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?
FFP Scopes and all the hype
- Thread starter Spyguy
- Start date
ahhhhh, comes down to the old comparison. My belt is longer than yours.
I have a 5.5x25 Athlon on my Redwolf and Ghost, when upping the magnification, I concentrate of being steady, at 5.5x I'm rock solid, at 25x, I'm all over the place.
Smitty
I have a 5.5x25 Athlon on my Redwolf and Ghost, when upping the magnification, I concentrate of being steady, at 5.5x I'm rock solid, at 25x, I'm all over the place.
Smitty
Upvote 0
I'm strictly SFP scopes. But I understand some of the target guys and long range hunter/ pester folks that like the consistent hold over measurements. To each their own 
Upvote 0
I would agree in that for me any scope with an objective lens of over 50mm I don’t even consider, same for 34mm tubes. As for FFP? I prefer it on my PCPs. I like that the hold overs are the same irregardless of magnification. If I am using the reticle at the lowest magnification. I just use the centerpoint of the reticle. As for the 24x magnification? Have you seen how small a .177, .22 pellet hole is in a target. Shooting prairie dogs or other live critters gives instant, visceral feedback. Shooting at paper targets, not so much. I like my FFPs and have them on 2 of my PCPs…
Upvote 0
I don't understand not wanting consistent holdovers. I only use FFP. It makes for quicker ranging. Taking the time on a hunt to lase and dial on tiny, finicky, twitchy game takes time. Often enough to lose the opportunity. Once you learn your mils and minutes all it takes is a quick measurement and you know your hold.
Can't do that reliably with an SFP unless you're at that ONE mag where 1:1
Can't do that reliably with an SFP unless you're at that ONE mag where 1:1
I have some competition guns with relatively large, heavy, high magnification scopes. They will stay because they perform better and the added weight is acceptable.
I have a few range-only guns that have competition-type scopes on them. They're overkill but it's the glass I had laying around.
My other guns don't use really big scopes yet I find FFP to be a very useful feature. Airguns have especially loopy trajectories so it only makes sense to be able use the reticle holdover effectively at all magnification settings. The reticle only gets as small as the zoom factor of the scope - if you buy a 5-50x (10x zoom factor) then yeah, what works at 50x is going to be really small at 5x. Maybe it's best to stick with a 4x or 5x zoom factor for FFP. Illuminated reticles definitely help with the FFP situation but again you're adding cost/complexity/weight.
So the question is: how do you do holdover when you don't have FFP? Are you a clicker? Do your scopes have perfectly consistent clicks?
I have a few range-only guns that have competition-type scopes on them. They're overkill but it's the glass I had laying around.
My other guns don't use really big scopes yet I find FFP to be a very useful feature. Airguns have especially loopy trajectories so it only makes sense to be able use the reticle holdover effectively at all magnification settings. The reticle only gets as small as the zoom factor of the scope - if you buy a 5-50x (10x zoom factor) then yeah, what works at 50x is going to be really small at 5x. Maybe it's best to stick with a 4x or 5x zoom factor for FFP. Illuminated reticles definitely help with the FFP situation but again you're adding cost/complexity/weight.
So the question is: how do you do holdover when you don't have FFP? Are you a clicker? Do your scopes have perfectly consistent clicks?
Last edited:
Upvote 0
If your shooting a big arc and relying on the dots for holdover I can see where a FFP scope could come in handy. On a long range rifle or an airgun it could be an asset.
I agree with the big tubes and big objectives being mostly hype. Complex reticles, colored lights and an onboard computer. WI-FI Connection. A few guys may actually utilize that stuff. A whole lot of guys buy it to have it.
My favorite setup is a SFP 40mm objective or smaller mounted as low against the barrel as i can get it. Any bigger and i lose cheek weld and need a riser. A 3x9 or 4x12 scope set on 6x is plenty for a shotgun shell or a 1" dot @100. I don't think I've ever shot a pellet at more than 6x. I honestly believe the smaller the target appears in the scope the easier it is to hit.
I have a spotting scope mounted on a tripod. I don't need one mounted to the rifle. I don't use it much because the only shot that matters is the next one. I'll walk out and see my group soon enough. I don't shoot paper much so seeing little holes in paper is not a requirement for my scope.
Complex reticles and lots of graduations can get confusing. Simple mil dots or hash marks do help me make range transitions more precisely. But i shoot off the wrong dot sometimes. So they do make me miss too.
Lots of FFP scopes have Complex graduations and tiny crosshairs at low power. They are impossible to see sometimes. On a white paper with a black dot they work great. Point them up into a pecan tree at a grackle and they become a telescope unless you dial the magnification up.
A simple duplex reticle is easy to master and seems a more intuitive way to to elevate. Especially when hunting with a firearm. I'm always shooting off the crosshair and elevating in inches on the target. That's tough to do with an air rifle trajectory and the graduations DO HELP. But a simple duplex is just as good with a little practice.
The very best air rifle sighting device on the market today is the open sights the gun came with. They are trouble free, cost nothing, and are (almost) as effective as a scope within 100 yards.
I agree with the big tubes and big objectives being mostly hype. Complex reticles, colored lights and an onboard computer. WI-FI Connection. A few guys may actually utilize that stuff. A whole lot of guys buy it to have it.
My favorite setup is a SFP 40mm objective or smaller mounted as low against the barrel as i can get it. Any bigger and i lose cheek weld and need a riser. A 3x9 or 4x12 scope set on 6x is plenty for a shotgun shell or a 1" dot @100. I don't think I've ever shot a pellet at more than 6x. I honestly believe the smaller the target appears in the scope the easier it is to hit.
I have a spotting scope mounted on a tripod. I don't need one mounted to the rifle. I don't use it much because the only shot that matters is the next one. I'll walk out and see my group soon enough. I don't shoot paper much so seeing little holes in paper is not a requirement for my scope.
Complex reticles and lots of graduations can get confusing. Simple mil dots or hash marks do help me make range transitions more precisely. But i shoot off the wrong dot sometimes. So they do make me miss too.
Lots of FFP scopes have Complex graduations and tiny crosshairs at low power. They are impossible to see sometimes. On a white paper with a black dot they work great. Point them up into a pecan tree at a grackle and they become a telescope unless you dial the magnification up.
A simple duplex reticle is easy to master and seems a more intuitive way to to elevate. Especially when hunting with a firearm. I'm always shooting off the crosshair and elevating in inches on the target. That's tough to do with an air rifle trajectory and the graduations DO HELP. But a simple duplex is just as good with a little practice.
The very best air rifle sighting device on the market today is the open sights the gun came with. They are trouble free, cost nothing, and are (almost) as effective as a scope within 100 yards.
Upvote 0
Funny, I don’t see a lot of “hype” one way or the other. It‘s all a matter of preference. Close up pesting, sfp and low magnification. Long distance targets, higher mag and sfp. Being an expert in human vision has nothing to do with it. I’m 71yrs old, wear trifocals, and left eye dominant. I shoot pistols extremely well right handed with both eyes open. I guess that makes me an expert in MY human vision.
Thr clicks aren't consistent unless they're at that one mag. Usually highest magnification.
I'll keep my "hyped" 3-12x40 4-16x44 and 6-24x44 FFPs.
Upvote 0
Airguns by their nature have loopy trajectories when compared to firearms. So many have found through field use that FFP scopes help immensely in their efforts. What you honestly believe about smaller magnifications making it easier to hit a target? Is just that a belief…
Within reason having higher magnification capabilites within a scope is not a negative. You don’t have to use the scope at its highest or lowest magnification. Aiming up into a tree with an FFP? Simply turn on the daylight bright illumination and have at it. Simply non issues if you purchase practicallly and wisely. i have killed many critters with a duplex reticle and many, many more with ‘complex’ type of reticles with hash marks and Christmas Trees. Will never go back to a duplex reticle, they work but not for me… Simply not enough reference points. Open sights!!??
are only as good as the shooters’ vision, younger eyes, maybe, over 60 years old, Ahem! Optometrist? Last edited:
Upvote 0
There is some truth with regards to using lower magnifications to achieve better accuracy. I find all to often that most shooters crank their scopes up to maximum magnification and suffer poi inconsistency because of parallax error. I always tell them to only use the minimum magnification they need to make the shot and sure enough their groups tighten up. What I usually do is crank the magnification to full once I have a target acquire, then use this high magnification to help focus the objective. At this point drop the magnification to the lowest comfortable level and take the shot. The high mag will allow you to dial out the majority of the parallax quickly, the low mag will mitigate any residual error from the adjustment. Try it, you will be surprised.
Upvote 0
The higher the magnification, the more focal options you have, the easier to see POI, especially at farther distance (.177). For some with less than perfect vision, it's a must have. As previously stated, FFP reticles allow for quick target sizing at different ranges. Like anything else, it's a tool, and the more you shoot, the more you know what you need, and what suits you best.
Airguns by their nature have loopy trajectories when compared to firearms. So many have found through field use that FFP scopes help immensely in their efforts. What you honestly believe about smaller magnifications making it easier to hit a target? Is just that a belief…
It does not matter how "loopy" the trajectory. What matters is the amount of drop. Any firearm has a "loopy" trajectory at 500 yards. A springer has a "loopy" trajectory at 75. If you have to use holdover dots and want to fiddle with magnification the FFP is dandy for that because your graduations stay relative to the target.
No one is "hunting" with a FFP scope. No one uses illumination. That is airgun and target stuff. A hunter generally ranges his target (if there is time) and holds over in inches below the crosshair. Very few use the dots or click elevation or calculate anything at all. It's inches of drop at a given range, and you shoot off the crosshair. Unless you are shooting extreme ranges at stationary targets, nobody fiddles with their scope, clicks elevation, turns on lights or such stuff. If it does not work when you raise the gun up its simply not suitable for hunting in my opinion.
I'm not talking about squirrels, birds and rats with an air rifle. Guys use all sorts of crazy stuff on their rifles to do that. Have at it. That's not "hunting" to me. It's just shooting a meat target.
Open sights are just dandy out to 100 yards. YOU may not be able to see well enough to use them effectively and I understand that. But a guy with average vision can hit just as well with open sights as a scope at airgun ranges. Yes if you are competing or Shooting for tiny patterns a scope is better. But for MOST shooters in MOST Shooting situations open sights work great. They take some practice and that is the issue for MOST guys. They can't stand the learning curve and don't know the pellet curve. So they use an incremented crosshair and optics, clicking elevation, ranging calculations etc. to get elevation. With open sights range is a natural reflex. You don't do a darn thing except stand and shoot.
A tiny target is always easier to aim at. Aim small miss small. It is for me and it is for everyone I know who has mastered the rifle. I realize it seems counterintuitive. I realize the urge to crank the scope up to see a larger target. I can assure you it works but I can not convince you. It's something a guy just has to sort out with practice.
These are simply my observations after years of shooting. You may have other ideas that conflict with mine and that is dandy as well. This is simply my two cents and I'm only charging a nickle for it.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
A quality glass scope with a smaller tube and objective is better than a junker with a giant tube and objective. But we do what our budget allows. The only FFP scopes left on my airguns from my ride on that bandwagon are on guns that don’t go to the woods. And I still dial for my yardage with them if the shot is far.
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. Because FFP is crippling in the woods at distances where Airguns shine. At least with my eyes and 8 out of the 9 FFP scopes I’ve owned.
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. Because FFP is crippling in the woods at distances where Airguns shine. At least with my eyes and 8 out of the 9 FFP scopes I’ve owned.
Upvote 0
This is objectively false. I do both. ONLY. "loopy" means it's a large arc in a short distance.
For hunting I use 3-12x 4 and 4-16x44* FFPs IRs with VHR moa reticles.
Not only is my scale constant at every mag, I can range estimate in a time squeeze with the parallax adjustment knob. I know I'm in the right neighborhood when the image is sharp and no reticle migration. I use the IR often when I have game in dark woods against shaded parts of trees or when they're up against darker barked trees. I have never felt FFP is crippling. In fact I find them advantageous. SFPs I find crippling because you must be cognizant of which magnification you're on and how much your scale has changed.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
It seems we have a few airgun hunters who don’t realize there are other kinds of airgunning and that those needs are different. It’s not a fad. Hunting scopes aren’t great for all disciplines and so having new features and options become available in recent years, it’s getting a lot of time from Marketing and product development teams.
It's simple, pick a flavor that works for you.
Absolutely simple.
One is no better than the other and trying to defend ones decision, makes no sense. Both SFP and FFP work for your use, like and that's all that matters.
Let's make ALL cars red....or blue, doesn't work.
mike
One is no better than the other and trying to defend ones decision, makes no sense. Both SFP and FFP work for your use, like and that's all that matters.
Let's make ALL cars red....or blue, doesn't work.
mike