ocular lens cover of my SFP scopes to tell me holdover by range at a couple magnification. For a FFP, I only need mils or moa by range.

I don't think one is better or worse than the other. But I hate it 6X is unusable on my Arken.

 

[beerthief]

As a kid I used bow and arrows and bb guns (Daisy pump model 25 ) we learned @ what range we had to be to kill . learned to quietly sneak up on a critter . That's how i still hunt , close and deadly . All scopes are tuned sighted in to 30 yards and max magnification , FFP or SFP doesn't mater i have both .
Stan in KY .

 

[Jay308]

FFP is great if the reticle is designed well for the mag range, doesn’t get too small or too big and no math holdovers. The Hawke Sidewinder 4-16 I just bought is a good example.

SFP is great if the reticle is accurate at max or whatever you may shoot with often and then you can turn it down by half and just double the subtensions value. Reticle stays the same size and won’t get in the way. Just check to see what mag the reticle is accurate at before purchasing.

 

[ChefSparrowRagazzi]

I'm thinking that people are using rangefinders for their calculations.
A sfp can do the same thing a ffp can do , only in a different manner.
The zoom ring on a sfp can be used and have multiple zero marks at multiple ranges. The center reticle will remain the same regardless of magnification...............but the other marks on the reticle will not remain the same. You can use the zoom ring to be sighted in at 25 and 50 yards, easily. As well as other ranges.
You cannot do this with a FFP. I've always said that FFP is overrated.
Nobody is using FFP optics on the firing line of a sanctioned ARA rimfire match

 

[BumperMan]

Moją pierwszą poważną lunetą dalekiego zasięgu był VO Minotaur sfp, ale ustawiłem punkt trafienia na 20-krotne powiększenie do 55y i nie zmieniałem powiększenia bez względu na to, z jakiej odległości strzelałem, ale prawie nigdy nie było mniejsze niż 55. Zazwyczaj do 150y. Obliczałem poprawki po prostu łatwiej, bez zmiany powiększenia. Teraz wolę ffp, aby cieszyć się różnymi powiększeniami i poprawkami, które wykonuję równie łatwo. Szczerze powiem, że uwielbiam, gdy luneta robi to za mnie, więc używam również elektronicznych teleskopów z dalmierzem i kalkulatorem w moich innych broniach.

 

[JPSTEZ]

Every scope I own is SFP... I only shoot usually a known distance ( 35 yds) and will do a hold over for long distances. I only shoot invasive birds doing crop damage. Seems as though so many guys run FFP's on the YT videos I enjoy... I am thinking about trying a FFP but all these years why change?

It depends on what you are doing. With the ffp your not running math at different magnifications.

 

[Frozenspyder]

A FFP scope only benefits the guy that uses the reticle markings for holdover. If you're one of those turret dialing guys or just a hillbilly that does the Kentucky windage thing, FFP doesn't give you any real advantage.

 

[steve123]

I'm thinking that people are using rangefinders for their calculations.
A sfp can do the same thing a ffp can do , only in a different manner.
The zoom ring on a sfp can be used and have multiple zero marks at multiple ranges. The center reticle will remain the same regardless of magnification...............but the other marks on the reticle will not remain the same. You can use the zoom ring to be sighted in at 25 and 50 yards, easily. As well as other ranges.
You cannot do this with a FFP. I've always said that FFP is overrated.
Nobody is using FFP optics on the firing line of a sanctioned ARA rimfire match

I'm thinking that people are using rangefinders for their calculations.

Along with ballistic calculators.

Nobody is using FFP optics on the firing line of a sanctioned ARA rimfire match

Most of the reason is BR shooters use the rings on the target as hold off points vs using the reticle values for holds. Also SFP and fixed power scopes tend to have fewer lenses so the IQ is a tad better in the price level tiers.

FFP is easier to use in more dynamic shooting scenarios and SFP for less dynamic. That's why FFP is dominant in PRS and NRL where holdovers and holdoffs are used much of the time. Half of this is being able to pick the highest magnification to see the targets well along with having the widest FOV to locate them fast enough and not needing to think about where to aim in vast array of distances and scenarios when you only have 90-120 seconds to engage many targets. Seems these competitors are using 12x to 16x much of the time depending how more dynamic the stage is.

They each have a place.

Since I don't shoot BR much I have one 15-60 SFP target scope that I use for that purpose on occasion as well as in FT. I also have a couple low to mid power variable SFP scopes for hunting or plinking when I might use the lowest magnification but both those scopes are on the highest magnification the majority of the time where the mil values are correct.

I used to have those SFP Leupold varmint scopes, and NF NXS's, and would find the appropriate sightin distance, also the magnifications for holds to work for various distances, and although this works it's takes time to tune everything in perfectly and opens opportunity to make more mental mistakes. But when I'd change to different altitudes the bullet would hit higher or lower depending how much the DA had changed. FFP is just easier.

 

[Scotchmo]

A FFP scope only benefits the guy that uses the reticle markings for holdover. If you're one of those turret dialing guys or just a hillbilly that does the Kentucky windage thing, FFP doesn't give you any real advantage.

With the advent of low cost laser range finders, stadiametric rangefinding is no longer a common requirement. Though, since range finders are not allowed in AAFTA field target, I still use it more than occasionally at matches and when encountering known size paper targets at various distances. FFP had a definite advantage in this case as it is accurate and the same at all magnifications.

We can use a SFP range finding reticle, but it takes more care to do so.