Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Your Preference- FFP or SFP?

+1

After “seeing the light” many years ago, I won’t be going back. I even prefer a good FFP reticle for a LPVO. It becomes a red dot on low mag, and has visible hash marks on high mag. The only applications that come to mind where I think a SFP reticle is preferable are things like LR BR, extreme-range colony varminting, etc., and even then there are FFP designs with minimal crosshair subtension or a floating dot that can work well in those sorts of situations where minimal subtension is required.

Those of us with extensive experience with both SFP and FFP reticles will probably all keep doing what we do, but it can still be enjoyable to discuss our opinions and our reasons for them. 👍

What a lot of folks don't realize is that the reticle in a ffp scope does not magnify or increase in size, only the target increases in size as the power on a variable is increased. The reticle itself covers the same amount of the target at 3x as it does at 10x. My 1.5-6x42 Zeiss ffp reticle seems optimized in that small a variable. My 2.5-10x42 ffp Swarovski not so much because at the higher magnifications it does look like it covers more than I'd like even though I know that only the target has magnified.

It pains me so much to read this. It's almost grievous. I agree with an Auburn fan. Lord, help me!

I also run both. The levers/woods rifles I use when tracking and still hunting still have low power, straight tube scopes with highly visible SFP reticles. But, there are some FFP designs that are also well suited to this duty. As mentioned earlier, the SWFA 1-6 HD on 1-2.5X makes a nice close up sight.

Here ya go Jordan, in case you missed it. 👍

I prefer first focal plane. I like to hold off for my windage with the reticle and don't like to have to worry about what power I'm on.

One thing I don't like is the trend towards wide range adjustability and some first focal reticles. A first focal reticle has to be very well designed to work well in a scope that adjusts from 3-21 power. That kind of mag range also makes scop design more complicated. I'm happy if a scope has a 4x variable range. If I was building first focal scopes I'd do a 3-12, a 4-16, a 5-20, and maybe a 6-24. I well designed reticle should work well in those ranges. I love my Bushnell LRHS 3-12 scopes. I've killed game with them without illumination at 3 power at the end of shooting hours. The donut centered my on a nice buck at last light on about 4 power at 200 yards.

Bb

All good. We all have our preferences and our reasons.

I'm pretty sure killing stuff is doable with either.

Heck, I'm using irons for some of the season.

SFP with simple duplex reticles for me.

Yep! Agree 98%, with the final 2% reflecting my preference for the TT MRAD reticle.

Which FFP scope is everyone recommending for hunting? I am currently running the Vortex Razor HD LHT3-15x42 and really like it. It is SFP and not sure what the direct FFP replacement would be.

Dan, if you like your Vortex SFP, there is no need to change to an FFP. For hunting, the FFP versus SFP is just a preference, there is no right or wrong or one size fits all answer. The same issue with reticle design, it is a preference. Keep your SFP and enjoy it.

If I'm hunting where I'm not going to be shooting over 200 yards, I'm fine with a SFP scope.

However if there is a chance that I will need to hold over, dial for elevation, or especially hold for wind, I want my scope to be FFP. It only makes sense for me to have a measuring device measure the same at every magnification. It makes things simple, and simple is good under pressure.

The problem, as has been mentioned, is the design of the reticle. I got lucky with my first FFP scope because it was using the SWFA mil quad in their 3-9 power scope,which is a darn good reticle. It is usable at low power, maximum power, and everywhere in between. Some other designs work great at high power, but are invisible at the lowest power. Some more try to compensate for this by using illumination, but the illumination is not useful in daylight.

I started to appreciate the design of a good reticle when I was trying to find a low-power variable optic in FFP. I have not found one that I thought was useful at both low and high power, and that got me thinking about reticle design and how tough it seems to be for companies to get a reticle that will work over the entire range of magnification

SFP as most of my shots are under 100 yards

I think both SFP and FFP have their place. For the simple task of killing big game at reasonable ranges, all the way up to last light, I think SFP with an illuminated center aiming point is best by a slight margin. I do like that a mid-power FFP can be left at a power that's near the middle of the range and your various aiming points are always "on", whether you are zooming in or out. That's pretty handy at times, so long as the reticle is still bold enough to see at mid-range in reasonable lighting.

One area where I'm doing some experimentation this year is reticle usefulness in the last stages of dying light. I've had some experience in the field, on game, and I'm going to do some side-by-side comparisons at home to see how the different options work for me. I've used all of the following on animals in dim light, with illumination necessary.

Leupold VX-R with center dot:



Trijicon Accupoint with center Tritium dot:



Bushnell G3 Mil with full reticle illumination:



Athlon AHMR2 Mil with full reticle illumination



I do take a few shots each year when I'm pretty much shooting a silhouette of a known animal at last light. This is especially common with hogs (which is why several of my rifles also wear a green light). While I'm still looking into this comparison, I have noticed one thing that's happened a few times: Critical to accurate shot placement in those last few minutes of light is being able to define the borders of the silhouette while placing your aiming point. You aren't picking a spot on the shoulder or neck like you might be in the daylight. You are looking at the entire shape of the animal and judging where the vital zone "should be". For my eyes, this appears to be easiest when the reticle is relatively uncluttered around an aiming point that is only lit at the center. The rest of the reticle is generally not interfering substantially with your eye's ability to make out the outline of the animal in time to jump back to the center aiming point and make out the shot. Those reticles that illuminate fully tend to distort my eye's ability to maintain that view of the animal's outline when I paste the entire lit reticle on top of them. It works, but not as well as a reticle lit only in the center. And lastly, those reticles with a circle around an aiming point (Bushnell LRHSi and Athlon) are capable of having that lit circle hit your animal's silhouette right at the edge of the animal's outline, depending on distance. This can interfere with your ability to accurate gauge the positioning of the animal while placing your center aiming point. I've noticed it with deer and hog sized targets at 100 to 150yds, where the illuminated circle is 12-18 inches in diameter. I've had to play with magnification to make things work, which was not something I had to do with a typical illuminated mil-hash reticle or an illuminated SFP with center aiming point. Again, this pertains primarily to those last couple of minutes of light and targets of a certain size at a certain range where the "donut of death" is a similar size to the animal's outline. Prior to that point, it's not as much of an issue. It's also less of an issue when you can hit a critter with a green light before you hit the trigger. Food for thought.....

To further illustrate, which of the following two shots would you find easier to make, assuming lighting is actually a bit worse and the animal won't stop walking around, quartering to you and away, and mixing in with other animals? Both are doable, but the busier reticle does obscure more detail when your eyes are already straining to make out the animal clearly. Pardon the shoddy artistry. This sort of full-reticle illumination is fairly necessary in an FFP scope when you are wanting to hunt with it near and far.






To be fair, you could also argue that an FFP setup won't get you caught with your pants down when you are making a shot at distance and don't adjust to max power. This is possible with an SFP model that has additional aiming points in the reticle.

Nothing is perfect.

That's kind of what I'm getting at. With FFP, if the donut is an inconvenient size against the outline of the silhouette, it should remain that size throughout the power range. Adding magnification may allow more definition to what you see, but the reticle covers the same areas of the target, regardless. You may also offset whatever definition you gain through magnification increase, due to light gathering diminishing as magnification goes up (in some cases). With SFP, that circle will truly shrink or grow against the target.

For me so far, the FFP donut may still work fine most of the time, but I think illumination at the center holds a slight edge in the last few moments of target visibility for some targets at some ranges. I expect to keep comparing and see what shakes out for me and my hunting style.

Hmmm... the post I was just responding to with my comments above has disappeared?

Anyhow, it was a mention of dialing magnification up or down to allow the donut to bracket or center the vitals in a way that was most useable. This is possible with SFP, but not FFP.

That's why I deleted it JPro....I was thinking one thing (FFP) and in reality, was referring to another (SFP) Sorry for the confusion.