Hey, just want to gather what everyone is using or prefer. If you could, pls pick 1 and explain why in the comments.
Sfp vs ffp which one do you use?
- Thread starter Shinyknight
- Start date
I find the reticules on FFP to be too fine on lower magnification for hunting in the woods, especially early morning.
Upvote 0
I’m an FFP guy, with the only real exception being a straight duplex reticle or very simple BDC reticle. After years of using FFP reticles on my powder burners, I find that I struggle using an SFP reticle with subtensions because I end up using those subtensions at the wrong magnification lol. That, and for some weird reason it bugs me having a reticle that doesn’t maintain the same size in relation to the target.
There are FFP optics that work well enough for quick handling in woods, especially if they’re illuminated. The issue is you pay for those optics more so than you would an SFP optic.
There are FFP optics that work well enough for quick handling in woods, especially if they’re illuminated. The issue is you pay for those optics more so than you would an SFP optic.
Upvote 0
With FFP, the ranging reticle marks equals the click value and it never changes. Quick and easy.
Upvote 0
On a variable power scope ffp just makes sense to me. No matter the power my yardage aim points remains the same my gun shoots from 20-45 yds off ctr cross hair, 45 is 1 down 50 -2 55-3 and so forth once memorized i can turn power wherever and use same holdover
Upvote 0
Well, I'm going back and forth between wanting FFP — and only needing SFP.... 
My heart wants FFP, my mind reasons SFP.
It goes like this:
I DON'T NEED FFP — IF:
If I only(!) do target shooting at known distances.
If I never(!) shoot with holdoffs, instead I always dial my turrets.
If I never(!) change the magnification of my variable magnification scope.
If I shoot with holdoffs, but I holdoff not in moas or mils using the reticle, but I hold off in inches at the target. (E.g., I hold 1/2 an inch above the squirrel's head to correct for pellet drop, instead of 3/4moa on the reticle.)
If I just prefer SFP over FFP, and that's that, period.
I LIKE FFP — IF:
If I'm hunting or shooting at changing ranges using holdoffs — because I only need ONE range card that applies to any magnification I happen to chose.
And because I only need to memorize ONE set of holdoffs that applie to any magnification I use.
These data (memorized, or on a range card) apply to BOTH shooting with holdoffs and shooting with turret dialing.
➔ SO SIMPLE!
If I shoot.... and then see how far I'm off target.... and measure that with the reticle — I then can dial the moas/mils that I'm off target and dial that correction directly on my turrets, no math needed.
If I want to use the reticle for range finding — because I can use the hash marks at any mangi., no math needed.
If the reticle thickness is really important to me — the FFP allows me to adjust the magnification and with that I can adjust the thickness of the reticle to my liking. With SPF I'm stuck with whatever the manufacturer deemed best.
REASON No. 1 AGAINST FFP:
The thickness of the crosshairs becomes thinner when the scope is at a lower magnification — and can become so thin that they become hard to see, and much more so when the background is dark or very busy.
➠ TO OFFSET this disadvantage:
▪About half of the FFP reticles have 3 or 4 thick outside posts. When the magni is dialed down these posts move closer to the center. These posts guide the eyes with ease toward were the crosshairs meet, even if the background is busy.
▪Even during the day I can use the reticle ilumination to make the crosshairs better visible.
REASON No. 2 AGAINST FFP:
The size and distance between the hash marks becomes smaller when the scope is at a lower magnification — and usually becomes so small at the bottom end of the magnification as not to be usable for holdoffs, only for aiming with the crosshairs.
Note: This effect is stronger the larger the magnification ratio is. A 3x ratio seems pretty OK, but a 6x ratio not so much! (and of course, it depends a bit on the quality/age of your eyes, too). E.g.:
▪3x ratio as in 3-9x | 4-12x | 5-15x | 6-18x
▪4x ratio as in 3-12x | 4-16x | 5-20x | 6-24x | 8-32x
▪5x ratio as in 3-15x | 4-20x | 5-25x
▪6x ratio as in 3-18x | 4-24x | 5-30x
➠ TO OFFSET this disadvantage:
● Usually I only use a low magni. for close range shots — when for many gun/pellet combinations the holdoffs are very small, and when I'm usually in my point blank range, which means I don't need to shoot with holdoff: I just use the main crosshairs (that are still easily visible).
(Sure, really low powered guns, or very heavy projectiles, or very high scope heights still will require large holdoffs even at shorter ranges.)
● Even during the day I can use the reticle ilumination to make the reticle hash lines better visible; most scopes have IR, I might as well use it.
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde have gotten into a big fight.... — I don't know who to listen to....
Matthias
My heart wants FFP, my mind reasons SFP.
It goes like this:
I DON'T NEED FFP — IF: If I only(!) do target shooting at known distances. If I never(!) shoot with holdoffs, instead I always dial my turrets. If I never(!) change the magnification of my variable magnification scope. If I shoot with holdoffs, but I holdoff not in moas or mils using the reticle, but I hold off in inches at the target. (E.g., I hold 1/2 an inch above the squirrel's head to correct for pellet drop, instead of 3/4moa on the reticle.) If I just prefer SFP over FFP, and that's that, period. I LIKE FFP — IF: If I'm hunting or shooting at changing ranges using holdoffs — because I only need ONE range card that applies to any magnification I happen to chose. And because I only need to memorize ONE set of holdoffs that applie to any magnification I use.
These data (memorized, or on a range card) apply to BOTH shooting with holdoffs and shooting with turret dialing.
➔ SO SIMPLE!
If I shoot.... and then see how far I'm off target.... and measure that with the reticle — I then can dial the moas/mils that I'm off target and dial that correction directly on my turrets, no math needed. If I want to use the reticle for range finding — because I can use the hash marks at any mangi., no math needed. If the reticle thickness is really important to me — the FFP allows me to adjust the magnification and with that I can adjust the thickness of the reticle to my liking. With SPF I'm stuck with whatever the manufacturer deemed best. REASON No. 1 AGAINST FFP: The thickness of the crosshairs becomes thinner when the scope is at a lower magnification — and can become so thin that they become hard to see, and much more so when the background is dark or very busy.
➠ TO OFFSET this disadvantage:▪About half of the FFP reticles have 3 or 4 thick outside posts. When the magni is dialed down these posts move closer to the center. These posts guide the eyes with ease toward were the crosshairs meet, even if the background is busy.
▪Even during the day I can use the reticle ilumination to make the crosshairs better visible.
REASON No. 2 AGAINST FFP: The size and distance between the hash marks becomes smaller when the scope is at a lower magnification — and usually becomes so small at the bottom end of the magnification as not to be usable for holdoffs, only for aiming with the crosshairs.
Note: This effect is stronger the larger the magnification ratio is. A 3x ratio seems pretty OK, but a 6x ratio not so much! (and of course, it depends a bit on the quality/age of your eyes, too). E.g.:▪3x ratio as in 3-9x | 4-12x | 5-15x | 6-18x
▪4x ratio as in 3-12x | 4-16x | 5-20x | 6-24x | 8-32x
▪5x ratio as in 3-15x | 4-20x | 5-25x
▪6x ratio as in 3-18x | 4-24x | 5-30x
➠ TO OFFSET this disadvantage:● Usually I only use a low magni. for close range shots — when for many gun/pellet combinations the holdoffs are very small, and when I'm usually in my point blank range, which means I don't need to shoot with holdoff: I just use the main crosshairs (that are still easily visible).
(Sure, really low powered guns, or very heavy projectiles, or very high scope heights still will require large holdoffs even at shorter ranges.)
● Even during the day I can use the reticle ilumination to make the reticle hash lines better visible; most scopes have IR, I might as well use it.
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde have gotten into a big fight.... — I don't know who to listen to....
Matthias
Upvote 0
For me. It's always been sfp. Never used ffp. Reason is at low zoom the cross hair is too fine and at max zoom its too thick. With sfp it's just right and never change. I mostly keep it at 10x zoom so holdover is the same.
Upvote 0
Sounds to me that you need a gun for Dr. Jekyll and another for Mr. Hyde.Well, I'm going back and forth between wanting FFP — and only needing SFP....
My heart wants FFP, my mind reasons SFP.
It goes like this:
And because I only need to memorize ONE set of holdoffs that applie to any magnification I use.
These data (memorized, or on a range card) apply to BOTH shooting with holdoffs and shooting with turret dialing.
➔ SO SIMPLE!
The thickness of the crosshairs becomes thinner when the scope is at a lower magnification — and can become so thin that they become hard to see, and much more so when the background is dark or very busy.
▪About half of the FFP reticles have 3 or 4 thick outside posts. When the magni is dialed down these posts move closer to the center. These posts guide the eyes with ease toward were the crosshairs meet, even if the background is busy.
▪Even during the day I can use the reticle ilumination to make the crosshairs better visible.
The size and distance between the hash marks becomes smaller when the scope is at a lower magnification — and usually becomes so small at the bottom end of the magnification as not to be usable for holdoffs, only for aiming with the crosshairs.
▪3x ratio as in 3-9x | 4-12x | 5-15x | 6-18x
▪4x ratio as in 3-12x | 4-16x | 5-20x | 6-24x | 8-32x
▪5x ratio as in 3-15x | 4-20x | 5-25x
▪6x ratio as in 3-18x | 4-24x | 5-30x
● Usually I only use a low magni. for close range shots — when for many gun/pellet combinations the holdoffs are very small, and when I'm usually in my point blank range, which means I don't need to shoot with holdoff: I just use the main crosshairs (that are still easily visible).
(Sure, really low powered guns, or very heavy projectiles, or very high scope heights still will require large holdoffs even at shorter ranges.)
● Even during the day I can use the reticle ilumination to make the reticle hash lines better visible; most scopes have IR, I might as well use it.
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde have gotten into a big fight.... — I don't know who to listen to....
Matthias
And then before you know it Mr. Night Vision LRF and Ms. Thermal will want guns all to themselves as well
Enjoy the ride, Matthias!
Upvote 0
While a lot can be done with a one optic rig. Multiple rigs with optics specific to a range of tasks? Simply sweet. But to get back on track… FFP for me for the consistency of the holdovers at whatever magnification I choose to use.
Upvote 0
I have several of both and find them both to be effective, but if I could only have one it would be FFP - just simple and quick with no math required.
Upvote 0
I like SFP because of the thicker reticles when hunting in the woods. And if I zero my rifle at 30yds, and know I have to use the second reticle line down at 50 etc, then I don't have to worry about figuring out which line to use no matter what the magnification. COYOTE! 50YDS! 2ND LINE! DEAD DOG!? I dunno, it may sound too simple, but for me it works.
Upvote 0
I agree that on FFP scopes the reticle is hard to see when on low powers but if you need to turn the power down because you're close to your target you can probably hold dead on. Doesn't work in low light or in the woods. I never shoot on less than 12X anyway. I have both and enjoy both.
Upvote 0
I use both, FFP is my favorite for bench longer-distance and SFP is better for walk and stalk type hunting pests.
Upvote 0
I AM!
And how in the world do you know that I have been looking at NV LRF and Thermal.....
Matthias
Upvote 0
Just my sick-th sense that although we may be miles apart, we are in the same boatI AM!
And how in the world do you know that I have been looking at NV LRF and Thermal.....
Matthias
Upvote 0
I have both. Love ffp for shooting starlings because I can lower power and reticle size as my sfp’s reticle is big on a starling. Sfp’s are great for plinking or squirrel hunting in the woods with all the shadows.
Upvote 0
