I've used largely nothing but FFP scopes for hunting for the last 12 years or so - S&B PMII, Leupold Mk6, Leupold Mk4, and Bushnell LRHS.
I live in New Zealand, there are no seasons or limits, so I shoot a reasonable number of animals. All my big game hunting is on public land. I have shot animals from rabbits to large red stags, from 10 to 500+ metres, and I have never yet encountered a situation where I was unable to shoot an animal due to a deficiency in the FFP reticles I use. I have no real interest in pushing long ranges so I have not pursued 600 metre + shots, this is due to personal choice rather than lack of opportunity.
Currently using a 3.5-10x40 Mk4 with TMR and .1mil M5 turrets, a Mk6 3-18x44 with TMR, and a 3-12x Bushnell LRHS. All FFP. All work fine at both high and low magnifications in all light conditions I've encountered while hunting.
I also have likely not had very many situations where the FFP reticle gave me an advantage, however I greatly prefer the reticle remaining a constant size relative to the target. I find SFP reticles too thick on lower magnification for my preference, although it doesn't make a practical difference - I just prefer the finer aiming point of a FFP reticle.
I carry all my scopes on the lowest magnification and often shoot with them that way. For example this week I have shot 2 bull Tahr using my .223 with the Mk4 on it, both at about 60 metres, both in late evening in low light, both offhand shots on low magnification.
The internet of course is the land of absolutes, and Tiny Detail Exaggeration Syndrome.
Nobody cares
Make more films
