Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics FFP and SFP Optics

What is the difference between FFP and SFP?

Good versus suck.

When you increase the power in a FFP the reticle enlarges. Therefore, the relation between its size and the size of your target remains contact as both enlarge at the same time and rate.

When you increase the power in a SFP the size of the reticle does not change, only the target increases its size. Therefore, the reticle becomes smaller relative to the size of the target as power increases.

With a FFP set up, point of impact is not prone to shifting as you change the power, whereas it can be with a SFP.

Location of the reticle.

On a FFP, the reticle and the image you are seeing are in the same plane. The reticle stays the same size as the image, as you zoom in on the target, you are also zooming in on the reticle. This allows the reticle subtensions to remain the same relative to the target throughout the zoom range. So if you are going to hold over/under/into the wind, the marks in the reticle are always the same. It appears like the reticle is getting bigger/smaller as you zoom in/out, but actually it is staying the same size relative to the image. This is especially valuable on higher power scopes wide zoom ranges. Imagine looking at a picture through a telephoto lens with a reticle on the picture and zooming in and out.

In a SFP, the reticle is behind the image. So as you zoom, the reticle stays the same. The image gets bigger or smaller but the reticle doesn't change. Any reticle subtensions will only be accurate at a specific magnification, usually full power. This is what most traditional American scopes do. Imagine looking at a picture through a telephoto lens with the reticle on the eyepiece and zooming in and out.

This is just my opinion and I don't have the experience that a lot of the guys here do, but I am getting rid of my FFP scopes.

If you are going to be shooting at MBPR or closer most of the time (like me), and you are going with a more "traditional" magnification range (like a 3-9X40) you will likely be happier with a SFP scope. If you are going to be shooting at longer distances and you are planning on getting a quality high zoom range scope or you want to be able to hold for wind at any power, you should go FFP.

I don't shoot at very long distances, most of my shooting is very close range South East US shooting. When I am shooting at greater than 250 yards, I am 100% of the time at full magnification so if I do have to do a wind hold/holdover the reticle will work. SFP scopes are usually lighter and less expensive for the same quality level.

If you want to try a FFP scope, I will be putting several Athlon Helos BTR 2-12X42 scopes with Butler Creek caps up soon, great scopes but too heavy for what I want to do with them.

From a practical side viewpoint, I like my 1.5-6x42 FFP scope for shorter range deer hunting than I do my SFP 2.5-8x36 because the reticle on that FFP scope really sands out against brush or a dark background as I increase the power ring. For a varmint or target scope, I prefer the SFP higher magnification scopes. I do have a FFP 2.5-10x42 on my western rifle and IMO I don't like the FFP scope in the higher magnification ranges because that reticle appears overly large even though it hasn't changed in relation to the target.

LOL, I would say both have their distinct advantages and disadvantages.

I personally hate 1st focal plane reticles. They are tiny when the power is turned up and huge when turned down. Not only the bdc marks but the width of the marks change also. Yuk. I much prefer a simple duplex with nice big turret if I decide holding over a touch is not accurate enough.

that is a sentiment lost on the fan boys around here. not every gun and not ever shot taken is going to need holdover, infact most hunting shots are not taken over 300 yards.

This is a common opinion heard by people looking through mediocre quality optics or less with poorly designed reticles. I have zero issues with the well-designed FFP reticle Euro scopes have with S&B being the best.

I own a lot of FFP that I cannot use because the reticles disappear on low power.

And at low power is when I want the reticle at the thickest for running shots.

This is the trouble with buying scopes and clothes on line.....................nothing fits.

^^^^^^^
This!!

No dog in this scrap, but my FFP experience has the reticle appearing tiny when the power is turned down, not up. And the subtension of the marks does not change when the power is changed. Those two things occur on a 2nd focal plane BDC scope. I use both, and both have their pros and cons.

If I've told you once Jordan, I've told you 100 times, you need to learn to stop beating around the bush and just come out and say what you mean.

There's a lot of different FFP reticles; it's inaccurate and misleading to make a universal statement to the effect that FFP's are too small to be visible at low X, or obfuscate the target on max X. Well designed FFP reticles offer the best of both worlds by including thicker aiming features that stand out on low X, along with fine lined aiming points that only become visible on higher X.

As far as FFP's being better in high zoom range scopes, I'd disagree. They are at their best in low zoom range scopes such as the SWFA 3-9 and the Bushie LRHS/LRTS 3-12. With a lower zoom range, it's much easier to keep an FFP reticle usable on low X and precise on max X.

The largest advantage of FFP is being able to use whatever X best fits the scenario. On an SFP, you're constrained to be at max X to be able to use the reticle subtensions for aiming. This often means that you're way over powered for shots in the 3-500 yd range. Too much X is a liability for shots at big game due to the fact that the decreased FOV that comes with high X makes it much more difficult to spot hits, misses, and see game reaction after the shot. Too much X also amplifies non critical movements, making it take longer to line up and get settled in for the shot.
(And, yes, I know that you can use a divisible X to max with concurrent subtension corrections on an SFP. I did it for years, but found it to be the long, rough and winding road to get to the same destination as an FFP gets you to much quicker and easier.)

Very true. But I can also understand that if all you want from your reticle is to point your eye to the middle - no measuring, no hold-offs - then FFP versus SFP becomes much less significant than having a reticle that is easily visible on all magnification settings, without obscuring too much of the FOV.

My apologies. I'll try to be more concise next time.

FFP=Man Bun.

LOL.

Well played, Paul.

that's why use illuminated reticle in some situations on my ffp. shot pigs and deer running with brighter setting. Almost like using an aim point. Ill do this when still hunting in more timbered or in lower light situations. put on 4 power and adjust reticle fairly bright. .

Look at the optics Europeans use on running animals on driven hunts. Hard to find one scope to fit every situation in hunting but a ffp scope like the lrhs with a g2 illuminated reticle works pretty good for me. can do a lot with it

Exactly. The flaws that people point out in FFP scopes they've tried are not inherent properties of FFP reticles, they are execution failures in reticle design.

Even large magnification ranges can be effectively dealt with using proper reticle design. Imagine a stepped reticle, along the lines of that in the Maven CRS.2, where big, bold posts are visible on low mag, and finer and finer details became visible at higher zoom settings, while the decreasing FOV would make the bolder components become no longer visible (therefore not obscuring excessive amounts of the FOV) as the magnification goes up. But you're right that lower magnification ranges put less demands on FFP reticle design.

Of course, SFP doesn't constrain you to max magnification, as you pointed out, but it does necessitate more math and added shooting system complexity if not on max zoom and you want to use subtension marks on the reticle.

FFP reticles give scope designers another variable to play with (the changing appearance of the reticle as magnification changes) in order to produce more effective scopes. With a SFP reticle, the appearance of the reticle is fixed. With an FFP reticle that is ideal for a given application, the user could have the best of all worlds on the various magnification settings. While not perfect, the Trijicon FFP segmented-circle reticle in the Accupower and Credo 1-8x28 is a good example of this. On 1x, with illumination on it looks similar to an open-circle red dot sight, and as you zoom in, the reticle looks more like a mil-hash reticle.