Sfp vs ffp which one do you use?

[Solo1]

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

Ya know a long time ago on my 22 lr i had a 1” tube 4x scope and used the center cross hair ( which was all it had) to head shoot squirrels from 20-75 yds and it hit right on at those distances. You are fighting with reasons that are obtuse. Just buy the ffp and learn to use it to your own advantage.

 

[dgeesaman]

Hey, just want to gather what everyone is using or prefer. If you could, pls pick 1 and explain why in the comments.

I use both but the poll prevents me from voting that.

 

[ctshooter]

I just find ranging with FFP to be so much easier. I also tend to operate in the upper half of most zoom ranges so smaller reticles at wider/lower zoom ranges is not an issue.

 

[Solo1]

I just find ranging with FFP to be so much easier. I also tend to operate in the upper half of most zoom ranges so smaller reticles at wider/lower zoom ranges is not an issue.

And even if on low power the mill marks are so close as to be unimportant unless really going long which you would turn up power! There really is no reason that makes sense for not going ffp

 

[Motorhead]

Unless you are calculating DOPE required for any shot outside or inside your apex zero ? .. it don't matter as you will go by the seat of your pants anyways.

Personally my bulk of shooting is Hunter class Field target, as such I'm always at 16X and size width of reticle is critical choosing a SFP optic for this application.
Using chairgun will set up a dope sheet chart upon knowing generally the "MIL" sub tension is based at 10X and then have program knowing scope is at 16X which gives me correct holds 10-55 yards or more if required.

FFP you might get lucky if the reticle is usable at the most common X power you use ???? If not reticle will be either too small or too large which sucks !!

 

[mubhaur]

SFP all the way

 

[Solo1]

Unless you are calculating DOPE required for any shot outside or inside your apex zero ? .. it don't matter as you will go by the seat of your pants anyways.

Personally my bulk of shooting is Hunter class Field target, as such I'm always at 16X and size width of reticle is critical choosing a SFP optic for this application.
Using chairgun will set up a dope sheet chart upon knowing generally the "MIL" sub tension is based at 10X and then have program knowing scope is at 16X which gives me correct holds 10-55 yards or more if required.

FFP you might get lucky if the reticle is usable at the most common X power you use ???? If not reticle will be either too small or too large which sucks !!

I use ffp for ft no problem. All my guns wear ffp and my eyes are almost 70! If you cant see the reticle you have the wrong scope or the wrong reticle.

 

[Vetmx]

I buy variable power scopes for a reason. If I have a 4-20 scope, I use 4 and 20 power. I have to be able to clearly see my reticle at all magnifications so I’m a SFP guy. I sold off most of my FFP scopes from when I bought a ticket on that bandwagon. The FFP scopes I have left are on guns that are used in situations where I never stray far from maximum magnification. But even then, I still find it nicer to just put yardage numbers on the elevation turret on my SPF scopes and dial with a reticle that always looks the same.

 

[Motorhead]

I use ffp for ft no problem. All my guns wear ffp and my eyes are almost 70! If you cant see the reticle you have the wrong scope or the wrong reticle.

As stated a size of reticle issue. A FFP with 16x top end will have a broom stick for cross hairs as 16X, as the upper X range goes higher, when at 16X the reticle becomes smaller .... SO, many may use a 6-24 or there about to adjust the 16X reticle size if shooting HFT

No argument happening just read the last line please. FFP you might get lucky if the reticle is usable at the most common X power you use ???? If not reticle will be either too small or too large ?

 

[DeanB]

Prefer 2nd focal plane for hunting and even paper punching. As has been said FFP reticles are to dang thin unless in perfect light and you have near perfect vision which I havent had for a long time.

 

[Basher]

I buy variable power scopes for a reason. If I have a 4-20 scope, I use 4 and 20 power.

Me too, and that’s exactly why I want FFP, so I can use the reticle at every possible magnification setting lol.

But views like yours and views like mine perfectly illustrate why this topic is always so fun when it pops up: there’s no wrong answer! If you can run an SFP scope to your satisfaction, more power to you! If you want an FFP, there’s lots to choose from now, knock yourself out! All that matters is what makes you happy and what you enjoy using! But it is fun to hear of the different reasons some folks have for their choices, it’s opened my eyes a few times on various issues. Variety is the spice of life!

 

[Vetmx]

Me too, and that’s exactly why I want FFP, so I can use the reticle at every possible magnification setting lol.

Well good luck. I hope you have a bionic eye. I even tried 3-12 FFP scopes hoping that base mag being closer to max mag would help the reticle be more visible/usable at base magnification. Didn’t happen.

 

[Basher]

Well good luck. I hope you have a bionic eye. I even tried 3-12 FFP scopes hoping that base mag being closer to max mag would help the reticle be more visible/usable at base magnification. Didn’t happen.

So with most FFP optics, there’s a range where the subtensions become unusable, and you just have to be OK with that. “Dual” focal plane optics are a thing in the “tactical” space so guys can have the speed of an SFP optic at low power, but the versatility and precision of an FFP at higher mags. How well that concept works depends on the specific design and on the individual using the optic.

But for me, I kind of just accept that subtensions are useless below about 5x, and are slow to use due to their small size below about 8x. At those lower magnifications, it’s really just about using the thicker outer posts as a form of duplex to hit targets up close. Then from ~8x or so on up, subtensions become a useful size. Once you adapt to that way of using them, they become much more useful.

But yeah, the thin, inner section is mostly ignored and you just bracket the target with the thicker outer posts. If the reticle is illuminated, you can usually see it well enough (if it’s a quality optic with daylight bright illumination) to use the whole reticle like a duplex.

Like anything, both SFP and FFP are compromises and you have to adapt, or choose which best fits your use case. At least that’s my philosophy in their use, anyway.

 

[delooper]

I selected FFP but technically I use DFP, Dual Focal Plane reticle. My only zoomable scope is a March. Everything else is fixed magnification.

 

[Frozenspyder]

I prefer sfp scopes. I tried a couple ffp scopes but either the reticle is too fine at the lower magnifications or way too thick at the higher ones. Sometimes both. The thick reticle bothers me more. I just have an issue with a reticle that covers so much of my target.

 

[Basher]

I prefer sfp scopes. I tried a couple ffp scopes but either the reticle is too fine at the lower magnifications or way too thick at the higher ones. Sometimes both. The thick reticle bothers me more. I just have an issue with a reticle that covers so much of my target.

This is a common misconception, actually. An FFP reticle is covering the same amount of your target at both its lowest and its highest magnification. Since the reticle changes size at the same rate as the target, the size relation is constant. It only appears to cover more of the target.

The opposite is true of SFP reticles. At lower magnification, you’re covering more of your target than you are at higher magnifications. Since the reticle never changes size, as you zoom out the target gets smaller while the reticle does not.

So in reality, an FFP reticle is actually better from a “target coverage” standpoint.

 

[rwsmike]

I use both but if you keep sfp at 10 power than your all set either way

 

[JungleShooter]

There have been several posts that expressed they didn't like how much the reticle was covering their target.


Just in case, let me ask:
Do you also shoot some of your guns with open sights?
Because... — iron sights easily cover up 10 or 20 times more of your target than an FFP reticle....
(Cf. the link below for the math for it.*)


Cheers,

Matthias


Link:

https://www.shootersforum.com/threads/sight-coverage-on-a-target.57380/

 

[Sawney Bean]

I like both and find that either one is easy to work with.

Second focal plane gives you a nice clear visible reticle throughout the entire range of magnification but requires some simple math in order to calculate your holdover at different magnification and to work up a dope sheet. When you do make your dope sheet, (if you rely on ballistic software to get your holdover), you'll get those numbers in milliradians or MOA of holdover and your scope generally gives you those at 10X. So if you're using a 4-16X scope you'll want to convert them to either 4X or 16X. It's easily done and only takes a few seconds, but it's a bit of a pain in the butt. Then once you've got your holdover calculated, if you change magnification you'll have to calculate your holdover. So if you have to hold over 2 dots at 16X you'll hold over 1 dot at 8X and 1/2 dot at 4X and you just don't use the rest of the magnification settings. In practice I find it's very easy to do.

First focal plane makes all your sighting in and hold over super simple. There are no mathmatical corrections to make as you change power and sighting in is super simple. Just see how many dots off you are and from the bullseye and adjust the turrets accordingly. The problem with FFP is that in the lower range of your magnification it's very unlikely that you'll be able to see your entire reticle. What started out at 25X looking like a Christmas tree will look a lot more like an old school duplex reticle at 5X, so instead of having to use math to calculate your holdover in dots like on a SFP you'll be using old fashioned Kentucky windage. That's not a major issue to me either though. If I have the scope turned down to its lowest power it's usually because I'm expecting to be making fast shots at close range and Kentucky windage is OK for that.

 

[Airarmer]

For hunting/pesting, I much prefer a SFP scope as it much easier to use the full reticle within the woods. I have found anything less than 6X on a FFP is just to hard to make out reticle marks at dawn/dusk. Knowing your holdover at 10X or max zoom on your SFP will make it simple as well.