Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Now on the FFP/SFP thing......

Can you guys explain
1)when, where and why you would choose one over the other?

Thx guys

SFP for me
I dont like the thick crosshair at high power.

FFP for me.
I don't like to wonder what power my scope is on when I take a longer shot using reticle holdover.
If you are using a standard caliber and are hunting, taking shots within 300 yards or so, the reticle plain doesn't matter.

338 Lapua..so shooting could be extended..scope I'm looking at has target style elevation turret

SFP for me. Like the man said, I don't want the wire getting bigger as I turn up the magnification.

If you will be spinning turrets, either will work. If you may be engaging multiple targets at different distances in quick time, or using the reticle to range a target, FFP wins. I never saw the logic in a holdover/ranging reptile in the SFP.

Thinner reticles of the SFP variety may be better for your application although there are plenty of FFP reticles out there now that are fine enough for precision at distance.

FFP scopes typically cost more if that may be a consideration.

Or holding off for wind, or calling misses, or or or...

I hope you realise the relationship between the reticle and the target doesn't change as the magnification is changed ? ie it doesn't cover more of the target ...

With A FFP reticle, the crosshairs always maintain the exact same relationship size wise with the target. If the reticle subtends 1/4 inch on the target at 1.5x, it will subtend 1/4 inch at 6x.

Obviously if you use a scope for ranging that can have advantages. Where the big advantage is though is in low light shooting. The reticle "grows" with magnification increase, and that helps a lot with being able to find and see the reticle quickly.

I find that with the reticle always having the same relationship size wise to the target makes it more familiar and quicker for me. Most of the scope I have FFP reticles in are 1.5-6 scopes. I have one 2.5-10 scope with a FFP reticle and think it may even be better there.

For long range work on small targets SFP fine reticles are better.

From Leupold's website:

What is the difference between a front focal plane (1st focal plane) reticle and a rear focal plane (2nd focal plane) reticle?

Most riflescopes utilize a rear focal plane reticle design, creating a situation where the apparent size of the reticle does not change as the magnification is adjusted. In these scopes, the amount of target area covered by the reticle is inversely proportional to magnification; as the magnification is increased, the amount of target area covered by the reticle is decreased. This can be seen by looking through a variable magnification scope and increasing the magnification setting. As the power is increased, the apparent size of the target is increased, but the reticle appears to remain the same size; the result is that the reticle covers less of the target when the magnification is increased.

Rear Focal Plane Reticles – In general, hunting scopes are designed with rear focal plane reticles; this allows the reticle to appear bolder and heavier when set to low magnification, but appear thinner and more precise when set to high magnification. Most hunters set variable magnification scopes to a mid-level magnification for general carry situations, reducing magnification in low-light or heavy cover situations, and increasing magnification for longer, more precise shooting solutions. Rear focal plane designs allow the reticle to appear bolder in low light, making them easy to see and faster to acquire when the light is fading. This same property is advantageous in situations where heavy cover may be encountered, allowing easy differentiation between the reticle and vegetation. If a longer distance shot is to be taken, the magnification can be increased, creating a situation where the reticle covers less of the target, allowing the user to be more precise. If a front focal design were used, hunters would notice that in low-light or heavy-cover situations, the reticle would become much smaller and more difficult to see on low magnification; right when they need the reticle to be bold and easy to acquire.

Front Focal Plane Reticles – Many tactical groups prefer front focal plane designs because common tactical reticles serve a dual purpose: a point of aim and a means of measurement. Reticles such as a mil dot are based on a specific subtension and require exact feature spacing to be accurate; if this type of reticle is used in a rear focal plane design, the scope must be used on a single, specific magnification (typically high power). Placing this type of reticle in a front focal plane design allows the operator to use the scope on any magnification while retaining the exact spacing of the reticle features.

It's a tradeoff. With a FFP scope, if you use your reticle hashmarks for elevation or windage adjustments, the hashmarks remain a constant interval, MOA, MIL, whatever, throughout the power range. With a SFP scope, the hashmarks are at their designed interval at only one magnification, usually the maximum magnification. So, with a SFP reticle, if you have 1 mil hashmarks, mil dots, or whatever, they are only 1 mil apart at maximum power.

I'm beginning to change my thoughts on which is better for an all around hunting scope. The disadvantage with a FFP reticle, is that it appears to get smaller as you decrease the magnification. So, say you have a 2.5-10x42 scope and you want to turn it down to 6x to get maximum useable light transmision in low light, the reticle appears to get smaller, making it less visible. With a SFP scope, the reticle appears to get bigger as you decrease magnification, which in a low light situation, is what you need. An illuminated reticle negates the SFP's advantage in this regard, in my mind, perhaps being the ideal solution.

John